COPYRIGHT "ACT" 1971

[rv.ros...@gmail.com]

By David James Nolan

"SCIENCE AND HEALTH WITH KEY TO THE SCRIPTURES"

COPYRIGHT "ACT" 1971

When needed tell the truth concerning the lie. Correct the false with
the true-then leave the latter to propagate.

Expose and denounce the claims of evil.

Withhold not the rebuke or explanation which destroys error.

Mary Baker Eddy.

Justice also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the
plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the
waters shall overflow the hiding place -- Isaiah 28:17

THE last document under discussion is the Copyright "Act" on Science
and Health passed by Congress in 1971. This copyright action was a
private bill introduced into the Senate. It was called "An Act for
the relief of Clayton Bion Craig, Arthur P. Wuth, Mrs. Lenore D.
Hanks, David E. Sleeper, and DeWitt John:" These five named persons
were the five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors. This private
copyright bill was numbered S. 1866. It has no connection with the
revised copyright law which took effect January 1, 1978.

Testimony of various witnesses before Subcommittee No. 3, Committee
on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, on S. 1866, can be read
in the Appendix (see p. 255).

It is illuminating to read Mrs. Eddy's comments regarding copyright:

Christian Science is not copyrighted; nor would protection by
copyright be requisite, if mortals obeyed God's law of manright. A
student can write voluminous works on Science without trespassing,
if he writes honestly, and he cannot dishonestly compose Christian
Science. The Bible is not stolen though it is cited, and quoted
deferentially.

To understand the situation it is necessary to go back to the time of
Mrs. Eddy's passing. Mrs. Eddy in her Will had left a large portion
of her estate to "the church, to be used for "the promotion and
extension of the Science taught by [her]. " The five-member Board of
Directors (whose office as Directors had actually been terminated by
the estoppel clauses in the Church Manual, as we have seen) sued to
gain control of this money. Around 1913 the Court awarded them
custody of these funds, and thus the Board of Directors also became
known as the Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker G. Eddy. This is
how the Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker G. Eddy came into
being. The Court, of course, did not realize that through her
estoppel clauses in the Church Manual Mrs. Eddy had terminated this
Board of Directors.

In 1916 the Board of Directors began the policy of "authorizing
literature. " This was a powerful tool in molding church-member
opinion in conformity with the convictions of those in authority in
Boston. It was a move that stifled growth, understanding, and
inspiration.

The next important move of the Board of Directors came in 1919 when
they launched a concerted campaign to take over the communications
arm of the Movement, the Christian Science Publishing Society. This
they accomplished by means of a protracted legal battle, which was
covered in Chapter IV

1934 COPYRIGHT, ILLEGAL

In 1934 the five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors moved to
get the copyright on Science and Health out of Mrs. Eddy's name and
into their own through the renewal of the 1906 edition of Science and
Health. This caused a great stir in the Christian Science Field since
most Christian Scientists felt Mrs. Eddy wanted Science and Health to
be in the public domain at the earliest possible time and she had
made no provision for the 1906 copyright renewal, nor had she
copyrighted the vital changes made in her last fourteen editions. To
give the copyright on Mrs. Eddy's great work, Science and Health, to
five individuals in Boston seemed a grave injustice to Mrs. Eddy.

Attorneys familiar with the case felt that as Mrs. Eddy had made no
provision to pass on these copyrights, or for the renewal of the
still-existing 1906 copyright, it was clearly her intention to let
that copyright lapse.

Attorneys also contended that the renewal of the 1906 copyright in
1934 was illegally obtained because under copyright law at that time
the only one who could renew a copyright was the originator of the
work, meaning in this case, Mary Baker Eddy herself, or the executor
of her estate, Mr. Fernald. Mr. Fernald had passed on prior to 1934.
In his place Boston appointed an "administrator . " They could not
appoint an executor since only the person who initially takes the
responsibility of resolving an individual's estate can be termed
an "executor." Because the man who replaced Mr. Fernald was merely
an administrator, he did not have the legal authority under
copyright law, at that time, to renew the copyright on the 1906
edition.

Furthermore, it must be remembered that the five-member
ecclesiastical Board of Directors had usurped power and authority
illegally in 1910 at Mrs. Eddy's passing, since the estoppel clauses
terminated The Mother Church and its Board of Directors.

(During the years from 1907 to 1910 momentous scientific changes
consummated the teachings of the Christian Science textbook Science
textbook, Science and Health. While Mrs. Eddy issued 432 editions of
Science and Health, her statement on page 361:21 must be born in
mind:
"I have revised Science and Health only to give clearer and fuller
_expression of its original meaning. Spiritual ideas unfold as we
advance." They unfolded in greatest profusion during the years 1907
to 1910, but always as an unfoldment of that "final revelation of the
absolute divine Principle of scientific mental healing" she received
initially in the year 1866. [See S&H. 107:1-6.])

The 1906 edition of Science and Health was therefore the only edition
on which the Board could obtain renewal of copyright, but this
edition had not been used by Christian Scientists since 1906 because
much-changed and updated later more scientific editions superseded
it. Since 1910 the only edition of Science and Health in general
use, and for sale in Reading Rooms, is the 1910 edition, which
differs radically from the 1906 edition. The 1906 cannot be
substituted for the 1910 edition.

Because of the complete control, and the great financial resources of
the Board of Directors, this 1934 copyright action was not challenged
in the Courts of the land.

ERRATA

NOTE TO READER:

Since publication the following facts concerning the illegal 1934
renewal of copyright on Science and Health have come to light, and
take precedence over any conflicting statement in this Chapter.

The second codicil to Mrs. Eddy's will states: the residue of my
estate...I have left to said The First Church of Christ, Scientist,
in Boston, Massachusetts" (see Appendix, p. 180, line 24). This
codicil, dated May 14, 1904, had priority at any point where there
was a variance between it and her basic will dated September 13,
1901. In this codicil she does not mention The Mother Church since
the estoppel clauses would terminate The Mother Church at her
passing.

In 1901 the four-member Board of Directors was not only the legal
entity which Mrs. Eddy created by her September, 1892, Deed of Trust
but was also the governing Board of the second organization which was
at first called "Mother's Church" and later designated "The Mother
Church." Thus the Board of Directors wore two hats and continued to
do so until the estoppel clauses in the Manual terminated The Mother
Church and the five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors at Mrs.
Eddy's passing, following which only the four-member legal Board
existed.

In order to trace the ownership of the copyrights on Science and
Health and to show the illegality of the 1934 renewal of this
copyright, we submit the following vital information taken from
Alice Orgain's Angelic Overtures to Christ and Christmas, pp. 819-
821:

On March 6th, 1907, Mrs. Eddy made a personal Deed of Trust placing
her entire earthly fortune in the hands of three Trustees, Henry M.
Baker, Josiah E. Fernald, and Archibald McClellan. This Deed of Trust
transferred and assigned to these three Trustees ownership of the
copyrights to her writings, as can be seen from the following quote
from this Deed of Trust:

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: that I, Mary Baker G. Eddy...do
hereby grant, convey, assign, and transfer unto the said [three
Trustees]. . .all my interest of every kind and description . . .
including stocks, bonds, interests in copyrights, contracts, . . .
First: To manage, care for, and control all the above granted real
estate and interest therein during my earthly life . . . . Fourth:
At the termination of my earthly life, this trust shall terminate,
and all the personal estate then held by my said trustees shall pass
to the executor of my last will and codicils thereto, to be disposed
of in accordance with the provisions thereof.

At Mrs. Eddy's passing, the five-member ecclesiastical Board of
Directors, which included the four-member legal Board within itself,
refused to obey the By-Laws containing estoppel clauses. This, in
effect, amended and annulled these By-Laws, and the four-member Board
never discharged its responsibilities, never lawfully took office.
This constituted a breach of trust. On p. 133:13, the Manual states:

11. The omission or neglect on the part of said Directors to strictly
comply with any of the conditions herein contained shall constitute a
breach thereof, and the title hereby conveyed shall revert to the
grantor Mary Baker G. Eddy, her heirs and assigns

(Man. 133:13.)

Remember, Principle, God, dictated the Manual. Did this breach of
trust deprive the Board of Directors of any rights to Mrs. Eddy's
copyrights on Science and Health? Certainly the five-member
ecclesiastical Board of Directors never had any legal authority to
renew the copyright on Science and Health in 1934 or in 1971.

