The Daniel Hand Fund is a separate and distinct trust, and its income cannot be used for the general work of the Association, and may demand some further notice before this report is closed. The general condition of the fund is found on the printed abstract already mentioned.
We find the system of keeping the accounts clear, convenient, and well adapted to exhibit from month to month the exact pecuniary condition of the Association, and the restrictions upon drawing money from the treasury well calculated to insure safety in that respect, and we find the management of the Treasurer's accounts and office in all details satisfactory and deserving our commendation. Comparing the gifts and work of the Association for the last year just closed with the previous year, and the recommendations of the Finance Committee a year ago, we find that the year 1888 closed with a deficit of over $5,000, that the amount of receipts for that year had been $320,953.42; that the Finance Committee then recommended that the friends of the Association should raise for the year $375,000 for its current expenditures. It is a source of great gratification to find that this recommendation has been nobly met, and $376,216.88 have been received during the year just closed, an increase of over $55,000; that the deficit of the former year has been supplied, and that the Association commences the current year with a fund in the treasury of $4,471.67. This we deem substantial indorsement of the Association and its work, by the churches, Sunday-schools, missionary societies and its individual friends. This report might stop here with congratulations for the prosperous year just closed, but the duties so well done, and work so well performed, must simply furnish the Association a standing place and vantage ground for a greater work on its part, and grounds for greater sacrifices and gifts by its friends for the year to come.
The National Council, representing the Congregational churches of the whole nation, lately in session at Worcester, by a unanimous vote recommended that the churches and friends of the work of this Association raise for it for current expenditures for the year now commenced the sum of $500,000. Is this magnificent sum too much to ask for the year now auspiciously begun? Happily for your committee, we are saved the necessity of elaborate or studied examination of the needs of the work that has been done by the papers read and to be printed and addresses delivered from the platform during the meetings up to this time. You are thus informed more fully than we could hope to inform you what these needs are and their urgency. But we may say that of the 8,000,000 Negroes in the South it is estimated only 2,000,000 can read and write. Add to these the millions of poor whites in the mountains and the red men of the West and the Chinese in our land, and we are fully justified in asserting that the work of this Association equals in magnitude any work of the church, and involves issues of Christianity, and patriotism touched by no other work of our age. It is estimated by the officers of the Association that through its schools and colleges and the teachers furnished by them, who are instructing the children in the South more or less every year, perhaps 175,000 are being reached and instructed. Assuming that as many are reached by other missionary and benevolent societies, we see the tremendous need that can not be ignored. This burden is laid peculiarly and urgently on this society and its contributing friends. Can we meet this duty with less than $500,000 for the current year? Your committee say, No. Perhaps you will be ready to acquiesce. But let us see what this means. It means that every living donor who contributed last year must increase his contribution 50 per cent., or the number of donors must be largely increased. A large amount was received last year from estates and legacies, namely, $114,020.41. This resource is a variable quantity. The Association can not depend on any increase from this source. Its confidence must be in the living, who can give if they will.
Your Committee deem it proper to call more particular attention to the magnificent gift of Daniel Hand to the Association. It is quite likely that some may suppose, and some may have measured their gifts last year in the belief, that the income of this fund was applicable to pay current expenses of the Association. But this is not so. The Daniel Hand Fund is appropriated to special work, which, although connected generally with the work of the Association, is yet not a part of that ordinary work for which this fund we recommend to be raised is to be expended. Hence all friends of the Association must make and measure their gifts to it understanding that the sum we propose must be raised without any aid from the income from that million dollars constituting one of the grandest gifts of our time. Shall this $500,000 for the current work of the Association for 1889 be furnished to it? This is God's work. The churches here represented and the friends of the Association have the money. It can not be put to any nobler Christian use; the needs demand it, and we recommend that $500,000 be raised for the Association for its current work for the year now begun.
REPORT ON SECRETARY STRIEBY'S PAPER.
BY REV. G.B. WILLCOX, D.D., CHAIRMAN.
The paper by Dr. Strieby impresses your committee as an admirably comprehensive and discriminating statement of the policy and work of the Association. As to the reconstruction of our educational and missionary societies, to the suggestion of which much of the paper calls attention, and from which he dissents, we should do well to make haste slowly. Some time in the future it may become practicable. But we discover no finger of Providence pointing toward it at present.
If the thought were to reduce our societies to which these interests are intrusted to two, calling for but two annual collections where we now have three or four, it needs no prophet to foresee the effect of that on the amounts collected. If the suggestion is of the reconstruction, not of the societies, but only of the work—if it proposes that our educational and missionary enterprises be so divided that no one society shall to any extent conduct both—it has certainly an attractive look.
But is it more than a look? The educational institutions of several of our societies were born out of the inmost life of those organizations and lie on their bosom for nourishment to-day. To ask the American Board, for example, to turn over its colleges and schools to some other society, for that, of course, is involved in the plan suggested—would be like asking one of our Christian mothers to send her babe to the foundlings' home. Some of us are old enough to remember that the venerable and now sainted Dr. Anderson was at first vehemently opposed to the schools planted by the missionaries in India. It was confounding things that differ. The work of a missionary society was not to manage schools. The schools were discontinued. But the Board soon discovered that it was doing its work with but one hand. The schools came back and came to stay. Now we conservatives are rather jealous of our progressive brethren calling for a reconstruction of the American Board. We know not whereto this thing may grow.