American Jewish Congress Appeals to World Public Opinion Against Mistreatment of Jews in Roumania

(Jewish Daily Bulletin)

The American Jewish Congress will lend its support to the continuation of the fight of East European Jews for the protection of the rights guaranteed under the national minority treaties.

A call was sent forth to the enlightened peoples of the world to protest against the mistreatment of Jews in Roumania.

The appointment of a commission to study the proposed American Jewish national community chest and to survey the present day conditions relating to the subject of migration was decided upon, and unanimous approval given to the Weizmann-Marshall accord concerning the formation of the Jewish Agency.

These were the outstanding decisions of the American Jewish Congress, which closed its session here Monday night.

Dr. Stephen S. Wise was re-elected president of the Congress. Dr. Wise declared that he accepts the nomination only on the understanding that he would not be asked to serve again after this term expires in January, 1928, in view of a decision of the Congress to hold its next session at that time.

RESOLUTION ON ROUMANIA

The resolution on Roumania unanimously adopted by the Congress read:

“Whereas the attention of the civilized world has of late been directed toward the reports which have issued from Roumania in regard to the maltreatment and persecution of the Jews of that country, and.

“Whereas these reports, which have been repeatedly authenticated, indicate that a wide-spread terror is being practiced against the Jews of that country, that frequent assaults are made on their life and property, that the foulest and most slanderous propaganda is being spread against them and that their rights, guaranteed by a solemn treaty above the signature of the Roumanian government are being consistently flouted and ignored, and.

“Whereas the Roumanian Government has failed to meet the situation by punishment of criminals connected with these outrages and by the suppression of the criminal propaganda deliberately calculated to instigate such outrages, now therefore be it.

“Resolved by the American Jewish Congress, in session assembled at Washington, D. C., on February 21st, 1927, that the Jews of American utter a solemn protest against the Roumanian Government for its failure to protect the life and property and the reputation of its Jewish citizens and for its refusal to put into effect the provisions of the international guarantees relating to the rights of the Jewish citizens of Roumania and accepted by the people of Roumania in the year 1919, and be it further.

“Resolved that the American Jewish Congress, in session assembled, call upon the enlightened peoples of the world to express their indignation and horror at these violations of the first principles of freedom and justice, and be it further.

“Resolved that the American Jewish Congress in session assembled, empower its duly elected officers to take whatever steps they may deem advisable to give effect to the foregoing resolution.”

DESCRIBES SITUATION

In urging the adoption of this resolution Leo Wolfson, president of the United Roumanian Jews of America, described the Jewish situation in Roumanian.

Mr. Wolfson stated that his organization was not fighting Roumania nor the Roumanian people. “In fact,” he said, ” only the sound sense and intelligence of the Roumanian people has prevented them from becoming poisoned by the continuous violent anti-Semitic propaganda which is being carried on in their midst.” He also repudiated the charges and insinuations of the Roumanian Government and its Minister at Washington that a campaign of persecution against Roumania is carried on by the Jews.

“For the last four years there have been anti-Semitic excesses against the Jews in Roumania,” Mr. Wolfson continued. “They have been almost continuous, with very short respite. They manifest themselves by demonstrations against Jews on the streets and in public places in the cities. Bands of students and thugs parade, shouting vile names, beating, maiming and maltreating Jews. They break the windows of Jewish shops and houses and rob and pillage their contents. They desecrate synagogues. On several occasions they have not spared even cemeteries. They have gone into them, broken up the tombstones and otherwise disturbed the graves.

“The treatment of the Jewish students of the Roumanian universities is in itself a shameful and barbaric chapter that has no equal anywhere in the world. The recent events at Cernauti, where a Jewish student, David Falik, was murdered in a court of justice while on trial for a misdemeanor in connection with some student uprisings, the excesses which have taken place in Chisinau, Calarasi, Bucharest and other cities, have attracted the attention of the Jewish violent and atrocious character but there was nothing new about the policy which made them possible.”

DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY FOR EXCESSES LAID TO ROUMANIAN GOVERNMENT

Mr. Wolfson charged the Roumanian Government with direct responsibility for the present state of affairs by allowing these excesses against the Jews as well as the poisonous criminal activity on the part of the anti-Semites to go on unmolested and unpunished.