Also, Mrs. Orgain states that in 1934 the courts very definitely said
that there is no provision for an administrator to renew.
Additionally, it is a definite fact that neither an Executor nor an
Administrator so appointed could renew copyrights after he had
completed the administration of the estate. Josiah E. Fernald was
appointed Administrator by the Court to succeed the deceased
Executor Henry M. Baker. Mr. Fernald "closed his final account [as
Administrator] March 26, 1914," according to the Register of the
Court of Probate for the County of Merrimack in New Hampshire. It
was therefore illegal for past Administrator Josiah E. Fernald to
renew the 1906 copyright on Science and Health twenty years later.
That the Board of Directors knew this is evidenced by the fact that
the copyrights of 1890, 1894, and 1901 were properly renewed by
Ebenezer J. Foster-Eddy, who, however, had passed on shortly before
the time to renew the 1906 copyrights.

A pregnant question, rich in significance and implication, remains
unanswered:

Mrs. Eddy previously had always copyrighted her editions at the time
any extensive changes were made, regardless of the date of her last
copyright. For instance, she took out copyrights on Science and
Health in 1375, 1878, 1883, 1885, 1890, 1894, 1901, 1902, 1906. Why
then did she not copyright the extensive changes made after the
second edition in 1907, She tells us "spiritual ideas unfold as we
advance," and after her second edition in 1907 spiritual ideas began
unfolding exponentially in her consciousness bringing forth
evolutionary statements and changes of the greatest spiritual
magnitude, ushering in the "culmination of scientific statement and
proof."

Do these extensive spiritual additions, covering the whole range of
Science and Health universalize our textbook? Do they evince that her
final great illuminations lifted Science and Health beyond the power
of law or church to bind?--Do they establish that the Church of
Christ, Scientist, is a wholly spiritual state of consciousness, the
Church Universal and Triumphant? This must be so because her last 24
or 25 highest statements (other than those in Science and Health)
were not given to The Mother Church periodicals but to the WORLD
through its own channels: New York World, The Ladies Home Journal,
Boston Herald, Boston Globe, Concord Monitor, New York American, The
Independent, The Evening Press, Cosmopolitan, Minneapolis News,
Boston Post, New York Commercial Advertiser, etc.

"Sweeping down the centuries" Science gathers beneath its wings all
humanity, inexorably bringing to light Mary Baker Eddy's successor,
man in God's image and likeness, generic man.

END OF ERRATA

"There is nothing covered that shall not be revealed; or hid, that
shall not be made known."

--Christ Jesus

Dear Reader:

Slowly all the facts in connection with the Copyright Act of 1971 on
Science and Health are coming to light.

None of these facts are more pertinent than Mrs. Eddy's letter to
William G. Nixon (p. 163 of this book) evincing her fear of legalized
suppression of Science and Health through copyright legislation. She
wanted Science and Health to be given at once to the people, and
expressed utter dismay at the prospect of any copyright legislation
that would impede the greatest world-wide distribution of Science and
Health, knowing that such legislation would do incalculable harm to
the prosperity of her book. The thought of giving certain
individuals a monopoly on Science and Health and thus limiting its
accessibility to the public through copyright legislation, was
intolerable to Mrs. Eddy.

In order to avoid this "great sin," she said, "God's law to 'Feed my
sheep,' to give Science and Health at once to those hungering for it,
must be obeyed and held paramount to an international law on
copyright"
(pp. 163 and 164.)

The 1971 Congressional Copyright Act on Science and Health threatens
to ruin, totally, the "prosperity" of this book. This 1971
Congressional Copyright Act was "for the relief of' five named
individuals in Boston who were the "Trustees under the Will of Mary
Baker Eddy," and at the same time were also the five-member
ecclesiastical Board of Directors of The Mother Church.

In order to get at the heart of this copyright matter it is important
to understand how the "Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker Eddy"
came into being.

In the second codicil to her will (see p. 180) Mrs. Eddy bequeathed
the residue of her estate "to the said The First Church of Christ,
Scientist," the local Boston church.

As has been well-chronicled in this book, the estoppel clauses in the
Church Manual terminated both The Mother Church and the five-member
ecclesiastical Board of Directors leaving only the four-member legal
or fiduciary Board established by Mrs. Eddy's 1892 Deed of Trust.
This was a self-perpetuating Board, controlling only the local
Boston church.

However, the five-member ecclesiastical Board, which was governed by
the Church Manuals estoppel clauses, refused to step down when, at
Mrs. Eddy's passing, these estoppels (terminating The Mother Church
and its five-member ecclesiastical Board) went into effect. This
five-member ecclesiastical Board was made up of the four-member
legal or fiduciary Board, which simply wore another hat when it
acted as Mother Church ecclesiastical Directors. (A fifth Director
was added from the Field in February, 1903.) As fiduciary Board
members under the 1892 and 1903 Deeds of Trust this 4-member Board
was only a housekeeper for The First Church of Christ, Scientist,
the local Boston church. But when they put on their ecclesiastical
hat and acted as the Board of Directors of The Mother Church (which
they were allowed to do during Mrs. Eddy's lifetime) they enjoyed
almost unlimited power, prestige, authority, and "glory".

When Mrs. Eddy passed on in 1910 her estoppel clauses in the Manual
ended all that power and authority. This was a pill too bitter for
the five-member ecclesiastical Board to swallow. They refused to
obey the estoppel clauses, which terminated their Board, and they
quickly instituted suit to gain control of the money and property
Mrs. Eddy had left in her second codicil NOT to The Mother Church,
but to The First Church of Christ, Scientist, the local Boston
church which was legally set up to receive it.

In an original will, dated Sept. 13, 1901, Mrs. Eddy had left
everything to The Mother Church. But in the second codicil to her
will she changed the beneficiary, and left everything to The First
Church of Christ, Scientist, a completely different entity from The
Mother Church. (By 1911 standards the estate was very large.)

A committee of dedicated Christian Scientists which is making a
thorough investigation of the 1971 Congressional Copyright Act on
Science and Health, requested the complete New Hampshire Probate
Court records in connection with the granting of Mrs. Eddy's estate
to the five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors of The Mother
Church. The Court records arrived without the codicils which in 1904
changed the beneficiary from The Mother Church, as named in the
original will of 1901, making the new beneficiary The First Church
of Christ, Scientist, the local Boston church.

When inquiry was made regarding the missing codicils, the New
Hampshire Probate Court official stated the codicils were not sent
because in the Court's opinion they in no way influenced the will.
In a telephone conversation which followed, the New Hampshire
Probate Court official stated that the lawyers acting for the Mother
Church Board of Directors never explained to the Court that The
First Church of Christ, Scientist, was a different entity from The
Mother Church; instead the Mother Church attorneys allowed the
Probate Court officials to believe that The Mother Church and The
First Church of Christ, Scientist, were one and the same thing. Thus
the New Hampshire Probate Court was kept unaware that the second
codicil to Mrs. Eddy's will changed the beneficiary to her estate.

The Court therefore awarded, in error, Mrs. Eddy's estate to the
five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors of The Mother Church
instead of to the four-member legal or fiduciary Board of The First
Church of Christ, Scientist, the local Boston Church. But it must be
remembered that the two boards were constituted of the same
individuals, except for a fifth member. They merely Performed
different functions. After Mrs. Eddy's passing the four-member
fiduciary Board never lawfully took office, never discharged its
duties; thus they broke their trust. These four members of the legal
Board, who were governed by the two deeds of trust shown in the back
of the Manual breached their trust agreement when they waived the
Manual's estoppel clauses and refused to give up the great power and
authority they wielded during Mrs. Eddy's lifetime. Because of this
breach the entire estate legally reverted to Mrs. Eddy's heirs and
assigns as provided by condition No. 11 of the trust agreement,
(Man. 133:13)

The probate court, unaware of all the foregoing facts, awarded Mrs.
Eddy's estate (which included copyrights) to the five-member
ecclesiastical Board of Directors. And this is how the "Trustees
under the Will of Mary Baker Eddy' came into being. Thus, the five-
member ecclesiastical Board of Directors now held yet another office.

The estate (including copyrights) should, of course, have gone to The
First Church of Christ, Scientist, as Mrs. Eddy intended and
specified in the last codicil to her will. But it did not. Instead,
the "Trustees under the Will" kept the copyrights for sixty years
and derived all revenues, royalties, and other benefits therefrom.

Through the copyright legislation of 1971 these Trustees under the
will secured the copyrights not only to the 1906 edition but to all
432 editions of Science and Health, in their own names-in the names
of Craig, Wuth, Hanks, Sleeper, and John. This copyright legislation
was consummated in December of 1971. A month later, in January of
1972, Craig, Wuth, Hanks, Sleeper, and John sold the copyrights to
The First Church of Christ, Scientist, for the reported sum of two
million dollars. (This in spite of the fact that Mrs. Eddy had
bequeathed her estate, including copyrights, to this church sixty
years prior to this time.) Also it must be remembered that Craig,
Wuth, Hanks, Sleeper, and John were simultaneously the Board of
Directors and the Trustees under the Will.

