Yesterday a letter from Professor Kuno Meyer, of the University of Berlin, to President Lowell was made public. The letter concerned the recent Advocate prize poem, "Gott Mit Uns," and censored both Harvard and President Lowell for fostering a "spirit of unmitigated hostility toward Germany. Professor Meyer characterizes the poem as "damnable," and states that Harvard has "silently connived at its wide circulation in the press." Harvard has "wantonly and wickedly gone out of its way to carry strife into the hallowed peace of the academic world," while the University and its President "stand branded before the world and posterity as abetters of international animosity, and traitors to the sacred cause of humanity."

Professor Meyer further states that because of Harvard's attitude he is forced to decline the post of exchange professor for the coming year, and hopes that no other German will again be found to serve in such capacity.

President Lowell's reply to Professor Meyer's letter appears below: April 27, 1915.

My dear Professor Meyer:

Your letter has come, and I am grieved at the feeling of irritation against Harvard that it shows. The poem and prize to which you refer I had never heard of until your letter came. On inquiry I find that it was a prize offered by the students for a student poem, a matter with which the authorities of the University can hardly interfere.

As you are aware, the freedom of speech of neither the professors nor the students in an American university is limited, nor are they themselves subject in their utterances to the direction of the authorities. On the contrary, we have endeavored to maintain the right of all members of the University to express themselves freely, without censorship or supervision by the authorities of the University, and have applied this rule impartially to those who favor Germany, and those who favor the Allies--to the former in the face of a pretty violent agitation for muzzling professors by Alumni of the University and outsiders. This policy of freedom of speech we shall continue to pursue, for we believe it to be the only one which accords with the principle of academic freedom. I hope the time will come when you and your colleagues in Germany will recognize that this course is the only right one: and that it is essential to the cause of universal scholarship and human progress that scholars should associate together again on friendly terms, without regard to national conflicts that have occurred.   Very truly yours,   A. LAWRENCE LOWELL.

Regarding Professor Meyer's resignation as exchange professor, which he claims was made because of the ideas expressed in the Advocate's poem, the following statement from University Hall is illuminating: "On December 18, 1914, The Secretary to the Corporation of Harvard College, stated that the University had intended to extend to Professor Kuno Meyer a formal invitation to lecture at the University on the subject "Celtic Literature" in which he is so eminent; but, in view of his active propaganda among the Irish in behalf of Germany, and the neutral attitude assumed by the University in regard to the war, it was decided not to extend the invitation." This statement antidates Professor Meyer's letter by over four months.

When undergraduates handle a "live" subject such as the war, they can hardly be expected--as individuals--to be otherwise than partisan. When the leader of a nation at war says "God is on our side," thereby implying that He is not on anyone else's he at least courts satirical comment from those individuals who believe in an impartial Diety. "Gott Mit Uns" is the expression of one man's opinion, honored with a prize because it is well put together, and not because it takes issue with Professor Meyer's people. It is not a Harvard prize poem, and it makes no claim to crystallize the thought of Harvard.

It is just such over-zealous patriots as Professor Meyer who are responsible for most of whatever anti-German sentiment exists in the United States today. If Harvard should lose its "fairness and good will" toward Germany, it will be such as Professor Meyer who are to blame. No University likes to be taken sharply to task for what, if it is a fault at all, is a microscopic one; or to have its right of free speech criticized by one whose ideals of free speech are as Teutonic as Professor Meyer's.

Professor Meyer's letter smacks of theatricalism. It was sent to the press before President Lowell had had opportunity to reply. It contains, moreover, the assertion that Professor Meyer finds himself unable to accept an exchange position next year because of Harvard's bigotry. Yet we find it hard to believe that Professor Meyer is still ignorant of the action taken by the Corporation four months ago, to withdraw the intended invitation because of his intemperate utterances elsewhere. Professor Meyer is "refusing" an invitation never extended to him.

Incidentally, President Lowell's reply reads Professor Meyer a valuable lesson in courtesy