Mr. Wolfson was followed by Solomon Sufrin, who charged the Roumanian government with the intention ” to defeat and deprive 1,000,000 Jewish citizens of their equal political rights provided in the constitution,” He submitted to the Congress Roumanian newspapers and leaflets which openly incite to pogroms.

Judge Gustave Hartman, president of the Independent Order Brith Abraham, made a plea that the American government intervene on behalf of the Jews in Roumania. “Even though the United States is not in the League of Nations,” Judge Hatrman said, “this Government can now do for the Jews of Roumania what Americans did for the Jews of Kishineff years ago.” He cited a number of instances where the United States government had intervened with other governments in behalf of oppressed peoples.

Jacob de Haas declared that the method of protest was inadequate Roumania had evaded carrying out the obligations imposed by the Berlin Peace Treaty of 1879 and all protests have been in vain. The American Jewish Congress ought to devise new means for handling the Jewish problem in Roumania, he declared.

Rabbi Schoenfeld, former chief rabbi of Transylvania, who recently came to this country, appealed for a commission to be sent to Roumania in order to investigate the Jewish situation. While Christian commissions have gone to Transylvania, Jews abroad have failed to attempt proper investigation, he said.

B. Shelvin introduced a resolution charging the executive committee to cooperate and consult with other bodies for the protection of the Jews in Roumania. After a discussion which at times became heated, a resolution was adopted in which the Executive was empowered to cooperate and consult when it sees fit with other organizations abroad. A. Hirsch insisted that no obligations be placed on the Executive to cooperate with other Jewish organizations in the United States as a proper and adequate handling of this problem could be expected from the American Jewish Congress.

COMMISSION TO STUDY NATIONAL COMMUNITY CHEST PROPOSAL

The Congress went on record as being unwilling at this time to accept the plan of establishing a national chest for all Jewish funds and institutions. The resolution adopted calls for the appointment of a special commission to make a comprehensive study of the plan and to report its findings and recommendations to the Executive Committee or to the next session of the American Jewish Congress.

The resolution read: “Resolved that the American Jewish Congress appoint a special commission for the purpose of making a comprehensive study of a plan for the establishment of a financial agency for the budgeting of funds for all Jewish institutions — philanthropic, cultural, etc.–in the United States and foreign countries–and power to report their findings and recommendations to the Executive committee, or to the next American Jewish Congress.”

The resolution was adopted after a heated debate following a paper read on this subject by Jacob de Haas at the request of the American Jewish Congress.

JACOB DE HAAS OPPOSE PLAN

Mr. de Haas, who took a strong stand against the proposed plan, stated in part.

“On November 14th a meeting was held in New York City of men representative of many Jewish organizations for the purpose of discussing the organization of a National Jewish Charity chest for the United States. This discussion rose out of a rather simple proposition. Seven Jewish organizations have been studied with a view of grouping their financial interests but as the discussion progressed it became clear that perhaps three groups of the Jewish public welfare interests of the U. S. might be established and eventually the idea not yet fixed, evolved of creating one great nation-wide Charity Chest of American Jewry, covering American Jewish charitable interests throughout the world.

“There is an excellent argument in favor of any such project. There are too many appeals and the appeals cost much money. If it is argued we can systematize the giving and systematize the spending there ought to be some saving of time, energy and money. One should be able to do more with less effort. Yet I have the courage, perhaps the foolish courage, to submit to this congress the proposition that the idea is not a wise one and that the ends sought might be harmful to the welfare of the Jews of this country and elsewhere,” Mr. de Haas declared.

” I present this conclusion to this congress because I believe that when the American Jewish Congress was founded its organizers had in mind exactly that principle which animated Theodor Herzl when he called the first Zionist Congress and that was to create a tribunal before which each one of those interested in the welfare of the Jews might give an account of his stewardship. The first objection that I register against this project is the result of the observation of what has been in process since 1917. With each succeeding year there has been less and less of a public accounting of the stewardship of the organizations who made a public appeal for funds. Organizations do publish balance sheets but most of those that I have seen are so vague and general that those who are seriously interested in such matters can obtain very little information from them. The idea has been spread and it has gained tremendous strength that there is so great a virtue in raising money that we must unquestionably accept the dictation of the money raisers. We must bow before the doctrine: the campaign justifies the cause.