In view of the above and the fact that many leading authorities found
the 1971 Congressional Copyright Act to be unconstitutional,
violating the First Amendment prohibition of Congress making a "law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof,"we feel this 1971 copyright legislation should be
rescinded. A petition to return all 432 editions of Science and
Health to the public domain would extend to our Congress an
opportunity to set the highest example of justice and equity ever to
be performed by any government, since it would be asking that
legislative body to free the Word of God from legalized suppression
by international copyright law, and to let God's Word have free
course and be glorified.

Gods message to humanity during the past 70 years has been obvious,
namely, that a society of sheep invariably begets a government of
wolves and that the great need of the hour is for each one to claim
and accept his true heritage: government by divine Principle alone.

THE 1971 COPYRIGHT ACTION

The next renewal could have come up in 1962, but due to the new
Copyright Act, which was under consideration in Congress, all
copyright renewals were extended until the new Copyright law took
effect (which would be in 1978).

The many voices of protest raised in 1934 against the copyright
renewal on Science and Health caused the Board of Directors to
pursue their next copyright plans in utmost secrecy. Accordingly, in
1971 a private bill titled "An Act for the Relief of Clayton Bion
Craig, Arthur P. Wuth, Mrs. Lenore D. Hanks, David E. Sleeper, and
DeWitt John "was introduced into the Senate.

The Board of Directors' homework was well done and well timed. With
the No. 1 and No. 2 principals on the White House Staff and a number
of influential Senators and Congressmen all members of the Christian
Science Church and all loyal to the Board of Directors' point of
view, the bill was planted in a fertile field.

So, in 1971 while the Board of Directors portrayed the copyright
action they were taking as being just a 'renewal" the fact was that
it was NOT a renewal. They were actually securing a brand new
copyright in their own name, not only on the 1906 edition but on all
the other 431 editions of Science and Health most of which had long
been in the public domain. They obtained this through a most unusual
procedure, which the Congress enacted and President Nixon signed
into law. This copyright is to be effective for 75 years.

While the Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker G. Eddy are also the
Christian Science Board of Directors, it is reported that within t
copyright the name changed from Trustees Eddy to "The Christi;
transaction is partially Journal of November, section).

Among other things, this same Journal article states:

In her will, Mrs. Eddy made several specific bequests. The balance of
her estate, including the copyrights on her books, was left to the
Church.

This is not correct. If the reader will turn to Mrs. Eddy's will,
reproduced in the Appendix, he will not find anywhere in her Will a
bequeathing of her copyrights to the church, and hence not to the
Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker G. Eddy, who are the five-
member ecclesiastical Board of Directors.

COPYRIGHT ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Competent legal and constitutional authorities have severely
criticized and condemned the 1971 Copyright "Act" on Science and
Health as totally unconstitutional. Senator Jacob Javits took a
strong position against the bill, S. 1866. He pointed out that it
would vest in the Board of Directors (or the Trustees under the Will
of Mary Baker G. Eddy) exclusive copyright "over Mrs. Eddy's great
work, --Science and Health,-- upon which a copyright law for the one
edition which was published in 1906. Numerous editions [actually 431
editions] are now in the public domain, and of course other
revisions may take place hereafter."

Senator Javits then again requested, that because of the alleged
unconstitutionality of this copyright Act, Congress delay
consideration of it. Javits wanted to give the New York Bar
Association an opportunity to file a statement of its objections to
this copyright Act.

Following are some excerpts from report of the Committee of Civil
Rights of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York on the
subject of S. 1866. The report was forwarded with the approval of the
President of the Association, the Honorable Bernard Biotin:

On behalf of the Association, we again strongly urge that this bill
not be enacted. As you will note, the report recommends the
rejection of the bill--or its recommitted to the Committee on the
Judiciary for hearings on the constitutionality of the issues
involved, so as to give its proponents an opportunity to respond to
our views as to the bill's unconstitutionality.

In closing they again stress the Copyright Act's unconstitutionality.

The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Committee on
Civil Rights, after strongly recommending rejection of this
copyright Act on Science and Health, stated:

The Association's Committee on Copyright Law, basing its stand on the
constitutional provisions for copyright and the policy of copyright
law, has announced its opposition...because it would violate the
First Amendment prohibition of Congress making a "law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

While the Bar Association's letter urged rejection of this Copyright
"Act," on the grounds of its unconstitutionality and its impingement
on the First Amendment guaranteeing religious liberty, they may also
have seen the grave injustice being done the author, Mary Baker
Eddy, in granting to five persons in Boston no but only a copyright
on the 1906 edition, but on all 432 editions, 418 of which had long
been in the public domain; and the cruelest blow of all to the
author, Mary Baker Eddy, came with granting these five persons in
Boston the right to bring out their own versions and revisions of
Science and Health.

The Bar Association points out that this copyright Act on Science and
Health would have the following unfortunate effects:

In sum, the effect of 1866 would be ...to single out Mrs. Eddy's
works in the following respects: (a) remove all versions published
prior to the 1906 edition from the public domain and impose thereon
until 2046 or 2047, either a new copyright or a copyright for the
first time; (b)extend to the same date the copyright on the 1906
edition; and (c)allow future versions' [of Science and Health] to be
registered for a period of 75 years from date of publication.

(The question many dedicated Christian Scientists are asking is: "If
the Directors of The Mother Church are not planning to bring out
their own revised editions, why was it so important to have the
copyright Act on Science and Health cover "future versions"?)

The Bar Association in its letter urging rejection of the copyright
Act on Science and Health listed the reasons given by the proponents
of S. 1866, and then stated:

We believe that those very arguments [given by the proponents of the
copyright Act] point to the unconstitutionality of the bill--we
confess ourselves unable to perceive how S. 1866 can be other than
unconstitutional. Its purpose and its ultimate effect are to single
out a particular doctrine within a particular church to grant to
writings embodying that doctrine protection [?] that has never been
made available to any other religious or non religious writings, aid
to supply civil and criminal sanctions against those I who,
religiously or non-religiously, whether calling themselves Christian
Scientists or not, may choose to deviate from that doctrine. Indeed
our research...has failed to disclose any constitutional decisions
involving similar statutes--an indication, if constitutionality can
be regarded as quantitative, how "extremely unconstitutional" S.
1866 is.

Think of Christian Scientists advocating an "extremely
unconstitutional" course! No more law-abiding citizen than Mary Baker
Eddy ever walked on American soil. She said genuine Christian
Scientists are or should be the most law-abiding people on earth.
Mrs. Eddy was a strict believer in the Constitution of the United
States. She would have deplored Christian Scientists endeavoring to
circumvent the Constitution in trying to pass an "extremely
unconstitutional" law that deprives dedicated Christian Scientists
of religious freedom and deprives the public generally of the
benefit of Science and Health, and that will permit the trustees of
Mrs. Eddy's estate (the Board of Directors) to publish 'revised
versions' of Science and Health. S. 1866 gives the Board of
Directors the legal right to bring out revised versions of Science
and Health.

Senator Javits summed up his position by stressing that the copyright
Act on Science and Health raised fundamental questions concerning
conflict between S. 1866 and the First Amendment provisions
guaranteeing religious liberty. He agreed with the Bar Association
that S. 1866 violated the basic principle which governs the granting
of copyrights. Javits reminded the Committee that the Senator from
Michigan, Philip Hart, had raised the same objections to S. 1866.3a

It is also clear the the proponents of the bill, representing the
Board of Directors' position, had led Senator Javits to believe that
the 1906 edition of Science and Health was the edition in general
use and sold in Christian Science Reading Rooms. This, of course,
was totally false. The 1906 edition has not been sold in Christian
Science reading rooms since 1907 nor could the 1906 edition be used
by Christian Scientists in "getting their lesson" or in Sunday
Church services, since the pagination and lineation of the 1906
edition is entirely different from any of the more scientific 14
editions Mrs. Eddy subsequently published. Her 1910 edition is the
one that has been in use since 1910. The 1906 edition has not been
in use for nearly three-quarters of a century.

Senator Javits then once again pointed out the Bar Association's
severe condemnation of this bill as unconstitutional, as impinging
on the First Amendment and supplying civil and criminal sanctions
against those who, religiously or non-religiously--whether calling
themselves Christian Scientists or not-- may choose to deviate from
that doctrine.

Javits observed that no doubt Catholics would like to have a
copyright on the New Testament, and he himself knew the Jewish faith
would like to have a copyright on the Old Testament. He indicated
the entire world had as much right to Science and Health as the
world has to the Holy Scriptures--both the Old and New Testaments.
He indicated it did not seem quite right to him that a great work
like Science and Health should become the personal property of five
persons in Boston. "There is a question, " he said, "which a
copyright raises, of a monopoly and accessibility of this great book
to everyone."

