New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-01-11
A TOURIST IN RUSSIA REBUKED
Mary Impressions After SxWks Soourn Denounced
Native That Country Utterly Absurd and Misleading
Observations Not Only Superficial, but Inaccurate

drafts or acceptsnces. II is true. however
that checks are not as commonly used IN
Russia Tor private and personal transactions
as they are employed here. The story Of the
payment in cash OF 10000 rubes. which she
claims was given her by an american &C
Guaintance of hers in Russia" and which was
related 10 me by the same American &C
quaintance" ms one OF his personal expert
ences simply shows that this American &C
quaintance" selected the Clumsiest method
possible.
Miss Brush states that q foreign corpora
tion cannot operate IN tho Slavic country
unless it is organized as q Russian COM
pany The lady is wrong again. Under the
foreign joint stock company laws o. the
Russian Empire such corporations are recog-
nized and protected by the Russian law, and
their rights are fully defined b. the various
statutes Of the empire and the commercial
conventions CT treaties entered into between
Russia and the respective other powers I'M
der the laws Of which the foreign corporation
may have been created. I have time and
time again looked up this question Of law
and know Of my own knowledge that quite a
number Of American companies are doing
business in Russia. and enjoy the protection
Of the laws Of the empire. although the
United States AMI Russia was abrogated sew
eral years ago, on the initiative Of this coun-
try The Russian government. irrespective
Of the abrogation Of this t-oaty. has taken
no steps to jeopardize the rights OF Ameri-
can companies and has let things remain in
statu quo ante Foreign companies. under
certain conditions. even are allowed 10 hold
real estate for business purposes.
Miss Brush's nasty remara about the pay
ment of 1000 rubles and the obtaining of 2
receipt for but 500 rubles, if true, surely
raises the question whether the bride giver is
any less delinquent morally than the bride
taker.
Miss Brush's frst two articles on Russia,
which appeared in THE Saturday Evening
Post" have been read by NE out OF Curl
osity. These articles were only inaccurate;
the article published in the last Sundays
issue OF your paper s both inaccurate and
vicious.
assert again that Mary Isabel Brush ia
absolutely disqualified to pose as an author
ity on Russia and Russian conditions, and
regret that truthful and accurate reports on
Russia that have come from the pens Of such
writer's as Stephen Graham, r. c. Long
Stanley Washburne. Gregory Mason. Isabel
F. Hapgood and others have been trespassed
upon by the yellow and firpsnt reportorial
efforts Of Miss Brush. I regret that her
article has found a place IN the columns OF
your valuable paper, which heretofore. timc
and time again, has given It's powerful sup,
port toward true understanding OF Russian
art, Russian music and Russian literature
,nd which. az the time Of II. russian Bazaar
which was held in New York City in April
Of last year, and with which the wr<cr va,
connected as one OF he prime movers. gave
us Russians and our American friends It's
incalculable aid through its columns.
VICTOR F. GARTZ.
New York Jan. & 1916