Daily Digest of Public Opinion on Jewish Matters

[The purpose of the Digest is informative: Preference is given to papers not generally accessible to our readers. Quotation does not indicate approval.–Editor.]

Criticism of the Jewish Congressmen in Washington for their failure to unite on the immigration question and to agree on one immigration bill, is voiced by the “Forward” of Jan. 17. The paper especially takes to task Congressman Jacobstein of Rochester for his immigration bill which, the paper fears, will be made use of by the enemies of immigration as a compromise that will do the immigrants little good.

“It is deplorable,” writes the “Forward”, “that our Jewish Congressmen who should stand together and work hand in hand in this matter, are far from being united. Immigration is a sore problem for the Jews, and some Congressmen are introducing bills on this subject whether they are necessary or not, just so as to get publicity at the expense of the unfortunate wanderers.

“We are referring especially to the bill introduced a few days ago by Congressman Jacobstein. The bill demands that only citizens should have the right to bring over their parents, wives and children under 21 years outside the quota. As regards those who are declarants, and there are more than 35,000 of them, they must continue to be separated from their families. This bill can do much harm and certainly very little good. If an ameliorization is needed for the admission of relatives, it is especially needed for those who came here recently and have not yet had an opportunity to bring over their wives and children. As for citizens there are few of them whose wives and children and even parents are still on the other side. A citizen can, under the present law, bring over his wife and children under 18 outside the quota; children over 18 have the preference in the quotas of their respective countries. Most likely there are few citizens who would profit by these ameliorizations in the immigration law.

“Congressman Jacobstein’s bill would therefore do very little good, even if it were accepted; but it can cause a lot of harm: the enemies of immigration seeing that there is a sentiment to humanize the immigration law, will jump at this bill as a compromise, and in consequence the immigrants will gain next to nothing.”

A similar criticism of the Jewish members of Congress was made recently by S. Dingol, managing editor of the “Day” (see the “Day,” Dec. 20.) Having interviewed all the Jewish Congressmen on the question of immigration, Mr. Dingol wrote:

“On Monday, Dec. 7, the day when Congress opened its sessions, all the Jewish Congressmen introduced bills aiming to improve the position of the immigrant.

“The impression this made upon me was of a race on the part of our Jewish Congressmen to see who could get into the newspapers first for having introduced a bill. Our Congressmen are quite practical men and nearly every one of them knows how small the chances for the passage of such bills in the House and Senate are.

“Why are they doing this? Why are they in such a rush with their bills?”

Mr. Dingol asserts he did not get a satisfactory answer to this question from the Jewish Congressmen, as each one of them felt convinced that only his own bill had a chance of being adopted. Mr. Dingol says he found the answer when he spoke to other people in Washington.

“Our Jewish Congressmen,” he tells us, “have a human weakness–they are hungry for publicity.

“This is the truth of the matter.

“I am firmly convinced,” Mr. Dingol concludes his observations, “that if our Jewish Congressmen desire to do something for the immigrant–and I have not the slightest doubt of their good intentions–they must have an able leader who would make them see their present chaotic work and force them to corodinate their work and create harmonious action amongst them.”

JOSHUA CHANKIN, REDEEMER OF PALESTINE SOIL

The development of the recent Chalutzim movement in Palestine was made possible through the courage and single-mindedness of one man, Joshua Chankin, called “the redeemer of the soil of Palestine,” we learn from an editorial which appears in “The Daily Jewish Courier” of Chicago.

For the past thirty-six years, it is pointed out, Chankin has devoted himself to “the task of purchasing, piece by piece, the land of Israel for the people of Israel.” He has been the agent not only for the Zionist Organization, through the Palestine Land Development Company, but also for Baron de Rothschild.

“But one purchase,” we are told, “with which Chankin will forever be associated is the purchase of the Emek. Without the approval of his associates in the Palestine Land Development Company, he himself assumed responsibility for the initial contract for the purchase of the Emek, which is now the center of a bustling colonization under the auspices of the Keren Hayesod. With his own promissory notes he paid for the option and then faced his directors with an accomplished fact. Our readers will recall that when the Emek was purchased, all concerned were criticized. But whatever the criticism, it is generally admitted that it was Chankin’s courage and single-mindedness that made it possible for the Zionist movement to acquire the Emek and to develop the Chalutzim movement of recent years. This act was characteristic of the man. He is obsessed by one ideal. He believes that it is possible for the Jewish people to acquire a major part of the arable land of Palestine, and that he himself is destined to achieve this end.”