Controversy over Ousted Clinic Settled for Month; Cowles Agrees to Suspension

The controversy over the ouster of the Body and Soul Clinic of St. Mark’s in the Bouwerie has been settled for at least a month with Dr. Edward S. Cowles, agreeing to a month’s “suspension” of its work, so that the necessary repairs might be made in the clinic’s quarters, on the assumption that Dr. William Norman Guthrie, the rector of the church will permit the resumption of the clinic’s activities in defiance of the ban by the vestry and the approval of this action by Bishop William T. Manning.

In a statement published in the Herald Tribune Dr. Cowles claims a complete victory for his cause, and in support of his contention makes public a letter received from Dr. Guthrie, which he interprets as favoring the continuance of the clinic.

Dr. Gutherie in his letter reiterates he will not permit police force to be used to oust the clinic and Dr. Cowles says that the vestry cannot act because it has no power to decide what the activities the church should house. According to canonical law, the keys of the church symbolically are conferred upon the rector at the time he assumes office. Dr. Cowles said he would enter suit if the clinic were not permitted to resume its activities in September.

Dr. Guthrie’s letter, dated July 27, 1932 said in part:

“So far as the legal aspect of the controversy of St. Mark’s Church concerning the clinic goes, I am, with the published telegram of the bishop, wholly out of the case. I will not undertake to argue with the bishop, nor will I try to protect him, since he has published this telegram instead of sending it to me, from any consequences of his act.

“The mistake some people make is to forget that a man may have the rightof way and yet be dead. The vestry may have the right to order the clinic from the premises of St. Mark’s Church in the Bouwerie, but I wish to state very definitely and without any fear of favor that a church of Christ is not a congregational meeting house owned by trustees, but one operated by Christ’s own, by a validly ordained minister of Christ. Such a church cannot be closed by orders of the board of trustees with police power.

“I give herewith statement of my position. I will not stand out against the majority of the vestry, but I will not take any action on their behalf which is contrary to my conscience. The bishop of the diocese I will respect, though in disagreement with him. I may proceed, if he presses, in influence direct or indirect, as he has already done through publishing of his telegram urging the vestry to a line of conduct which, though it may be legal, for aught I know, is extraordinarily un-Christian in these atrocious times of mental stress.

“People on all hands are in a piteous, helpless anguish and confusion. If Dr. Cowles can, in the church, relieve some of this anguish and confusion, I, in person would approve and forward. If Dr. Cowles lacks the religious side of the work, why does not the Bishop order the clergy to assist him? If it is lacking santiary apparatus, if it is lacking proper medical co-operation, why does not the County Medical Association provide it?

“I am surprised at these gentlemen with whom ethics must be trade unionism, and who consider that a doctor is an outcast who unlucklly heals a patient so that he is no longer a source of income. No wonder that I have come to the conclusion that the medical profession should be socialized.

“Obviously from what has gone before, I as rector, will issue no orders closing the church against you or your work. But will you be good enough to suspend the clinic for the month of August, that necessary cleaning and repairs may be carried through systematically.

“I have known you, Dr. Cowles, for ten years, and I have the profoundest respect for you morally and regard you as a genius in medical diagnosis and treatment,” the letter of Dr. Gutherie concludes.