CHARGES AUTOCRACY

“A year or so ago a number of us thought that a certain policy was wrong. The mere fact that we had an opinion not agreeable to the money raisers was regarded as something criminal and recently a public apology was made by a third party for our heterodoxy. Some of us decline to be apologized for, and the only apology we will make is a confession of error if time proves we erred. I do not propose to stress this incident because it is merely an amazing proof of the presumption of autocracy that has come to prevail in our midst,” he said.

“There is no quarrel in my mind with the motives that guided the organization of many of our institutions and I think there is no one here who wants to quarrel even with the motives that guide this attempt to organize a National Chest. But I think the time has come when we must recognize that there is something in life more important than an artificial silence created by a revamping of the old idea you scratch my back and I will scratch yours.’ There is something appeasing in the idea that if you raise no objection to my yeshiba I should raise no objection to your school of radicalism. But that appeasing programme leaves the Jews opinionless. If we have no opinion we have no interest, and that way lies disintegration. And, therefore, it is well to consider that not only do we raise here the question of the right to public opinion which this method of mass campaigning for funds destroys but that by the creation of however well meant a trust we shall be leading the Jews of the U.S. however kindly and mildly, to destruction. Every autocracy claims to be benevolent; every bureaucracy claims to be efficient. But against both there has always been this rebellion; we prefer to eat the hard bread of our own contriving to your pre-digested food served on uniform sized platters.

“I believe that if in the last five years we had not developed amalgamation of effort and mutual cooperation some institutions would have died. But I think if we look at the facts coldly and detachedly that is exactly what should have happened. In the proposed list of institutions that are to come within the scope of this scheme the probabilities are some others would under normal circumstances die, and if they did many of us would probably be inclined to think that they have outlived their usefulness,” he declared.

FEARS “DEAD HAND”

“This illustrates another phase of the clamping down that is involved in this well meant project. Every institution within the charmed circle will have its allotment. The mechanics of charity thus become more important than either the righteousness involved in Zedoka, or the actual need for institutions. I am brutal enough to believe that if the public refuses to finance certain cultural causes it is because at the bottom it does not believe in those causes. This plan involves unconsciously the maintenance of things that perhaps have had their day. The ‘ dead hand’ of bequests is bad enough; this creation of a new ‘ dead hand’ merits at least serious consideration.

” I am speaking here with a great deal of caution because I am conscious that we have become so used to the autocratic benevolence of a benevolent autocracy that to name institutions and to suggest that perhaps their day is done would be to shock people. We must come back slowly to our right to free expression of opinion otherwise we she” merely be charged with exercising personal animus. Institutionalism is a fine thing until it makes us its slaves. What is involved in this project is exactly, on a much larger scale and to a finer degree, what has been in process for five years or more,” he said.

“The power of the purse has not only dominated public opinion but has made it appear that opinion is useless. The vast mass of givers are told to give–the appeal is always in the name of suffering. Who can refuse ‘bread for the living and a shroud for the dead’? Yet every now and then some of us have qualms–we fear that what is being provided is ‘ a shroud for the living.’ Not because anyone so wills or wishes it but because with the aid of all these funds the fate and the future of Jewry is being decided–without the consent of Jewry. It is hard for us assembled here to admit that the course of Jewish philanthropy in America has affected the policy and the development of the Jewish Congress movement. We barely dare acknowledge the patent truth. Equally sure is the fact those who are raising money will not admit that they are exercising pressure, preventing free discussion and formulating by the mechanics of charity the fate of Jewry. They will maintain that they are merely ‘ selling’ the idea of giving freely and that as it is hard to make men give up every possible argument merely adds to ‘ sales resistance.’ This borrowed Rotarianism is familiar. I contend that by this means we are selling more than the idea of giving, we are selling the idea of life itself as far as great masses are concerned and that you are stamping on the intangible future of unknown millions the world ‘sold.’

