The Chicago Record-Herald published for one entire week, beginning Nov. 21, comprehensive articles from Bohemia by its special correspondent William E. Curtis. Mr. William Elmer Curtis is a journalist of note. He was born in 1850, at Akron, O., has written several books on Spain, America, Russia, Venezuela, and other countries, has been director of the Bureau of the American Republics, and the head of the department for Latin-America and the Section for History at the Chicago Columbian World's Fair. This secured a great many readers for him. In his letters from Prague Mr. Curtis said many flattering things about Prague and the Czechs. Simultaneously, however, he penned many an incorrect item on Bohemian history and on present Bohemian life as well. Evidently, while in Prague, he was caught in German tentacles. The Bohemian-American Press Bureau feels it incumbent upon itself to make at least the most necessary corrections. It was, for us, impossible to cover every point which would have required several articles, and which the English language 2papers might not have accepted. The statement, which has been worked out by Dr. Vojan, the director of the Press Bureau, was sent, with a letter of recommendation from Mr. Vopicka, to the Chicago Record Herald, and at the same time to The Minneapolis Journal at Minneapolis, Minn., where Mr. Curtis' articles had been reprinted. The Record-Herald has so far failed to publish our statement. The Minneapolis Journal published the statement in the second section of its Sunday edition of December 25, verbatim, as near as we could gather from the copy, mailed to us by the editor of The Minneapolske Noviny, Mr. F. R. Matlach. The statement takes up two entire columns of close print. The article, under the headline "Some Comments on Curtis' Letters from Bohemia," runs as follows:

For the past 14 days Bohemian-Americans have been following daily, and with great interest, the articles sent to the Record Herald and The Minneapolis Journal by their European correspondent Mr. William E. Curtis; they came from the capital of Bohemia, our beloved "centi-spired 'mommy' Prague." We have read with gratitude his words of regret that Prague, 3which in some respects is unique among the towns of Europe, is not well enough known among American tourists. Count Luetzow makes the remark in his book Story of Prague (London, J. M. Dent. 1902) that "in dropping a stone from a window one is throwing out a part of history." And it is not only a part of history of Bohemia, but it is even a part of the history of Central Europe.

The situation has taken a turn for the better in the course of the last year. The esteemed traveler Burton Holmes, spent six weeks in Prague and Bohemia last summer, and his lectures, delivered in the fall in Chicago and other American cities, shall disperse many prejudicies, and shall more favorably introduce Czechs to the Americans. The American reader is being made very thoroughly acquainted with the present cultural development, the history and ethnographic features of Bohemia, the land whose daughters and sons, like Emmy Destinn, Karel Burian, Alfred Mucha, M. J. Korbel and others, are well known to art-loving America. Two excellent books are serving this end: Bohemia by Count Luetzow, doctor 4of jurisprudence of Oxford University, (Everyman's Library, New York, E. P. Dutton), and Bohemia and the Czechs by Will S. Monroe (Boston, L. C. Page). And last but not least, the articles of Mr. Curtis, who is an unusually gifted observer, would equally tell to the American reader many a thing entirely new to him about Bohemia.

The Chicago and the Minnesota Czechs are therefore very grateful for Mr. Curtis' instructive articles.

It is not my intention to find fault with minor errors which crept into the vivid picture drawn by the esteemed writer. I merely want to point to those few of a more weighty significance.

In the historical part, Mr. Curtis tells us that in the Husit wars "the Czech aristocracy sided with the Reformation party, and the peasantry remained faithful to the church." The reverse is true, and I am dissenting, because, as Luetzow writes, "the time of the Husit wars was the time of the greatness of the Czechs, and, at the same time the period when alliances 5between Bohemia and England were frequent and strong, proved by the fact that John Wyklif's influence was greater in Bohemia than in his native land." These wars, which made of Bohemia mainly a husitic country for over two centuries, are a brilliant manifestation of sterling democracy. The peasants and the populace of the smaller towns leaned preponderantly towards the Taborits. Zizka, their famous leader, who never lost a single battle, and his small, but well disciplined soldiery, defended the religious reformation, and annihilated five crusading expeditions sent against the Czechs by the Popes. The nobility was divided into two sides: One, together with the populace of Prague, belonged to the Conservative Husit party - the "Calice Party" - the other stood by the Roman Catholic church. Monroe, therefore, wrote correctly "The Calice party finally formed the aristocratic party, represented by the university and the city of Prague. The Taborits on the other hand sided with the democratic party, comprising the common people of the villages and small towns."

Mr. Curtis further finds very peculiar the fact that the University of 6Prague was separated into a Czech and a German section. His information, aside from this, that there are two universities under one rector and a single academic senate, is not correct. The division of the university and the creation of an independent Czech university was an indispensable requirement of the Czechs. The Germans and the Czechs are two totally different nations. The Germans belong to the Germanic race. The Czechs belong to the Slavonic race. The languages have nothing in common, and therefore anyone will comprehend that even if there were no race struggles existing - Czech science and literature could not develop successfully under bilingual tuition. Just as American universities cannot be other than of the English tongue, so the Czechs must have a Czech university. Both universities, the Czech and the German, have independent administrative staffs, only the library being common. The increasing number of students at the Czech university, and the decreasing number at the German university, show best which one is the natural need for the Bohemian country. In the school year 1904-1905, the Czech university had 3,924 students, the German only 1,520, among whom many were not, perhaps, from Bohemia or the other Austro - Hungarian countries, but from the German 7Reich. The Austrian government treated the Czech university as a step-child. Mr. Curtis is mistaken when he thinks that "the Czechs would, no doubt, refuse to accept help if it were tendered by the Imperial government." On the contrary, the Czechs have been calling for help in vain. One month ago the students of Professor Vejvodsky, went on strike because the lecture halls and the laboratories cannot hold one-half the number of students. Only by such means can the government be induced to provide for better accommodations. Mr. Curtis supposes that the Prague university has not regained the influence and renown it enjoyed before the Husit Wars. As a doctor of jurisprudence of the University of Prague, I am able to defend my Alma Mater against this contention. The Czech university, as it is today, numbers among its professors just as great scientists as any Austrian, German or French university, I shall cite two names only: Prof. Thomas Garrigue Masaryk, who is well known in a country even as far away as America - he took his middle-name from the maiden-name of his wife, a born New Yorker - and Professor Vejdovsky, who is an honorary doctor of the University of 8Cambridge. The former is a great philosopher and sociologist, the latter a famous biologist. Professor Monroe says, on pge. 153, "The Czech part of the university ranks among the foremost seats of high learning in Europe, whereas, the German part has decreased in numbers as well as in academic significance to the grade of second rate institutes among the German universities." -

