Professor of Art at Princeton University; editorial writer for
The New York Evening Post and Assistant Editor of The Nation,
1901-06.
_To the Editor of The New York Times:_
It seems to me that the Belgian previous question ought to be moved with
all candid pro-Germans. Mr. Schiff is plainly candid, so I have framed
an open letter to elicit his opinion:
[_An Open Letter to Jacob H. Schiff._]
Mr. Jacob H. Schiff, New York.
My Dear Sir: The universal esteem which you enjoy in the country of your
adoption lends great weight to any utterance of yours on public matters.
Your interview on the war in THE TIMES of Nov. 22 will everywhere have
influence for its gravity and fineness of feeling. It is with
compunction that I call your attention to the fact that your statement
is ambiguous on precisely those issues of the conflict which your
fellow-citizens have nearest at heart.
Your general position may be described as a desire for prompt peace and
restoration of the former balance of power. More specifically you wish
"Germany to be victorious, but not too victorious." If this be merely an
instinctive expression of the residual German in you, an expression made
with no practical implications of any sort, no American will do
otherwise than respect such a sentiment. But if you deliberately desire
a moderate victory for Germany, with all that such moderate victory
practically implies, it behooves your fellow-citizens to judge your
views in the light of what these really call for.
An ever so slightly victorious Germany would presumably retain Belgium,
in whole or in part. Does such a conquest have your moral assent?
Or suppose the rather improbable event of a Germany driven out of
Belgium, but otherwise slightly victorious. In such case not a pfennig
of indemnity would come to Belgium. Do you believe that no indemnity is
morally due Belgium?
Knowing your reputation as a man and philanthropist, I can hardly
believe that your desire for a "not too victorious" Germany includes its
logical implication of a subjugated or uncompensated Belgium. But if
this be so, candor expects an avowal. Until you have made yourself clear
on the issue that most concerns your fellow-citizens they will remain in
doubt as to your whole moral attitude on the war. Does your pacificism
contemplate a German Belgium? I feel sure you will admit that no fairer
question could be set to any one who comments on the sequels of the war.
I am, most respectfully yours,
FRANK JEWETT MATHER, Jr.
Princeton University, Oct. 23, 1914.