DANGERS OF CONCENTRATION

“The sweet reasonableness of it all should not conceal the underlying mischief inherent in such ideas. Detroit has, it is true, shown the world how to manufacture innumerable tin lizzies per annum at the lowest cost to manufacturer and purchaser. But I doubt whether we want a world of Jewish automatons and ourselves merely the partially skilled silent workman standing at the side of an endless assembling conveyor. Yet that is involved in this plan whether its organizers know it or not. Under the beautiful and pacifying terms ‘quota’ ‘allotment’ and ‘budgeting’ Palestine. Russia, Poland, Hebrew, Yiddish, agriculture, culture, all sorts of problems will be apparently solved financially. Then what? The Congress may shut up shop–initiative, personal interest, and public discussion will disappear. ‘Money talks.’ It will be the only sound and all thought will be concentrated on campaign devices. Opinion, policy, will be in the hands of the five or six men who will decide quotas, allotments and budgeting–men to whom when they meet on this business, ideas are of less importance than the adjustment for the time being of claims that very often have nothing more substantial behind them than faith in an idea. And we, the givers, shall properly tell the rare evolver of a new idea: go to the Chest for an appropriation, why bother me.

“I presume that those who want to organize this Chest are not thinking so far as that. They merely content themselves with saying: lets regulate the distribution; let us try to get one hundred cents on the dollar of use; that is a very plausible argument but these arguments do not sound so dine when you realize that the only part you are expected to take in Jewish life is giving and that to be noble and fine and raised in public esteem you must not even ask for what you are expected to give–a world of Jewish yes men.

“When I say that this programme leads to destruction I am not trying to overstate the case. I can point to more than one community where the machine system has been applied; where order and peace, acquiescence and silence have been established; where the wheels were greased in 1870 or earlier. The well adjusted parts carefully lubricated, have continued to move ever since. Beautiful mechanical motion but not life. The vitality has gone out of such Jewries. Do we wish to imitate them?

DEMOCRACY VS. MONEY

“I am going to say something, that in the mind of money raisers may sound absurd. It is this. We Jews of American electrified the Jewish world in 1918. Not by our money contributions but because we created an American Jewish Congress and presented a picture of an immense democracy thinking, striving and urging. We may consider the past policies today good or bad but the decision at the Peace Conference which created the minority rights and the decisions of the San Remo Conference which ratified the Palestine Mandate were not achieved by money but by democratic action and public decision,” he declared.

“I venture the opinion that there is nothing more important in Jewish life than a free discussion of everything that concerns our existence. There is no question in my mind too delicate to be discussed and there is no question on which we will not get better judgment and more tolerance of opinion than if we keep up discussion, strive and urge competition.

“And in this respect and upon this very issue I submit that this Congress should endeavor to initiate a policy that would bring this movement back to its original purpose and prevent the creation of undesirable oligarchies and bureaucracies. We want to keep the expert on tap but not on top, we need to give each individual a reason for being interested and examining his own mind as to what really are his interests in Jewish life.

” I would like to see this congress call for the democratic election of delegates representing Jewry, hold public sessions for a week at a time if necessary, give every important Jewish institution its place on the program, demand from each the fullest accounting of its stewardship and from year to year decide such problems as involve priority of claim upon the good will and support of the community. I am not talking of a packed invitation conference, but of a really democratic institution, a really parliamentary gathering, where we should in friendly form critically examine reports and where the shaping of the policy which decides the fate of the Jews would be dealt with as tenderly and as reverentially as is natural to those to whom Jewish life is a sacred thing. Our fathers did not call charity Zedoka without intent. They tried by the use of this other word to bring into giving two thoughts–righteousness, a holy act, and humility, without which there is no righteousness and therefore no Zedoka, so as to raise the recipient to a standard of equality with the giver. These fine sentiments are worth millions. They have produced more than millions of dollars can produced. I urge you to reflect, particularly in view of our ever growing wealth, on the wisdom and desirability of putting into the forefront the ideals that represent our existence. We should not lightly permit them to be suppressed and crushed even by the most perfect piece of machinery that can be devised in order to save us individually the trouble of everything but the writing of checks,” Mr. de Haas stated.

CRITICIZES DE HAAS’ VIEWS

Baruch Zuckerman (Poale Zion) denounced Mr. de Haas’ opposition to the national chest. The American Jewish Congress, the speaker claimed, should be more concerned about its own positive action than in opposing the proposed actions of other bodies. The Congress should not try to prejudice the public against the chest by terming it a trust. A chest will be created even if the Congress arrives at an unfavorable decision. What is necessary, he declared, is that the fraternal orders which are affiliated with both the American Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Committee should once and for all decide with which one they desire to be affiliated. Those who stand with the Congress ought to subject themselves to the decisions of the Congress.

The chairman drew the attention of the speaker to the fact that his time was up. Mr. Zuckerman protested but on appeal to the session, a vote decided against his continuing.