Javits then asked to have printed, among other communications he had
received, the following:

To Senator Jacob K. Javits: On behalf of the Committee on Civil
Rights of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, I
strongly urge that no action be taken by the Senate on S. 1866 'for
the relief of Clayton Bion Craig, et al.' which raises serious
constitutional problems relating to the constitutional provisions
prohibiting the establishment of religion, as well as other
constitutional provisions....

>From Robert M. Kaufmanns, Chairman, Committee on Civil Rights, the

Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

The Committee on Copyright and Literary Property of the Association
of the Bar of the City of New York sent the following telegram to all
members of the House Judiciary Committee:

At its meeting last night the Committee on Copyright and Literary
Property, of the Association of the Bar of New York City, unanimously
disapproved that portion of S. 1866 which purports to restore to
copyright protection editions of Science and Health which have long
been in the public domain. The bill would create for the first
edition of that work a copyright term in excess of 170 years. We
believe that such action exceeds the congressional power under
article 1, section 8, of the Constitution and would represent
unsound copyright policy. We urge you to object to the passage of
private bill S. 1866.

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING

On page 2 of the "Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary
Representative McClory, a member of The Mother Church, testifying for
the Christian Science Board of Directors, stated:

The final edition of the Christian Science textbook was published and
copyrighted in 1906..."

This statement is not correct. The 1906 edition was not the final
edition because Mrs. Eddy issued fourteen editions subsequent to the
copyrighted 1906 edition. Each of these fourteen editions contained
changes of the greatest magnitude.

Then Representative McClory continued:

The complete and final revelation of Christian Science, as set forth
by Mrs. Eddy, the Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science, is
embodied in the copyrighted edition of the textbook..."

Again, of course, this is not correct. A committee set up to compare
the 1906 last--copyrighted edition with the 1910 more complete
edition found that Mrs. Eddy had made 3,906 additions, changes, and
deletions in the 1910 edition. This means Mrs. Eddy made nearly
4,000 changes in her 1910 edition. Many of these changes had supreme
significance in the unfoldment of her Science. For instance, a
radical change was made in her fourth edition in 1907 when she
changed her definition of God which brought the entire textbook into
line with the Science she was teaching.

The complete and final revelation of Christian Science is not set
forth in the 1906 edition. Fourteen more editions were required to
bring out the final revelation. Mrs. Eddy speaks of her first
edition in 1875 as having been revised only to give a clearer and
fuller _expression to its original meaning. But it took the
unfoldment that came with all 432 editions to make the pure Science
of Christian Science clear to humanity in such a form and manner as
would enable it to be taught in the same way that music and
mathematics are taught. A vital part of this unfoldment came between
1907 and 1910. A science does not need to be copyrighted, and Mrs.
Eddy stated, "Christian Science is not copyrighted." When Mrs. Eddy
made no arrangements to copyright the major developments and
profound unfoldments that came with the last fourteen editions, it
seems evident that she wished Science and Health to be in the public
domain at the earliest possible time.

Continuing on page 3 of the Congressional Record, the Hon. Robert
McClory states:

While I speak only as one member of the Christian Science Church, I
can assure you that I do, indeed, voice the interest and support of
all Christian Scientists...

This seems a rather sweeping statement from Representative McClory
when there are perhaps more Christian Scientists outside than inside
the official Boston church, and those outside the official church
circle (as well as a great many still within the material
organization) would tend to feel Mrs. Eddy's writings should be in
the public domain just as the Bible is. If "all Christian
Scientists" supported taking the copyright out of the name of Mary
Baker Eddy and vesting it in the Board of Directors why was it
deemed necessary to maintain absolute secrecy in planning this
seventy-five year copyright "extension"?

Dr. J. Buroughs Stokes, Manager of the Christian Science Committee on
Publication, representing the Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker
G. Eddy, and "spokesman for all Christian Science church members,"
stated:

Not a single member of our church has indicated any opposition to the
passage of this bill, or is opposed to extending the copyright on
"Science and Health." Our members realize that the last edition of
"Science and Health" is the pastor of this church. To protect this
pastor, it is necessary to extend the copyright on "Science and
Health," which is owned by the Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker
Eddy. The Christian Scientists know that these Trustees must maintain
the book as their pastor in its final form as written by the author,
and will not change it, revise it, annotate it, or issue abridged
versions. (p. 10 of Committee on Judiciary Report)

Dr. Stokes avers: "Not a single member of our church has indicated
opposition..." But he fails to mention that no one knew about the
bill. It had been prepared in absolute secrecy. It had not been
advertised in any of the Christian Science periodicals or in the
Monitor. Shortly before the bill was passed, a student in
Washington, D.C. heard of it, by chance, and did what she could to
alert Christian Scientists. The worldwide stir aroused by the 1934
copyright renewal obviously warned the Directors of the
inadvisability of letting the Field know of their plans. When asked
by the Committee if the bill had any publicity, G. Ross Cunningham,
Christian Science Committee on Publication for Washington, D.C.,
replied:

There has been national publicity about S. 1866 in various
publications, such as Publishers' Weekly, Variety, and the American
Patent Law Association Bulletin. To the extent that this bill can be
considered newsworthy to them, the public and publishing interests
are informed concerning S. 1866. (p. 6 of Judiciary Report)

No notice of any kind had been sent to the more than three thousand
churches or any of the church members. When asked later by an
interested member of the Committee why nothing had appeared in the
Monitor or any of the Christian Science periodicals concerning S.
1866, the answer given was, "We thought it best to keep it quiet and
not to stir up anything."

A second item in Dr. Stokes' testimony asserted that the members
realize the last edition of Science and Health "is the pastor of this
church. To protect this pastor it is necessary to 'extend' the
copyright...." The last edition changes in Science and Health were
never copyrighted. The following letter from Library of Congress
Office, confirms that no copyright exists on the vital changes Mrs.
Eddy made in her last 14 editions:

COPYRIGHT OFFICE

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Washington, D.C. 20559

United Christian Scientists, Inc.

P.O. Box 8048

San Jose, California, 95155

Attention: David James Nolan

Dear Mr. Nolan:

This refers to your letter of August 11, 1980. The following search
report is made:

Search in the indexes and catalogs of the Copyright Office covering
the period 1898 through 1945 under the name Mary Baker Eddy and title
SCIENCE AND HEALTH WITH KEY TO THE SCRIPTURES failed to disclose any
separate registration for a work identified under this name and
specific title and bearing the year dates 1907 through 1910.

Your remittance of $20.00 has been applied in payment for this search
and report.

Sincerely yours,

Robert G. Myers

Bibliographer, Reference and Bibliography Section

Furthermore, the Copyright Act of 1971 was not an "extension' " This
"Act" gave the Board of Directors of The Mother Church a brand new
copyright, vesting all rights to Science and Health-on all 432
editions-in the Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker G. Eddy,
namely, the Board of Directors.

Dr. Stokes further declared that the textbook will not be "changed,
revised, annotated, or abridged."

For a number of years, however, rumors have circulated among highly
placed Boston officials that the Board is working on extensive
revisions to Science and Health. In the past the Directors have made
changes to Scienceand Health. They have removed Mrs. Eddy's picture
from the front of the book; they have moved and deleted testimonies
Mrs. Eddy carefully selected; they have changed marginal headings;
they have added "Authorized Literature of The First Church of Christ,
Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts"; they have listed books and
booklets on the flyleaf of Science and Health; they have reduced the
size of the cross and crown insignia on Science and Health, etc. This
is not reassuring for a future policy that "will not change it,
revise it, annotate it, or issue abridged editions" now that they
are legally empowered to make any changes they may wish to make.

Dr. Stokes offered to show the Judiciary Committee how the "lesson
sermon" is carried out with the Quarterly. But this couldn't have
been the 1906 edition of Science and Health for which they sought the
copyright since its pages and lines are not the same as the 1910
edition currently in use. Church members use the 1910 edition "to get
their lesson." It is this edition which corresponds to the page and
line listed in the Christian Science Quarterly The 1906 edition was
last used for this purpose in 1906, and never since.

Mr. C. Ross Cunningham, Manager of the Washing-ton, D.C. office of
the Christian Science Committee on Publication, told the Judiciary
Congressional Committee why the Board of Directors was seeking to
"extend the copyright on the book Science and Health." After
affirming that the most recent copyright was in 1906, and S. 1866
would "extend" the copyright 75 years, he stated that "this book
[the 1906 edition] is used together with the Bible, as the basic
textbook for all instruction in the Christian Science religion, and
for the teaching and practice of the spiritual healing which is a
central part of this religion." He stated a copyright "extension"
was needed on this book since the present copyright was due to
expire December 31, 1971. He said Christian Scientists look to this
book as the pastor of their church, and all sermons throughout the
world are comprised of scriptural readings together with readings
from this book. He explained in detail how necessary his "extension"
on the 1906 copyright was. But these statements are not correct. 14
editions followed the 1906, in which Science and Health "gathered
momentum and clearness and reached its culmination." The latest is
used in Sunday services throughout the world, and by students for
instruction in Christian Science. Few, indeed, are the Christian
Scientists who have ever seen a 1906 edition of Science and Health.

