ing of the A. A. U. next December in New York. There was nothing I could do after this decision.”
Despite strenuous protests from the American Jewish Congress, Samuel Untermyer, Alfred E. Smith and leaders in the world of sports, Charles L. Ornstein of New York, Jewish member of the American Olympic Committee and delegate to the A. A. U. convention, who was a leader in the action of last year condemning Germany’s “violation of the Olympic and sportsmanship codes,” did not fight for this issue this year and was instrumental in having the subject quashed by the fourteen Jewish delegates to the convention. He was leader of the Jewish contingent and it was due to his actions that the matter did not reach the assembly for a vote.
On behalf of a group of delegates from all sections of the country, Mr. Ornstein released this statement; “Much has been written and said concerning this (Jewish) subject, all the delegates being fully conversant with the facts and conditions upon which the conditional acceptance of Germany’s invitation has been made.
“For the best interests of amateur athletics, it is felt by those responsible for the furtherance of the A. A. U.â€”whose aim is to insist that all athletes receive a square deal regardless of race, creed or colorâ€”that the matter of participation in the Olympic games in Germany Not Be Further Discussed At This Time. (Capitals ours.)
“Between now and the time of holding the Olympic games in 1936 further consideration may be given to this important matter, providing further developments warrant. In the face of the Pittsburgh resolution adopted last year, which is still a matter of record and still in effect, and in view of the promises made by Germany to the president of the A. A. U. and the American Olympic Association, it is sincerely hoped that these promises made by Germany, upon which the conditional acceptance of the A. O. C. was based, will not be disregarded or violated.”
BRUNDAGE UPHOLDS STAND
Ornstein’s statement that the case can be reopened and American acceptance withdrawn, if considered justified by developments, was backed by Avery Brundage, American Olympic Committee head.
The Bulletin further learned from unimpeachable sources that Jeremiah T. Mahoney of New York State, was backed by Ornstein as the new leader of the A. A. U. Justice Mahoney was elected to the presidency of the national sports body only after Brundage, head of the A. A. U. for six years and anxious to retire, had been assured that the Justice had the unanimous support of the New York delegation and that his (Brundage’s) program would be carried out.
Mr. Ornstein, as a member of the New York delegation, knew that Brundage’s policy included acceptance to the 1936 Berlin games. However, Justice Mahoney was elected and the question ### was not brought out on the convention floor.
According to officials of the Amateur Athletic Union, the resolution adopted by that body in 1933 condemning the discrimination of Jews in sports and urging the American Olympic Committee not to accept the Reich invitation to the 1936 Berlin games still stands. It is to this end that the American Jewish Congress in a letter signed by its president, Bernard S. Deutsch, to Jeremiah T. Mahoney, newly-elected president of the A. A. U., requests the national sports body to set up a board of review for the purpose of establishing, through a day-by-day record, the extent to which Germany is keeping her promises of equal treatment to the Jews in the Olympics. These facts will serve as a basis for action by the 1935 convention of the A. A. U.
DISAPPOINTED ON STAND
Two very pertinent questions are asked of Justice Mahoney in this communication.
The letter, exclusive to The Jewish Daily Bulletin, follows in part:
We in the American Jewish Congress have followed with considerable interest the deliberations of your Miami convention, and I must confess, in behalf of my associates and myself, a keen sense of disappointment that there should have been no review of conditions in Germany as they affect Jews in sports….
There are a number of matters which the public should like to have clarified in connection with American participation in Olympics, as it was handled by the Miami convention.
If the resolutions of 1933 stand, why did the convention consider it proper to withhold from the delegates the evidence presented by responsible organizations in a position to know most accurately conditions in Germany?
What assurance is there that the entire subject will be reopened in 1935, in the light of the precedent in Miami in 1934?…