A motion introduced by Jacob Fishman to table the resolution on the community chest was defeated.

Abe. Goldberg declared it is wrong to oppose the unification of all funds. He spoke in favor of the resolution to conduct an impartial investigation of this question and criticized Mr. de Haas for having offered a definitely partial viewpoint on the subject. Mr. de Haas’s paper, the speaker claimed, had brought confusion instead of clarity on the subject. By a majority vote the discussion was terminated and the vote on the resolution taken.

PROPOSE NATIONAL DIRECTORY ON ORGANIZATION

The organization report, submitted by Judge Gustave Hartman, proposed the appointment of a national directory on organization, under whom there would be formed Jewish Congress Councils in all Jewish communities throughout the country. A national drive for membership in the Congress would be promoted through these councils, it was announced.

A resolution demanding the modification of the immigration law to enable the uniting of separated families and for a study of present day migration conditions was referred back to the committee after protracted debate led by Jacob Fishman who based his objection on the ground that the language terming the present law ” un-American” was too antagonistic.

Congressman Dickstein reported on the status of the immigration legislation, expressing hope that the bills now pending which would modify the law to some extent will be passed before Congress adjourns on March 4.

Mr. Fishman further declared that the resolution should not take up the question of whether or not there is a shortage of labor in American industries, declaring that the Congress should not express an opinion which does not directly relate to the Jewish immigration problem. He also asked Judge Sanders, who presented the resolution, whether it was directed against the Emigdirekt. Judge Sanders replied that the resolution was not intended against any particular organization and whatever action will be taken will be in cooperation with existing bodies both here and abroad.

Mr. Shelvin pleaded for cooperation with other bodies. Congressman Dickstein voiced his opposition to the Perlman-Wadsworth amendment providing for the admission of 35,000 wives and children of declarants. He said that there are 186,000 persons in Europe who have heads of their families in the United States.

Mendel Fisher of Boston urged the Congress to go on record against any restriction of immigration. The immigration question has become a political issue and must be dealt with as such, he stated.

Bernard G. Richards pointed to the need of a survey of migration conditions as there is not sufficient information available with regard to the existing laws and possibilities of migration and a systematic study of all conditions and facts would prove of great value.

Congressman Dickstein took issue with Mr. Fishman, claiming that nothing will be obtained if we do not try for what can be gotten. The resolution was adopted after having been amended by the committee. Congressman Nathan D. Perlman and Congressman Meyer Jacobstein participated in the discussion.

RESOLUTION ON IMMIGRATION

The resolution as adopted read:

“Your committee on immigration begs leave to report that they have very carefully read the report of the executive committee submitted to this session of the Congress, relative to immigration laws as these affect the American people, generally, and the Jews and other persecuted peoples, particularly.

“The committee recommends that this American Jewish Congress approve all actions of the executive committee in opposing legislation which unreasonably restricts immigration, and in demanding modification of the present immigration law, which is restrictive in its conception, inhuman in its operation, subversive of all cherished American ideals which from time immemorial have made American stand out as the ‘Big Brother’ of all the oppressed and persecuted peoples of the earth.

“The law, which on the one hand permits the father and head of the family to enter the United States, and on the other hand prohibits the family from joining him after he has established a home for them, is unjust and inhuman and therefore unworthy of our country.

“Many efforts have been made to eliminate the harsh features of the present immigration law by making it possible for the wives and children of citizens and declarants to enter the United States, but thus far, without avail.

“There is now pending in Congress Senate-Joint Resolution No. 82, which gives but slight relief to the families affected but which nevertheless ought to be passed in the few remaining days of the present Congress. This resolution is not and cannot in any sense be considered as a cure of the evils caused and occurring under provisions of the present law. It is our hope that the next Congress will so modify this law to the end that the problems of immigration be solved in the true American spirit of ‘Justice to all and favors to none.”

“We recommend that the executive committee of this Congress be authorized and empowered to take any and all actions necessary to arouse the conscience of the American People to the end and with the view of bringing about the enactment of immigration legislation which will enable our country to extend its hospitality to the down-trodden and persecuted peoples who come here mentally and physically able and willing to work out their salvation in conformity with and in obedience to the laws of our land.

