When Mr. Gibson, in an official report to the State Department, denied [the existence of]Polish pogroms against the Jews, adding that, to his knowledge, there occurred only in Pinsk and Vilna, "certain incidents" (a new diplomatic expression meaning persecution of the Jews), we immediately stated that Mr.A. Gibson, who arrived in Warsaw toward the end of last winter, could not possibly [be in a position] to know anything about these bloody pogroms. In other words, his statement was "spoken through his hat."

Now along comes Mr. Louis Marshall with a statement in which he upholds in essence what the Courier stated editorially immediately after Mr. Gibson sent in his report to the State Department: "For one familiar with Polish affairs, this assertion, accredited to Mr. Gibson, is simply astounding. He apparently spoke in complete ignorance of the facts."

This is the judgment of Mr. Marshall on Mr. Gibson's "famous" report which 2deceived all classes of the population and which must have amazed President Wilson because he is in possession of concrete details of these Polish pogroms. There are Jewish Newspapers which impatiently demand that the Senate shall not ratify Mr. Gibson's appointment. They come forth strongly against the American Ambassador in Poland. While we condemn Mr. Gibson's actions no less severely than other Jewish newspapers, yet we cannot understand this campaign against the personal political career of Mr. Gibson, because we believe that any other person in his place could have done no better. Under no circumstances can we expect an Ambassador in a strange country, in this case Poland, who is always surrounded by Polish officials, to be able to see what is happening today in Poland in regard to the Jews. Even if he should have the opportunity to learn of everything taking place now in Polish towns and villages, we still challenge historians to show us when an Ambassador has ever sent reports to his government about certain events. The English government has always had complete reports of the pogroms in Russia, but did not make them public because they would have placed the English Ambassador in Petrograd in a very uncomfortable position.

As long as a diplomat is in contact with the government to which he has been appointed, he will look, listen, and say nothing. To everything he will answer, "I do not know." Only when circumstances are such that a war with his own country is imminent, will he, at the command of his government, step forth in open speech.

This refers to the diplomat who is well-informed of conditions in the country to which he has been assigned.

But we claim that Mr. Gibson knows nothing, and cannot possibly know anything of what is happening in Poland. He learns nothing from the Polish press because of the strict military censorship which does not permit a word about the pogroms to be printed. The American Consulate in Poland is not yet organized. As long as there are no American Consuls in the Polish provinces, the Polish Ambassador can have no consular reports of events in these provinces. Polish officials who circle around Mr. Gibson will certainly not hurry to the American Ambassador with news of the Polish slaughter of the Jews and of the pogroms.

We may surmise though, that Mr. Gibson is a great friend of the Poles. Otherwise he would not be the American Ambassador to Poland, and as their friend, he will certainly do nothing that will compromise the Polish government. If he should today receive strict orders from the State Department to make a new investigation, nothing would come of this either. At best, he would report that irresponsible mobs, which the government cannot control in its weakened condition, make these attacks on the Jews. At any rate, his report would be so worded as not to compromise the Polish government. Besides, he owes his position to the confidence the Polish government has placed in him.

Taking everything into consideration, we do not wonder that Mr. Gibson "talks through his hat," since under these circumstances anyone else in his position would do likewise. We warn our readers not to depend on Mr. Gibson's second report of the present investigation. This second report may give more positive facts than the first, but it will not compromise the Polish Government.

An Ambassador in a pogrom-ridden country, especially when that country is in a state of chaos, is not the person to make an objective report. It is important that we understand this so as not to be disappointed, or to display any political naivete.

Not only the American Ambassador in Poland but even Jewish social workers in America--for example, the representatives of the various Jewish Relief organizations in America--cannot issue facts regarding the pogroms because it may hinder the Jewish Relief work in Poland. Should they issue the facts they possess, the Poles would raise a loud cry that American Jews use Relief Work for anti-Polish agitation.

Nevertheless we are thankful to Mr. Marshall for his statement regarding Mr. Gibson's report, since it weakens the impression made by the report, and it may be responsible for a new investigation being made. Yet we cannot see the need of a personal attack or campaign against the political career of Mr. Gibson. Instead we must make the American people understand 6that they cannot rely on these reports. If we should today instigate a personal campaign against Mr. Gibson, we will gain nothing and lose much. The Senate will pay no attention to our protests, and if, regardless of our protests, Mr. Gibson's appointment is approved, then he will become our bitterest enemy. It is unnecessary that this be so.