He further stated that without the copyright extension on this [1906
edition] of Science and Health "there would be serious danger that
the course of Christian Science church services and the basis of
individual religious study by Christian Scientists would be
seriously impaired. The result, " he said, "would be a definite
limitation on the freedom of adherents of this denomination to
practice their religion! These statements, again, are not correct.

As has been previously brought out, the 1906 edition of Science and
Health has not been used by Christian Scientists either individually
or in church services since 1906. Mary Baker Eddy never copyrighted
any of the more than 4000 changes she made in the 14 editions of
Science and Health published after 1906. As has been previously
brought out, she made no provision in her Will or elsewhere for an
extension of copyright on Science and Health after it had run its
normal course of 28 years.

Ignoring the fact that the edition of Science and Health currently in
use in all Christian Science churches should have been in the public
domain since 1934, Mr. Cunningham told the Congressional Judiciary
Committee: "Our concern is that if this book goes into the public
domain, as a practical matter, the public will not know whether it is
buying or reading what Mrs. Eddy wrote ....."

Mr. Abe Goldman, General Counsel, U. S. Copyright Office, like
Senator Javits and others, based his testimony before Congress on his
understanding that the 1906 edition was the one now used in church
services and by individual Christian Scientists, which the proponents
of the bill had obviously led him to believe. Mr. Goldman stated:

We understand that the 1906 edition, the one still under copyright,
is the one now used by the Christian Science Church as the basic
text...for instruction in the Christian Science religion, and for
the practice of its teaching and its church services.

Since all the witnesses representing the Board of Directors knew that
the 1906 edition had not been used by Christian Scientists or for
church services for nearly three-quarters of a century, how could
this copyright havebeen legitimately obtained?

Mr. Goldman testified that there had been little opposition to the
bill, S. 1866. But it must be remembered no one knew about the bill.
It was kept a closely guarded secret until the very last minute. It
was only when Senator Javits requested a postponement of the bill
that the supporters of the Christian Science Board of Directors
launched a concerted drive for support.

At this point an interesting episode developed. The Directors of The
Mother Church had hoped to steer the bill smoothly through the
Congressional hearing without the Christian Science Field hearing
about it. And from May, when the bill was first entered, until late
November they had succeeded in keeping it wholly hidden from the
Christian Science Field. But when Senator Javits of the State of New
York requested the bill be held up indefinitely, those supporting
the bill decided the time for secrecy was past. All Christian
Science church members (in New York State) and their friends, and
all Sunday School students and their friends were then urged to send
letters and telegrams to their Senator, Mr. Javits, saying, "Please
release bill S. 1866, protecting copyright on Science and Health,
our Pastor."

Thousands of identical telegrams began pouring into Senator Javits'
office. The great multitude of senders did not realize they were
crying: "Crucify Mrs. Eddy's textbook, crucify Science and Health!"
The flood of telegrams received was in sharp contrast to the
intelligent, meaningful letters received by Senator Javits from
dedicated Christian Scientists unalterably opposed to the Directors'
latest attempt to get the copyright out of Mrs. Eddy's name and into
their own. Membership in branch churches today consists for the most
part of those who believe in material organization and, thus, would
naturally support the Board of Directors' position, since they tend
to read only what is 'authorized" by the Board of Directors. This
probably accounts for Senator Javits hearing mostly from those
favoring the Board of Directors' position, since Christian
Scientists who do not attend church services -and who surely far
outnumber those who do-would have had no way of knowing about the
Board of Directors' copyright action.

Senator Javits, to his everlasting credit, saw the
unconstitutionality of the bill, and voted "No!" However, he did not
continue to take a determined stand on the bill mainly, perhaps,
because true and pertinent facts concerning this copyright action
had been withheld from him, and he also had been led to believe, as
had others, that the 1906 edition on which copyright still existed
was the final edition, the one for sale in Reading Rooms, and used
by Christian Scientists individually and in church services. No
doubt the telegrams received from Sunday School children and their
friends and from church members, had also had their effect. All
these factors, plus the normal Senatorial pressures, weighed against
his taking an uncompromising stand against what he "obviously" felt
in his heart was an unlawful and unconstitutional act.

Mr. Cunningham, Manager of the Washington, D.C. office of the
Christian Science Committee on Publication, stated:

The copyright on Science and Health is owned by...the five
individuals named in the caption of the bill (S.1866)....The
trustees under the will [of Mary Baker G. Eddy]...own many other
copyrights, some of them on the works written by the author
of "Science and Health"....

As previously noted, if the reader will turn to the last Will and
Testament of Mary Baker Eddy in the Appendix he will not find that
Mrs. Eddy bequeathed the copyrights to any of her writings to either
the temporary five-member Board of Directors which the estoppel
clauses in the Church Manual terminated at Mrs. Eddy's demise, nor
to the four-member self-perpetuating Board left legally in control
of the local Boston First Church of Christ, Scientist. That she did
not copyright changes in her last fourteen editions and made no
provision for extending the 1906 copyright is a clear indication
that Mrs. Eddy wanted that copyright to lapse, and go into the
public domain also.

Regarding the $200,000.00 yearly profit from the sale of Science and
Health, the Honorable Robert F Drinan of Massachusetts, member of the
Judiciary Committee, asked:

If the copyright were not renewed, I would assume Bantam Books or
MacMillan...would put out a paperback....And I would assume that this
would mean some dimunition of revenue from the person who now owns
the copyright.

Congressman Drinan said he was making the point because a publisher
had said he was opposed to the bill. This publisher was no doubt
typical of many who feel that after a copyright has run its course
the book should pass into public domain so that everybody, wishing
to, could publish it and derive profits from it.

To this argument Dr. Stokes, representing the Christian Science Board
of Directors, responded that it was the aim of the proponents of the
bill to "protect religion." "We have got to protect religion, " he
said. "We have got to protect what God wants his children to hear."
This, regardless of what the author of Science and Health obviously
wanted when she made no provision in her Will or elsewhere for
extending the copyright on the textbook after its normal run.

Congressman Drinan replied, in substance, that the U. S. Supreme
Court said in the case of Kedoff that state protection of any
particular denomination is forbidden by the "establishment clause."
Congressman Drinan stated that in the U. S. Supreme Court opinion
there is a long line of cases now saying that the establishment
clause means no aid to one particular religion and no aid to all
religions across the board.

When Attorney Peterson, C.S., was asked, "Can you give us an idea how
accessible the copies are?" he responded:

Yes, there is a bookstore edition that is published for sale in
commercial bookstores. We would like it to be much more generally
carried in the bookstores than it is. We make every possible effort
to make it available to them.

The sad fact, here, is that after the new seventy-five-year copyright
was granted, Science and Health and other writings by Mary Baker Eddy
were withdrawn from bookstores and are now for sale only in the
rapidly closing Reading Rooms.

All through the hearing the proponents of the bill insisted the
copyright protection was necessary because of the possibility of
someone publishing a distorted version, but when a member of the
Judiciary Committee asked Attorney Peterson, "Can you give us
examples of where people have tried to distort or change or
misrepresent them? [meaning any of the 418 editions of Science and
Health that have long been in the public domain]. " Attorney
Peterson answered, "No, no one has tried it as far as we know"

Returning for a moment to Mr. Goldman, General Counsel, U. S.
Copyright Office, we can see from his testimony that he had been
entirely misled as to the reason for seeking an "extension" of the
copyright.

His statement on page 33 of the Hearings before Subcommittee No. 3 of
the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, is here
quoted, in part:

They say they need this bill to protect the integrity of the work.
With respect to the 1906 edition, which is the one still under
copyright, and which is the one I understand is the present text
used in the practice of the Christian Science Church, it could be
that its integrity is extremely important to them for the reason
they state that even the pagination, the numbering of the lines, and
the precise wording must be maintained because it is used all over
the world, and references are made to it by page and line number for
the purpose of indicating what text is for the week's service.

These statements by Mr. Goldman indicate he had been led to believe
that the pagination, numbering of lines, and wording in the 1906
edition of Science and Health matched the Quarterly in use by
Christian Scientists in "getting their lesson, " and in church
services. Mr.Goldman's testimony shows he had been allowed to
believe something totally false. The fact is it is the 1910 edition
not the 1906-which in 1971 should have been in the public domain for
37 years--that has been used all over the world since 1910 in church
services, and is the only edition for sale in Christian Science
Reading Rooms.

The fundamental changes made in the 14 editions following the 1906
copyrighted edition were not submitted for registration, as we saw
from the Copyright Office's letter to Mr. Nolan, (see p. 142a).