“The problem of immigration is as old with the Jews as is its dispersion after the first fall of Jerusalem. Our people have always been compelled to seek a haven of safety from political, physical, moral, and economic persecution; ever wandering and ever seeking a place in the sun and home to rest.

“The adoption of restrictive immigration laws by the countries in the eastern as well as in the western hemispheres has made that problem more acute now than it has ever been before. Where shall the Jew turn? Where shall he go? Which country will receive him? Which country will absorb him? In which countries can he live as a human being and be treated as such? These questions must be answered, and we know of no greater function that this Congress can perform than to appoint a commission to make a full and complete survey of the economic conditions and legal restrictions existing in the various countries of the world, with a view to furnishing authoritive and reliable information to the Jewish wanderer. We recommend that the executive committee of the Congress, with the aid of interested and cooperating organizations here and abroad, appoint such commission, who shall undertake to make a survey of exact present-day conditions relating to the subject of migration.”

DISCUSSION ON JEWISH AGENCY QUESTION

The resolution on the Jewish Agency was unanimously adopted without debate. A request made by Dr. Wise to Louis Lipsky, who presided at this part of the session, that the vote be postponed until Mr. Isaac Gruenbaum, who was at that time absent, would have an opportunity to speak on the resolution was overruled by Mr. Lipsky when a delegate drew the attention of the chairman to the fact that the vote had been called for before Dr. Wise’s request and therefore parliamentary procedure precluded granting this request. In the last moments of the session, following the election of officers, Mr. Gruenbaum spoke on the Jewish Agency question, voicing his opposition to the plan, and declaring that the agreement meant the capitulation of the Zionist Organization “before non-Zionist notables.”

Mr. Lipsky took issue with Mr. Gruenbaum, pointing out that “it would be impossible to win friends for the cause of Palestine among influential Jewish circles, if we were prejudiced against them.” Mr. Zuckerman, Reuben Brainin, Mr. Rubaschow and Dr. Rabelsky took part in the discussion. The resolution on the Jewish Agency read:

JEWISH AGENCY RESOLUTION

“First, In view of the fact that at its first historical session, the American Jewish Congress gave its endorsement to the aim of the Zionist movement, and subsequently adopted resolutions urging upon Great Britain to accept the Mandate for Palestine, under which that land was to be administered for the purpose of establishing the Jewish National Home.

“Second, And in view of the fact that the American Jewish Congress at all times has given its whole-hearted support to the efforts of the Zionist movement to awaken the consciences of American Jewry to the responsibilities involved in the redemption of Palestine;

“And in view of the further fact that the American Jewish Congress has repeatedly given endorsement and encouragement to the Keren Hayesod and the Keren Kayemeth;

“The American Jewish Congress greets with satisfaction the Weizmann-Marshall agreement in accordance with which the Jewish Agency has provided for in the Palestine Mandate and the recognition of which has been sanctioned, and all resolutions adopted at the Zionist Congress have been extended in order to include within the responsibility for the establishment of the Jewish National Home, and representation for non-Zionist groups in American Jewry in order that they may too participate in the responsibilities for the upbuilding of the Jewish National Home in Palestine.

“The American Jewish Congress expresses the hope and desire that the Jewish Agency may be further strengthened by provisions for inclusion within its responsibilities of all non-Zionist groups both here and abroad in order that the Jewish Agency may become an effective instrument for the redemption of Zion through the cooperative forces through the whole house of Israel.”

A financial report was submitted by Mr. Benjamin Winter.

NEW ADMINISTRATION CHOSEN

Mr. Mitchell of Philadelphia brought in a resolution asking for a separate vote on the election of the Executive Secretary. His use of the term “paid official” was severely criticized by Dr. Wise, who expressed indignation against the recently expressed approbrium of paid officials. Does a man who happens to make $100,000 a year in his commercial enterprise and who devotes a few hours to communal work deserve more honor than men who give their entire lives, their talents and ability to the Jewish community? he asked.

The motion that a separate vote be taken with regard to the election of the Executive Secretary was defeated. The administration list was accepted enbloc.

The Vice-Presidents elected were: Judge Gustave Hartman, Louis Lipsky, Judge Julian W. Mack, Dr. A. J. Rongy, Carl Sherman, Mrs. Archibald Silverman, Max D. Steuer.

