[The purpose of the Digest is informative. Preference is given to papers not generally accessible to our readers. Quotation does not indicate approval.–Editor.]
Comments on the Ford-Sapiro trial appear in numerous papers, Jewish and non-Jewish, throughout the country.
Arthur Brisbane, who is known to be a close friend of Mr. Ford’s, gives his opinion in his column “Today” in the New York “American” of Mar. 26. Mr. Brisbane regards the trial as a personal issue between Ford and Sapiro and thinks that no matter how the trial ends “it will not mean much,” adding:
“If the jury decides that statements in the Ford newspaper were libelous and gives damages to Mr. Sapiro, that will not settle anything except one individual case.
“If the jury decides that Mr. Sapiro is not entitled to damages, that will prove nothing. Ford is one individual Gentile. Millions of other Americans are not bound by his views and do not share them.
“Mr. Sapiro is another individual, and millions of Jews engaged in helping to build up this country will not be affected or bound by any decision regarding his case.”
The opposite view is held by the “American Israelite” (Mar. 24) which emphasizes that “notwithstanding the supreme efforts of Ford’s counsel to make it appear that Sapiro is merely a self seeking individual, acting for himself and his own benefit, Ford has been brought before the bar of public opinion for final judgment in a matter in which he has repeatedly been condemned and discredited–the unwarranted and baseless defamation of the Jews as a whole.”
A similar attitude is voiced by nearly all Jewish papers. Thus, the “Jewish Exponent” of Philadelphia (Mar. 25) feels that “the elimination of the Jewish issue from the trial will not eliminate it from the minds of the people, no matter what the results of the present trial may be.”
Likewise the “S. A. J. Review”, organ of the Society for the Advancement of Judaism, stresses that the barring of the Jewish issue from the trial “will not blind anyone to the actual truth of the case. Legally, Henry Ford may be slandering and damaging one Jew. But by his reckless statements he has sown such hatred in thousands of breasts that the whole Jewish people has been exposed to danger.”
The “American Hebrew”, commenting on the “N. Y. Times” editorial urging Ford to take the stand and tell the truth, ventures the assertion that “Mr. Ford failed to rise to his great opportunity; that he neither justified his anti-Semitic screeds nor retracted them. We offer the guess that, under the guidance of his incomparable array of legal talent, he hid behind the technicality which, as Senator Reed claims and Judge Raymond ruled, excludes from the present case the major question of Ford’s hate-provoking, anti-Jewish charges.”
An almost identical expression is contained in the “Daily Jewish Courier” of Chicago, which believes that even if Ford will appear in court to testify he will seek to evade the real issue with the assistance of legal trickstry furnished by his counsel.
The “Jewish Daily Eagle” of Montreal has this to say:
“Despite the efforts of Senator Reed, in trying to make the issue purely personal between the litigants and in declaring that there is no racial issue, the trial must still have only this larger significance for the general public. Ford’s attacks were chiefly directed against the Jew, and only by way of illustration against those individuals whom he singled out for his attention.”
The Newark “Jewish Chronicle” expresses itself thus, in part:
“The people of America owe it to their self-respect and safety to watch the proceedings of the trial to note how the mountebank has hired scribblers to malign the Jewish people, insult the country and jeopardize the welfare of the nation by attempting to array group against group, with nothing but falsehoods, insinuations and hatred as the basis of his charges and indictments.”
The “Buffalo Jewish Review” sees the articles of the “Independent” on which Sapiro libel suit is based as “but a chapter in the venomous arraignment of a whole people.”
The “Jewish Forum” (New York) thinks the Jewish issue is paramount in the case and criticizes Senator Reed’s disclaimers on this score. We read:
“Senator Reed, like everyone else in the world, knows that the only issue involved is that of anti-Semitism. 388 paragraphs out of 400 in his first brief, in which no mention of the word Jew appeared, were stricken out as insufficient. In his later reply to the libel charges, he was compelled–whether he wished to or not–to make repeated mention of the word.”
A dissenting opinion is put forth in the “Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle” which finds that the Jewish issue has been eliminated and “the Jewish people are not on trial.” The paper explains its view as follows:
“Whatever the verdict the jury will find for or against Aaron Sapiro will be no vindication or condemnation of the Jewish people as such. With the issue of the case narrowed down to the proof of Ford’s charges against him and the cooperatives the case has no greater legal significance so far as the Jewish people are concerned than any other civil action brought by an individual Jew as a citizen.”
The “Springfield (Mass.) Republican,” relating Sapiro’s association in New England, says:
“The growers were not delivered into the hands of scheming Jewish bankers; the financial institutions supporting the association have been in the main the same that the farmers have dealt with individually, not always to the advantage of the banks. The troubles that finally caused a suspension of co-operative activities were due to friction among Yankees.”
The “Newark (N. J.) Star-Eagle” of Mar. 23, observes:
“Though agents of Henry Ford have charged Aaron Sapiro with having abused opportunities to aid cooperative marketing in the West, Mr. Sapiro, it is disclosed, has been engaged in the same kind of work in the East, and in a manner that has won him commendation.”
The “Cincinnati Post” carries an interview with Sapiro by Alfred Segal, editorial writer of the paper, wherein we read:
“Aaron Sapiro was asked today, ‘If you won the million dollars for which you are suing Henry Ford, what would you do with it?’
“He answered: ‘After reimbursing myself for the expenses I have incurred in this trial, I would distribute the remainder among colleges and scholarships for orphan boys who desire to learn cooperative marketing. Thus the money of Ford would be dedicated to a fine purpose–to the very cause he has attacked.'”
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
