To the Editor of the New York World:

Harvard s at this moment raising a monument to those of her sons who have fallen in the European war-whether they fell in the German ranks or with the Allies. No distinction is made between those romantic spirits who gave their lives for the world's sake in opposing the Huns, and the German boy who was called to his colors. No distinction is made between the cause of the allies and the cause of Germany. The monument celebrates both causes indifferently. It approves the invasion of Belgium and the sinking of the Lusitania by the same act and in the same degree that it approves the men whom Harvard pretends to be proud of--her automobile drivers, soldiers and aviators, who died in true and eternal glory fighting for the right against wrong.

This monument is an insult to god. It will be an enduring memorial to the shams of Harvard and to nothing else. It was voted by the corporation on November 27 after mature deliberation, in the face of apposition from outside the board and in spite of requests for delay.

The action of the corporation was taken by a solemn, specific, legally binding resolution which will oblige the monument t be built unless the corporation by some act s solemn, as specific, and as legally-binding shall rescind the resolution and return the money already raised to the subscribers. --JOHN JAY CHAPMAN,

Harvard is raising a monument to students of the university who have fallen in the European war, honoring them all alike as worthy sons, regardless of the side on which they fought; and to most graduates of the college this has seemed the fine and noble thing about the memorial. It was alma mater's loving and unquestioning tribute to the brave youth she had nurtured.

But this point of view, it appears from the communication of John Jay Chapman printed elsewhere, is wholly false and deceptive. Instead of being Harvard's glory, the monument is a "memorial to hr shame" and likewise "an insult to God," all because "it makes no distinction between the cause of the Allies and the cause of Germany." Harvard's mistake, it seems, is in honoring the valor and self-sacrifice of her sons as Harvard men only and without drawing the line between valor that was pro-Ally and valor and devotion merely pro-German.

It is conceivable that motives equally patriotic may have inspired the Harvard youth who have served in the German ranks; and if military fame were awarded solely on the basis of purity of ideals, there would be fewer monuments to greatness. But certainly Harvard's historic memorial to her sons who died in the Civil War was not erected on a foundation of partisan bitterness, and there is no reason why the college should show itself untrue to its traditions in its present tribute to student bravery.

Perhaps it is better to leave God out of the matter, for Mr. Chapman's definite knowledge of God may be no more authoritative than the Kaiser's. Yet it is curious to discover something of the old atmosphere of witch-hanging intolerance in the objection of a Harvard graduate to a Harvard memorial to student heroism under any flag.   --New York World.