The Honorary Vice-Presidents are: Reuben Brainin, Rabbi Barnett H. Brickner, Prof. Chaim Fineman, Jacob Ginsburg, Mrs. Richard Gotheil, Sol C. Kraus, Judge Aaron J. Levy, Judge William B. Lewis, Rabbi B. L. Levinthal, Solon J. Liebeskind, Rabbi Hirsch Masliansky, Judge Jacob B. Moses, Rabbi Dr. Louis I. Newman, Judge Hugo Pam, Nathan D. Perlman, Capt. Julius Peyser, Ely Rosenberg, Judge Leon Sanders, Dr. D. B. Steuer, Adolph Stern, Elihu D. Stone, Miss Henrietta Szold, Samuel Untermyer, Benjamin Winter, and Leo Wolfson.

George I. Fox was elected Treasurer and Bernard G. Richards, Executive Secretary.

To the Executive Committee were elected: Benjamin Antin, Samuel Augenblick of New York; S. Apfel, J. P. Adlerman; Benjamin S. Applestein, Baltimore; Isidore Appel; Dr. S. Bernstein, Samuel Blitz, Louis Brodsky, New York; Maurice A Bleich, Youkers; Sol. Bloom, New York; Miss Elizabeth Blume, Newark; Reuben Brainin, Meyer Brown, J. A. Bockstein, Albany; Max Blumberg; Dr. Elie Berger, Joshua Bell, Providence; David Bernstein, St. Louis; Mrs. Alex Burman, Brookline, Mass, Mrs. J. L. Baron, Boston; Samuel Barnel, New Bedford; Morris E. Barison, Jersey City; Rabbi Human Brodsky, Newark; Louis Braines, Perth Amboy; Rabbi Philip Bernstein, Rochester; Oscar Berman, Cincinnati.

Isaac Carmel, Emanuel Celler, Dr. A. Coralnick, Samuel Capian of New York; A. B. Cohen, Seranton; Edward Cohen, Cambridge, Max Conheim, Chicago; Mrs. Emil Crockin, Baltimore; Louis A. Cohen. East Orange, N. J.; P. Caruso, Jacob de Haas, Morris Dlugasch, Samuel Dickstein, New York; Bernard S. Deutsch; Max Darefsky, Wilmington; Philip Diamond, Paterson.

Max Eckmann; Adolph Edlis, Pittsburgh; S. C. Eldridge, San Antonio; Samuel Epstein, Chicago; William S. Evans; Jacob Fishman, Morris Florea, New York; David Freiburger; Nathan Freedman, Taunton, Mass; Louis E. Feingold, Worcester, Mass; Mouis E. Feiberg, Detroit; Joseph Friedman, Youngstown; Armin H. Friedman, McKeesport, Pa.

Louis Germain, Mrs. Richard Gottheil, New York; Jacob Ginsburg, Philadelphia; Rabbi S. Goldman. Cleveland; Abraham Goldberg. S. Goldstein. Dr. George. L. Gordon, Minneapolis; Harry Grayer, Charles Green, Meyer Greenberg, Chaim Greenberg, Anton Gronich, Leon Goldapple; Aaron Garber, Cleveland; D. L. Gourse, Fall River; Samuel Galis, Lynn, Mass; N. S. Goldstein. Springfield, Mass; Harry Goldowsky, Jersey City; Meyer Goldberg. Elias Gottfried; Samuel Goldstein, Brooklyn, N. Y.

Isaac Hamlin; Harry Harriton, Buffalo; Jacob Heckman, Washington; Rabbi Max Heller, New Orleans; Abraham Hirsh, Philadelphia; Max Hollander, J. L. Horowitz, Emanuel Hertz, M. Halevi, Moses H. Hoenig, Brooklyn, N. Y.; Louis N. Jaffe. New York.

Nathan D. Kaplan. Chicago; M. Katz, Sol C. Kraus, Gilbert J. Kraus, Philadelphia; Prof. Gustave Klausner, St. Louis; Dr. George A. Kohut, New York; Dr. Joseph Krimsky. Brooklyn, N. Y.; M. Kruskal, Harry T. Kellman, Baltimore; Max Kaplin, Fall River; Jacob Klein, Miss Sarah Kussey, Newark; Max Krich, Vineland, N. J.; H. J. Kahn, Alazar Kushner, Ephraim Kaplan, Benjamin Koenigsburg, A. D. Katcher, A. S. Kanengeiser, Newark; Arthur M. Lamport, Dr I. H. Levinthal, Louis E. Levinthal, Martin O. Levy. Philadelphia.