That the Librarian of Congress had also been misled and was unaware
of the facts, can be seen from The Report of the Librarian of
Congress, dated September 30, 1971, which stated:

We understand that the 1906 edition, which is still under copyright,
is the one now regularly used for the teaching and practice of the
Christian Science religion. (House of Representatives Report No.
92-604, 92nd Congress, 1st Session, accompanying Senate Bill S.
1866.)

This misleading of Mr. Goldman, the Congressional Librarian,
Senators, Representatives, and others, by the church authorities,
shows the length to which they were willing to go to betray Mrs.
Eddy, their professed Leader, in their reach for place, power, and
authority.

Earlier we quoted testimony by the Honorable Robert McClory of
Illinois, found on page 2 of the Congressional Judiciary Report" in
which, testifying on behalf of the Christian Science Board of
Directors, he said:11

The final edition of the Christian Science textbook was published and
copyrighted in 1906.

Evidence has already been produced to show that the 1906 was not the
final edition, that the 14 editions which followed it contained the
greatest fundamental and comprehensive changes Mrs. Eddy ever made in
all her 432 editions. We have also seen that chief among the nearly
4,000 alterations distinguishing the 1910 edition from the 1906 was
the change Mrs. Eddy made in her definition of God in 1907, which
constituted perhaps the most important and basic change Mrs. Eddy
ever made in her many editions.

No doubt Mrs. Eddy purposely did riot copyright vital changes in her
last 14 editions in which the culmination of her discovery of
Christian Science, as a Science, was reached. A Science, she said,
does not need to be copyrighted. In 1906 she had not yet reached
this culmination of her discovery as a pure Science. But once this
Science had reached its culmination, in 1910, she knew it no longer
needed to be copyrighted.

During her last years Mrs. Eddy gave all her messages to the
world-press rather than to the Christian Science periodicals which
reached only a limited number of people. Mrs. Eddy was always eager
for her discovery to reach the entire world, and she yearned for her
students' spiritual progress. The majority of her students, on the
other hand, were always more interested in building up a material
organization.

In December, 1887, Mrs. Eddy asked a student to insert part of one of
her (Mrs. Eddy's) letters in the Journal. It read:

True Christianity began to wane as Truth became hid in churches and
ritualistic forms; and just as you lay more stress on the formation
of church-organizations than you do on the work of healing, will your
cause decline and eventually be lost.

...Not all your churches and preachers will do as much to win people
to the Truth as the few good healers....Science and Health ...is
greater than any Church....This book, or rather the truth therein,
needs no church to proclaim it or bolster it...I condemn the
mistaken policy of embalming any truths. [The last statement no
doubt refers to the fact that church organizations tend to embalm
Truth, to fix it in a static condition, leaving no opportunity for
growth or development.]

In the June Journal of 1887 in an article, Mind-Healing History, Mrs.

Eddy wrote:

My discovery promises nothing but blessings to every inhabitant of
the globe. This glorious prospect seems to incense some degraded
minds, and stimulate their unscrupulous efforts to thwart its benign
influence and defeat its beneficence.

Many earnest dedicated students of Christian Science are today
asking:
"Since Mrs. Eddy did not make provision for extending the copyright
on Science and Health, and did not copyright the revisions, doesn't
this prove beyond cavil that she wanted Science and Health to have
the widest possible exposure and acceptance, rather than be confined
and limited by copyright regulations? As was pointed out, the Old
Testament has not suffered because those of the Jewish faith did not
protect it by copyright regulations, and the New Testament has not
suffered because neither Catholic. Mrs. Eddy counseled: "Let the
Word [the scientific Word embodied in Science and Health] have free
course and be glorified."

Almost from the beginning Mrs. Eddy's students tended to confuse her
idea of Church as "the structure of Truth and Love" with material
organization. This cast a heavy burden on Mrs. Eddy As we learned
earlier she stated, "All the trouble I have had has been with my
students' " In Science and Health she comments sadly, "If the Master
had not taken a student he would not have been crucified. The
determination to hold Spirit in the grasp of matter [to hold the
spirit and the absolute letter in a church organization] is the
persecutor of Truth and Love. " While Mrs. Eddy turned unreservedly
to God for comfort and direction, her students occupying the highest
offices were turning to human law and legal power. We saw this was
true even before Mrs. Eddy left us-when they turned to legal opinion
in the matter of the estoppel clauses in the Church Manual.

As we have been seeing, there was considerable determined opposition
to S. 1866, but it was successfully throttled. It is a matter of
record, and of deep regret, that unbelievable manipulative pressure
was brought to bear upon those members of the Judiciary Committee--
Congressmen and Senators--to rescind their objections to the bill.

Senator Philip Hart, who voted against the bill, stated that this
copyright would grant a monopoly over _expression, and limit what may
be freely said and heard in public, thus conflicting with the
guarantees of free speech under the First Amendment. (See page 12 of
Committee on Judiciary Hearing, Appendix p. 303.) Senator Hart also
insisted that Congress does not have the power to grant copyrights to
trustees of an estate. He was concerned the bill might put the
support of the government on the side of the established Christian
Science Movement in any dispute it might have with groups differing
from the view of the official Boston hierarchy.

Some opposition surfaced on the present difficulty of obtaining the
earlier editions of Science and Health. A letter read into the
Congressional record stated:

Dear Sirs: I am a member of The Mother Church and have been for over
25 years. I urge the Committee to vote against S. 1866 on the ground
that it would shut off completely availability of all earlier
editions of Science and Health by Mary Baker Eddy, none of which The
Mother Church publishes or makes available to its members or the
general public...

The Board of Directors' refusal to make available the early editions
of Science and Health has effectively eliminated a most useful aid in
understanding Christian Science, namely, the help of following the
evolution of the Science as Mrs. Eddy developed it in her many
revisions. Former high officials in the church report that early
editions were bought up by the church so they would not be available
to students seeking them. They also report that the fear of the
Board of Directors' legal arm prevented any but the most intrepid
from reproducing a few of the earliest editions.

In the Christian Science Journal, April, 1891, p. 7, Mrs. Eddy,
through an article dictated to her student, Rev. Norcross, urged all
Christian Scientists to keep their editions. In this article Mrs.
Eddy stated:

A practical suggestion or two regarding study of the new edition: In
the first place, do not attempt to dispose of the earlier editions.
Some are asking, "Can we be permitted to exchange?" Probably not; but
you do not want to do so, even if you can. Fortunate is he who has
all former revisions with the original edition of 1875! They are
indicators of successive stages of growth in Christian Science; and
as such, a some future day will not only possess historic value, but
will be extremely difficult to procure. Keep them all; they will
prove a "treasure trove ." Again, Let the new volume be studied in
connection with earlier editions. The very contrasts help to see how
the thoughts have risen only as we have been able to receive them.
This, again, will reveal why the new edition could now be written
for us. It is simply because the advancing thought, or
demonstration, of Christian students has ascended to that plane
which makes it both possible and practicable for us to have the new
work. [Italics are in the original.]

Many Christian Scientists have been led to believe that Mrs. Eddy
warned against studying the earlier editions. This is not true as can
be seen from her article in the Journal, just quoted. She, of course,
recommended that her last edition, published in 1910, be the basic
edition used, since it alone contained the full and final revelation
of her great discovery. As we saw in comparing it with the 1906
edition, the 1910 editions contained nearly 4,000 changes,
additions, and deletions.

Genuine Christian Scientists dread the consequences of robbing the
world of the privilege of having all 432 editions of Science and
Health in the public domain.

The Christian Science Field owes a great debt of gratitude to Mr.
Ralph Geradi of Rare Book Company for reprinting a number of the
early editions, principally the much sought after and highly prized
first edition.

Mrs. Eddy left a good share of her estate to the church to be used
for the promotion and extension of the Science taught by her. This
would surely mean, for one thing, the reproduction of the books
written by her. Also in her Deed of Trust given to the Publishing
Society she stipulated the profits were to be used for the promotion
and extension of the Science taught by her. Again, what is more
important than making available the "treasure trove" of her 432
editions of Science and Health to students of Christian Science?
Most of the funds, however, were spent to support the organization,
and as we saw, for such things as quadrupling the Directors'
salaries shortly after Mrs. Eddy's departure, and for legal fees,
funding of lawsuits, etc. This apparent lack of a genuine interest
in the promotion and extension of the Science taught by Mary Baker
Eddy was a substantial factor contributing to the precipitous
decline in the spread of Christian Science that became noticeable as
early as 1935.

