To the Editor of The Sun—Sir: There was recently published in The Sun a letter from Mrs. Jessie Crounse Hitchcock of Omaha, Neb., to the effect that after having suffered for years from a malady, growing constantly worse in spite of the efforts of her physicians, she finally consulted a celebrated specialist in Chicago, only to be told that her complaint was incurable; that as a last resort she applied to a Christian Science practitioner, and was cured in a very short time and at a cost little more than what she had paid the Chicago specialist for an hour's consultation; that her "healer" could not be induced to take more than the prescribed fee—a dollar for each treatment — but that if she were worth a million dollars she would be glad to give it all to the Cause of Christian Science, although she was not a member of a Christian Science church, and at the time evidently did not expect to become a member.
Mrs. Hitchcock's father is himself an ex-Senator of the United States, an ex-Governor of the State of Nebraska, and an ex-Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of that State. Her husband is at present a member of Congress and is owner and editor of the Omaha World-Herald. Mrs. Hitchcock herself is a woman of rare culture and accomplishment. I hope that there is no indelicacy in stating these facts, for they give sanction to her testimony, and her letter was published over her full name.
No one compelled Mrs. Hitchcock to resort to Christian Science. When she did so she expected to pay the small amount charged by the practitioner, not for his ''prayers to God," but as a fair equivalent for the time actually employed and to enable the practitioner to supply his modest wants and devote his life and faculties to the healing of the sick. If payment was predicated on the prayers themselves, or on the results achieved, money would have afforded no standard of value. But so long as she did not complain of the charge why should Mr. Chandler become exercised about it? Would he compel a Christian Science practitioner to give his time for nothing, or trust to an honorarium for his compensation, as was formerly done in the case of lawyers and physicians? For a practitioner to accept gratuities might indeed enrich the practitioner, but the tendency would be bad for reasons too numerous to catalogue and sufficiently obvious to all who are not blinded by prejudice. It would not do to permit a practitioner to accept gratuities lavished in the first glow of gratitude for restored health. It would tend to corrupt the practitioner and unfit him for his work, and would finally bring him into disrepute. It is enough for Mr. Chandler to know that the whole subject has been thoroughly considered and that the wisdom of a small uniform charge has been thoroughly vindicated. To expect in this age of steam and electricity to adjust relationships to the customs of the year one, strikes me as puerile.