As to ethnographic designations, Mr. Curtis uses the word "Austrians" for the Germans in Bohemia. The Germans in Bohemia are "Germans," not "Austrians" by any means. Austrians are only Germans, who live in Upper and Lower-Austria. But the inhabitants of the Austrian part of the Austro-Hungarian empire have no name in common. In that territory there live Czechs, Germans, Poles, Italians, etc., and therefore, we can speak only of Czech, German, Polish, Italian and other languages and literatures. The subject is similarly expounded in the book Our Slavic Fellow Citizens by Emily Green Balch, (New York, Charities 1910, page 12).

But my main objection is concerned with Mr. Curtis' opinion that in the nationalistic struggle in Bohemia "provocative behavior is almost always on the Czech side." If I wanted to claim most convincingly that the reverse is true there might be a chance reader, who would think: "Well enough, - but he is a Czech, how can I believe him?" For this reason I will quote an American, Prof. Will S. Monroe, who says in the preface to his work as follows:

"If the writer did not picture the acclimatized foreigners in brilliant colors, it is for the reason that he did not see in the Bohemian Germans dignified representatives of their race. The author spent two years as a university student in Germany and has only the friendliest feelings for the Germans and for the German empire. But he feels compelled to admit that the Bohemian Germans form only a not very likable offshoot of the German race." That may suffice. Professor Monroe spent many months in Bohemia, he knows the truth: the Czechs, who are the primeval inhabitants of Bohemia are fighting only for equal rights with the German minority.

There are seventy-two per cent Czechs in the country, twenty-three per cent Germans, five per cent Jews. There is no more serious error possible than when Mr. Curtis writes that the Czechs hold the control of their political affairs completely in their hands, and that the Imperial power is felt in foreign affairs, in tariff-policy and matter of military nature solely. This is a misunderstanding. In these three spheres the unity of the Austro-Hungarian dual-monarchy becomes evident; they do not, by any means, constitute a link between the Czechs and Austria. The centralized parliament in Vienna is, as a result of the Austrian system governing elections, composed into such shape that the Czechs cannot expect from it anything like justice; the provincial parliament of Bohemia is almost merely a joke; the Imperial government is more or less inimical towards the Czechs. The best illustration of the conditions in Austria is furnished by the fall of Badeni. This prime minister issued an edict in the beginning of the year 1897 according to which every Austrian government official who wants employment in Bohemia must, from a fixed date, demonstrate a certain knowledge of both the Czech 11and the German languages. This meant merely equal rights, although the ratio between the Czechs and the Germans is 72 to 23. Nevertheless, the order evoked violent reaction from the Germans in the parliament in Vienna, and caused the fall of the cabinet of Count Badeni in the autumn of 1897. The order was then rescinded, and when the Czechs were not willing to patiently suffer the provoking demonstrations by the German students in Prague, the government punished - not the Germans, but the Czechs! Prague was placed under martial law Count Luetzow wrote in the closing pages of his book Bohemia, the following words on the present premier, Baron Bienerth: "The attitude of the present president of the Austrian cabinet is more antagonistic towards the Czechs than that of any one of his predecessors." Even though the Bienerth cabinet is defunct today there is no hope for the Czechs to obtain justice and to come into their equal rights, at least not in the near future. The Germans, deriving aid and comfort from the German empire, and being pampered by the dynasty of German origin feel their own strength, and are troublemakers, ever and again provoking 12the Czechs in their own country. This, then, is the real truth.

Mr. Curtis also writes on the exclusively Czech street signs in Prague. Well! Prague has ninety per cent Czech inhabitants. Is there any injustice in the signs not being in German? There are only ten per cent Germans in Prague. New York has, according to the census of 1900, a German element amounting to 322,343 souls. Why, then, are the street signs of New York not in German? We have, alas, not only in Bohemia more than enough of that German stuff! So, for instance, all of the English and American writers use translations for the names of genuine Czech towns. Professor Monroe, who uses Czech designations exclusively, writes about this point: "The American and English readers would feel on strange ground if they were to meet with names like Venedig and Mailand, instead of Venice and Milan, in English books on Italy; and for the same reason they ought to rise in protest against Kuttenberg 13and Wartenberg for Kutna Hora and Sedmihorky in books on Bohemia. Mr. Curtis also writes about "Altstadt" and "Neustadt" in his book on Prague. Why? He admits himself, indeed, that Prague is a Czech town. He should, therefore, write "Stare Mesto" and "Nove Mesto," or in the English translation "Old Town" and "New Town."

All of these remarks do not, of course, detract from our esteem for Mr. Curtis, whose articles have been heartily welcomed by the Czech public.