When the Congressmen asked if any publishers were known to be
interested in publishing Science and Health, representatives for the
Board of Directors said, "No. " This was not entirely true, of
course, because over the years there have been those who wished to
do so but feared the legal arm of Boston. Recently, however, Eric W.
W. Taylor of Seven Lakes, West End, North Carolina, 27376, published
a magnificent reproduction of the 1910 edition of Science and Health
with all details exactly as Mrs. Eddy left them, including the
frontispiece picture of Mary Baker Eddy.

Mr. Ralph Geradi of Rare Book Company reports he has had many
requests for copies of the 1910 edition, meaning, of course, the
1910 edition just as Mrs. Eddy left it, containing her picture, 700
full pages, and without the various changes that were made in
Science and Health after Mrs. Eddy's departure.

TESTIMONY OF ATTORNEY HACKMAN

The last witness to be questioned by the Committee on the Judiciary
concerning the copyright on Science and Health, was Attorney Mary
Cook Hackman of Arlington, Virginia. She apparently believed
strongly that the 418 editions of Science and Health should remain
in the public domain, and that the 1906 should also be allowed to go
into the public domain along with the 14 subsequent editions, having
had 65 years of copyright protection. She said:

The proponents have basically advanced two arguments: One, that what
they have asked you to do is a legal thing for you to do; that is, it
is constitutional. I would question that, on the First Amendment
basis. And as for the citations they have given you, they all go
back to 1898 and before, and we all know that the Constitution is
interpreted very differently in the last 30 years than it ever was
prior to then. I also feel that there is some question as to whether
the Trustees [C.S. Board Of Directors] under the Will of Mrs. Eddy,
as a matter of fact, violate the rules against perpetuities....

The second argument that the proponents use is that they need this
legislation for protection....We feel that the better understanding
of Christian Science itself requires the greatest possible
distribution of the textbook, Science and Health.

Attorney Hackman advanced the feeling that the motives of those
seeking this copyright legislation "are the perpetuation and
protection of the church as an organization and this, of course, is
specifically in violation of the Constitution. The church
organization is what they [the proponents of the bill] feel is at
stake here. " The church organization is what the proponents want to
maintain at any cost.

Christian Scientists, she said, are by nature non-contentious people,
and that is why there is not more opposition. This aside from the
fact, of course, that only a dozen or so non-church Scientists knew
about the copyright action. And they only heard about it at the very
last minute, when it was too late to organize any type of resistance.

Miss Hackman felt there would be no problem at all about maintaining
the purity of the contents of Science and Health, just as there has
been no problem maintaining the purity of the Bible. This argument
about "purity," she maintained, was only the decoy; what the
proponents of the bill were really seeking, was absolute control of
the church organization: "And that, " she said, "is the real purpose
of this bill, it is to protect the organization of the church rather
than the spiritual teachings of Mrs. Eddy."

One senses from Miss Packman's testimony that this copyright action
is sought more to protect the public from access to Mary Baker Eddy's
writings than to protect the writings from possible distortion by the
public. Mrs. Eddy wanted everyone to be blessed by the teachings of
Science and Health: "My discovery," she said, "promises nothing but
blessings to every inhabitant of the globe." With Francis Thomson she
knew that:

All things by immortal power

Near or far

Hiddenly

To each other linked are,

That thou canst not stir

a flower

Without troubling of a star.

Mary Baker Eddy's great work on earth was not done for her own self,
nor for God; she dipped her pen in the well of Love and wrote for all
people wherever they might be, to bless them and show them their
divinity Innately all humanity has the capacity to understand what is
in Science and Health; it should have the widest possible
distribution rather than have its accessibility restrained and
shackled by copyright regulations.

Attorney Hackman had been given only five minutes in which to present
the side of perhaps the vast majority of Christian Scientists in the
world today. Her excellent arguments for obedience to the laws of the
land and for the religious liberty our great Constitution provides,
fell largely on deaf ears, however. The 75-year copyright on Science
and Health "For the relief of Clayton Bion Craig, Arthur P. Wuth,
Mrs. Lenore D. Hanks, David E. Sleeper, and DeWitt John," was passed
by both Houses of Congress and was signed into law by President
Nixon.

Having secured a new copyright in their own name, on all 432 editions
of Science and Health, the Christian Science Board of Directors in
Boston is now free to remove Mrs. Eddy's name entirely from Science
and Health, as in 1911 they removed her name and office as Pastor
Emeritus from the Church Manual when, at that time, they put out a
Manual of their own. Her name remained removed for fifteen years
until pressure from the Field caused its restoration.

Writing in the April edition of the National Educator, Ron Bartlett
(not a Christian Scientist) stated in part:

Haldeman and Ehrlichman, those two so-called Christian Scientists,
were able to get the government under President Nixon to carry out a
copyright on the writings of the Founder of the Christian Science
religion, when she expressly wanted her works to go completely public
as the Bible [is], as her book must be studied with the Bible. She
prayed for her country; asked others to pray for our country; but
apparently the Directors of The Mother Church took over after her
death and did her in. The religion declined, members vanished from
the churches....

Writing from the Republic of South Africa, a Christian Scientist of
world renown gives his opinion:

It can now be said that in those copies of Science and Health --
printed after 1971--the seemingly innocent and harmless words, "1971
The Christian Science Board of Directors copyright under special act
of Congress. All rights reserved in all editions, " constitutes--by
all that is sealed beneath them--a ghastly vilification of Mrs. Eddy.

It can be clearly shown that this so-called copyright is the very
antithesis of Mrs. Eddy's committal of Science and Health to "honest
seekers for Truth"....Science and Health has a rebuke for every
action taken by the Christian Science Board of Directors to achieve
that Act of Congress, and divine Principle will not allow that evil
work to stand.

Then, writing about the Board of Directors' current legal action in
which they are claiming they own the term "Christian Science," this

same gentleman writes: "Now, what must surely be the final act of

their [the Christian Science Board of Directors'] own self
destruction, the Board places "Christian Science" on trial by its
own god, legal power."

Another student writes, "the more one studies the history of
Christian Science, the more one becomes aware of the intent of evil
to separate the Discoverer of Christian Science from her discovery.
This is as true today as it was a century ago. Evil's design and aim
is, secondly, to separate the students from Mrs. Eddy through
denying her place in prophecy- denying that Mrs. Eddy fulfilled step
by step Jesus' prediction to St. John regarding the woman of the
Apocalypse in chapter twelve of the Book of Revelation. This Woman
brought Science and Health, the Comforter, promised by Jesus in
chapters 14 and 16 of the Gospel of St. John which, in turn,
fulfilled his parable of the 'leaven, which a woman took and hid in
three measures of meal, till the
wholewas leavened.'"

Robbing Mrs. Eddy of her rightful place in scriptural prophecy, world
esteem, and human history is an error that must be exposed. 'It
requires courage to utter truth Mrs. Eddy states, and also, it
requires the spirit of our blessed Master to tell a man his faults and
risk
displeasure ...... Writing in Historical Sketch of Metaphysical
Healing, Mrs. Eddy says, "There is but one way to deal with sin;
namely, if you can't stop it, expose it, for the safety of others."

Writing in the 1885 May Journal, on Love and "over what worlds of
worlds it has range and is sovereign", she says she stands in awe
before it, but states that

Sometimes this gentle evangel comes to burst the pent-up storm of
error with one mighty thunder-bolt, and clears the moral atmosphere,
foul
with human exhalations. It is a born blessing at all times, either
as a rebuke or a benediction.

Many alert Christian Scientists have been asking: "Was the 1971
copyright on Science and Health--which took the copyright away from
Mrs. Eddy and gave it to the five individuals--legal? Or was the
75-year copyright obtained by misrepresentation and fraud?"

On page 253 of Science and Health Mrs. Eddy writes:

If you believe in and practice wrong knowingly, you can at once
change
your course and do right.

Nothing prevents those who advocated a wrong course of action from
admitting a mistake was made, and from doing all in their power to
rectify the error. This would require moral and spiritual courage,
but
it would attract respect.

Elsewhere she tells us, "All bonds that hinder progress will be
broken." Evil will be seen powerless, and God, good, will be seen as
infinite and omnipotent. In Science and Health we read, "It is
Christian Science to do right, and nothing short of right-doing has
any
claim to the name."

CHOOSE YE THIS DAY WHOM YE WILL SERVE

Chart prepared by Dr Harry R. Shawk of Lacey, Washington

In an article (13) a few years ago the Board of Directors declared
the organization to be "the watchful and tender guardian of human
consciousness in its ascent God-ward"! and in a letter to a Christian
Science teacher in England, John Lawrence Sinton, the Board asserted
that "any attempt to teach or lecture on Christian Science in any
manner other than as provided for in [the Board's interpretation of]
the Manual, constitutes an attack upon the sufficiency and finality
of the revelation embodied in the textbook, its author's
establishment of the church organization, and her divinely inspired
provisions for its growth and progress. "14 At this time the Field
had already been warned, says Braden, that any preference for
the "irregular and unauthorized (literature] is distinctly a
manifestation of mortal mind," and the Field had been reminded that
if there were need of additional literature on the subject of
Christian Science "it would naturally be recognized and satisfied by
the Board of Directors."