Harry Liebowitz, New York; Louis Lande, I. Montefiore Levy, Mrs. A. D. Lubarsky; B. Lorie, Lancaster; Lippa Levin. Indian Harbor; Max Levy. Brooklyn, N. Y.; D. Lowenkron. Max Levy. Staten Island, N. Y.; Mrs. N. R. Lindheim; Charles Lipshutz, Philadelphia; Max Luria, Reading; Dr. S. Margoshes, New York; Morris Margulies; Max I. Mydans, Samuel Markewich, Boston, Julius Meyer; Harry Mottsman, Mt. Vernon; Harry J. Max, Jersey City; L. A. Medinetz, Perth Amboy; Jacob B. Mitchell, Philadelphia; Philip V. Marcus, Providence; M. Magilowitz. Oil City, Pa.; Max Moshewitzky.

Emanuel Neumann, New York; Lester Nusbaum, Rochester; Morris Neaman, Pittsburgh; Harry L. Nachman, Newport News: Miss Gertrude Oppenheim, Boston; M. L. Oscar, Canton, O.; David Podolsky. David Podell, Louis S. Posner, M. L. Pinansky, Portland, Me.; Jacob Poleviski, Newark; Morris Polsky; A. I. Poland, Charleston, W. Va.

Louis Rimsky; Henry Rocker, Cleveland; J. Rudovsky, Dr. David Rabelsky. Herman G. Robbins, Harry Roggen, Sidney Rosensweig. Nathan Rosenthal, Hartford; Adolph Rosenthal. Hartford. Adolph Rosenbloom, Philadelphia; Mrs. Sol Rosenbloom, Pittsburgh; Benjamin Rabalsky, Boston; S. J. Rosensohn, Heyman Reit; Harry M. Seidenberg. Philadelphia; L. Segal. David Shapiro, B. Shelvin, Benjamin Shepard; Morris Shapiro, St. Louis; Mrs. A. Silveman, Providence; Robert Silverman. Boston; D. W. Simons, Detroit: Dr. Mordecai Soltes, New York, Rabbi Leon Spitz, New Haven; Harris Sussman. Mt. Vernon; Isidore Solomon. Gloversville; Mrs .M. Steinhorn, Buffalo; Michael Stavitsky, Newark; L. Shapiro, Portsmouth, N. H.; J. L. Simon, Salem: Bernard L. Shientag. Samuel Spring, David Surditz, Robert Szold, Abraham Simon, Cleveland; M. J. Slonim, Rabbi Samuel Sale, St. Louis; Milton Strasburger, Washington; Coleman Silbert, Boston; Rabbi Julius Silberfeld, Newark; Max Silverstein, Alexander Selkin, Max J. Schneider, Mendel Shapiro; Rabbi Norman Salit, Far Rockaway. N. Y.; I. A. Swiss, Piltsburgh; Dr. J. I. Steinberg. Solomon Sufrin. Herman Speier. Abraham Speirer. Maurice Samuel, New York; Louis O. Sobel, Chicago.

Dr. J. Tenenbaum, Israel N. Thurman, Benjamin Timan; Joseph L. Tepper, Washington; Z. Tygel, New York; William Trawrig. Waterbury; Mrs. J. S. Ulion, Detroit.

Philip Wattenberg. Meyer W. Weisgal, New York; Moe Werbelosky, Samuel Weinstein, David H. M. Weynberg. Nathan Zvirin. B. Zuckerman; Ida Wilensky. Savannah; S. L. Webb, Boston; Charles Warner, St. Louis; Charles J. Weiss. Philadelphia; Jacob Zuckerman, Cleveland; B. Ziv, Portsmouth, N. H.

Congregation B’nai Abraham of Philadelphia, Pa., will honor Rabbi Julius Silberfeld next week on the completion of his twenty-five years of service as its leader.

Addresses by Govenor Moore and Acting Mayor Howe, representing the state and city; Albert Hollander, president of the congregation; Louis Benatar, president in 1902, when Rabbi Silberfeld Became rabbi of the Congregation; R. W. H. Cruse, deputy grand master of Masons of the state, and by Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver of Cleveland, O., will be delivered at the celebration.

Michael A. Stavitsky will preside.