The Division Of Persia.

New York Times 100 years ago today, September 27, 1912:
Reader Likens England's Attitude to Our Canal Policy.
To the Editor of The New York Times:
    The Times editorially and good-humoredly condones England's apparent acquiescence in Russia's plan to divide Persia by saying that interference would be "disastrous to interests far greater than any involved in Persia." This is a tacit admission that in the division of Persia other interests may be considered than the most altruistic ones, and you rightly look upon such a situation as a commonplace of international politics.
    Why, then, does the American press throw up its hands in holy horror at the thought of the United States acting primarily with a view to its own interests in the Canal Zone? In one case we have Great Britain and Russia jointly depriving an entire civilized people of its right to liberty and self-government, and the comment of the press is mildly commendatory. On the other hand we have a nation earnestly striving to protect its own interests, without seriously interfering with those of any other, and there is weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth,
    Let us give up our sanctimonious attitude with respect to international politics. The morals of nations have not yet advanced to the point which has been reached in the ethics of the individual. In this year of grace 1912 a nation's rights still extend to whatever it can get. Let us take advantage of conditions as they actually exist. Let us at least be consistent, and cease to wear sackcloth and ashes for an American misdemeanor, while charitably overlooking a dozen English felonies.
             CARL SCHLOSS.
        New York, Sept. 23, 1912.