A vast gulf yawns between such "paternalism" and Mrs. Eddy's basic
teaching that every individual is entitled to freedom of thought and
action in religion and Science, since the only "enemy" is the belief
in a power apart from God. So, she counseled,

Let us serve and not rule...and allow to each and everyone the same
rights and privileges we claim for ourselves" (Mis. 303).

Christian Science is not copyrighted....A student can write
voluminous works on Christian Science if he writes honestly...
(Ret. 76).

Spiritual rationality and free thought accompany approaching Science,
and cannot be put down... (S&H 223)

Let the Word have free course and be glorified. The people clamor to
leave cradle and swaddling clothes...Truth cannot be stereotyped; it
unfoldeth forever. (No. 45)

RESULT OF THE 70-YEAR RULE IN

DISOBEDIENCE TO THE CHURCH MANUAL

What has been the result of the seventy-year rule in disobedience to
the Church Manual's estoppel clauses?

Mrs. Eddy's estoppel clauses were intended to terminate the five-
member ecclesiastical Board of Directors. This was her way of
assuring that there would be no one to stand between her writings
and the world. She wanted all mankind to be the owner of her
writings and to be blessed by them.

Mrs. Eddy was betrayed; her plan was scuttled.

The chart prepared by Dr. Shawk, p. 160 shows how the number of
registered Christian Science practitioners has dwindled from a
magnificent 12,000 to perhaps less than 5,000 today Of the
approximately 800 churches that have closed, more than 500 have
closed in just the last four years. As the churches close, the
Reading Rooms they maintained also close. The closing of the Reading
Rooms at this alarming rate makes it increasingly difficult and
inconvenient for the public to obtain the writings of Mary Baker
Eddy since the Christian Science Board of Directors in Boston allows
Mrs. Eddy's writings to be sold only in Reading Rooms, as the
profits are doubtless needed to support the church organization.

Fortunately, today thousands of Christian Scientists are awakening,
and as they do, they find it almost impossible to conceive how free
people can be deluded into supposed obedience to such dictatorial
rules controlling their lives and their thinking.

How many spiritually-minded, gifted writers have been prevented by
the Boston hierarchy from sharing their divine inspiration with the
field through the media Mrs. Eddy provided--the Christian Science
Publishing Society--the only 'official" teaching institution Mrs.
Eddy established legally, under a perpetual and irrevocable Deed of
Trust to continue the spiritual education of the world when she was
no longer here.

How many divinely gifted teachers have been prevented by
Board-of-Director edicts from teaching and sharing their Christly
input? Mrs. Eddy freed everyone to teach, requiring only that our
great desire be to live the life of Love. Mrs. Eddy closed her
College at the height of its prosperity. When it was re-opened,
under her control, she used an estoppel clause to make sure
that "organized" teaching would cease when she was no longer here to
supervise it. Teaching Christian Science was, to Mrs. Eddy, a proper
preparation of the heart from which teaching, practicing, and living
would follow naturally. A prepared heart can give to the world the
benefit of its preparation, and teach and heal with increased
confidence, speaking, teaching, and writing freely the truth of
Christian Science-the absolute letter combined with the spirit. The
kingdom of heaven is within you, Mrs. Eddy emphasized-not afar off-
but right within that which you accept as mind, as consciousness,
and this includes all that you call person, place, or thing, all
that appears as a book, a church, or a remedy.

Speaking to the "remnant" Mrs. Eddy counseled:

The letter of your work dies, as do all things material, but the
spirit is immortal. Remember that a temple but foreshadows the idea
of God, the "house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens, "
while a silent, grand man or woman, healing sickness and destroying
sin builds that which reaches heaven. Only those men and women gain
greatness who gain themselves in a complete subordination of self.15

It is only "the adamant of error" that keeps us from this complete
subordination of self, which is gained through obeying the sixteen
chapters of Science and Health. These sixteen chapters of our
textbook constitute our true body and our true Mind. Mary Baker
Eddy's writings give us a whole new frame of reference, a totally
new standpoint. As we learn to reason and deduce from our one divine
Principle, we achieve that paradigm shift out of the world's way of
thinking, into oneness with our true divine being. Our only need is
to discover our divinity, and in that divinity every need is met.

This divinity is gained as we assimilate the divine character through
exchanging mortal beliefs for the divinely scientific facts taught in
Science and Health. This is why Mrs. Eddy felt that suppression of
the textbook, such as has been accomplished by the 1971 Congressional
Copyright Act, was far more dangerous than copyright violation. In
Mary Baker Eddy's Six Days of Revelation Richard Oakes writes: "Mrs.
Eddy's concern was not that someone else might print and sell her
book....so much as the possibility of legalized suppression.... Mrs.
Eddy wrote William G. Nixon: 'Some worldly-poor Christian in England
and elsewhere, can publish it for the good of our race; or translate
it with more facilities than we can, in the old countries (Europe).
Let them do it. It is God's Book and He says give it at once to the
people.. . . There is a great sin being committed by delaying or
suffering my Book, Science and Health, to be delayed for money
consideration. If this course is pursued the unprecedented
prosperity of this Book that I have always conducted on the opposite
basis will go down in the hands of those who do this. This I know.

"God's law to 'feed my sheep,' to give Science and Health at once to
those hungering for it, must be obeyed and held paramount to an
international law on copyright."

CONCLUSION

EMBOLDENED by their success in wresting the copyrights on all
editions of Science and Health from Mrs. Eddy, the Board of
Directors are now claiming they own the term "Christian Science"-
that the term Christian Science is a trademark, and as such it is
the property of the Boston Board of Directors. The Board, as we saw
in the Preface, is now in the process of suing the Independent
Christian Science Church of Plainfield. The question before the
Court today is: Do five individuals in Boston own the
term "Christian Science"? Can the members of Independent Christian
Science Church of Plainfield be deprived of their constitutional
right to religious liberty and freedom to practice their
religion in accordance with their interpretation of the teachings of
Christian Science? Can any Christian Scientist anywhere in the world
be summarily stripped of his right to call himself a Christian
Scientist? Can only those who have permission from the Boston Board
of Directors call themselves Christian Scientists?

The last By-Law

No new tenet or By-Law shall be adopted, nor any Tenet or By-Law
amended or annulled, without the written consent of Mary Baker Eddy,
the author of our textbook, Science and Health.

When Mrs. Eddy lifted this By-Law out of the ecclesiastical document
(the Church Manual) and placed it in the heart of her legal Deed of
Trust (see Manual, p. 136) it made all 26 or more estoppels in the
Church Manual a part of that Deed. By annulling the estoppel clauses
every Director since 1910 has been in breach of the trusts contained
in the 1903 Deed. This 1903 Deed, conveying land for church purposes
is a legal instrument over which the Courts of the land do have
jurisdiction. The Board of Directors in their suit against the
Plainfield church may find their legal action has no basis whatever.

Furthermore it may well develop, at long last, that the Courts will
recognize that the five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors was
made non-existent through the operation of Mrs. Eddy's estoppel
clauses.

Mary Baker Eddy faced a world sunk in materialism. But she brought
the message from God which was to bring change. On the capstone
marking the place of her birth were four inscriptions--facing North,
South, East, and West. The inscription facing west reads:

NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM

(NEW ORDER OF THE AGES)

This new order of the ages which Mary Baker Eddy's writings initiated
points "westward,(16 ) to the grand realization of the Golden Shore
of Love and the peaceful sea of harmony. Mrs. Eddy's "MANUAL"
embodying the spirit of her Magna Charta and her Declaration of
Independence, breathes the omnipotence of divine justice which is
the matrix of that peace which passeth all understanding . It lifts
thought to the point of ascension where organized animate matter is
no longer a legitimate state of man's conscious evolvement , and
mortality is no longer seen "to be the matrix of immortality."17

'This is the higher spiritual message of the Manual and the reason
Mrs. Eddy said, "Notwithstanding the sacrilegious moth of time,
eternity awaits our Church Manual, which will maintain its rank as
in the past, amid ministries aggressive and active, and will stand
when those have passed to rest." 18

In studying the Church Manual, one's admiration and profound respect
and gratitude for Mrs. Eddy is immeasurably heightened : one's heart
overflows with love for this lone brave woman who single-handedly
laid the foundation for the new order of the ages--a world
government based on divine Love manifesting itself in brotherly
love. Her Manual estoppel clauses lead the way: "It remains for the
church to obey(them)." Mrs. Eddy finished the work God gave her to
do. Of the kingdom her Science brought there can be no end. It will
unfold forever.

FINIS