D O C S . 2 5 7 , 2 5 8 J A N U A R Y 1 9 2 0 2 1 5 final either, in my opinion. All the same, Grebe and Bachem base their conclusions not only on their own observations but also on those by Schwarzschild and by Ever- shed and by St. John, although the latter diverge somewhat from the others from an as yet unknown cause.[7] In heartily thanking you and the other colleagues there for your fine offer, I am, with best regards to you and your wife,[8] in warm admiration, yours, A. Einstein. 257. To Heinrich Rausch von Traubenberg Berlin, 12 January 1920 Dear Colleague, I answer your letter only today because I was constantly waiting to receive an official inquiry from Stuttgart, which would have allowed me to take your side.[1] Up to now, though, no such inquiry has come to hand. I cannot resolve to write there on my own initiative it would be in your interest, too, not to advise such ac- tion, which could easily be construed as presumptuous. The investigations that you are planning on homogeneous canal rays interest me very much. Connected to the solution of this experimental problem is, of course, a test of the influence of velocity on frequency as demanded by the theory of relativ- ity.[2] In wishing from my heart that you soon obtain a secure position, I am, with am- icable greetings, yours. 258. To League of German Scholars and Artists [Berlin,] 13 January 1920 Highly esteemed Sir,[1] With reference to your inquiry of the 10th inst., please refrain from listing my name on the roll of the Panel for Arts and Sciences for the Border Fund.[2] For this is a matter directly connected with the foreign policy of the German Reich, and since I am a Swiss national, it would not be appropriate for me to actively partici- pate in it.[3] With utmost respect.