Daily Digest of Public Opinion on Jewish Matters

(The purpose of the Digest is informative: Preterenes is given to papers not generally accessible to ### reagers. Quotation does not indicate approval–Editor.) Clemency to Libeller of Max Warburg Criticized By German Press

The action of the Court of Appeals in Hamburg in reducing the sentence imposed by the lower court on Theodor Fritsch, anti-Semitic editor of “Der Hammer,” who libelled Max Warburg, the German Jewish banker, from three months imprisonment to a fine of 1,000 marks, on the ground partly of his old age, has aroused the indignation of that part of the German press which is not anti-Semitic.

The “Voessiche Zeitung” of Berlin remarks ironically: “The Hamburg judges have consideration for youth as well as for age. The voelkisch editor who accused Cardinal Faulhaber of treason to the country was shown elemency for his extreme youth, while Herr Fritsch was shown clemency because of his great age. And both had “a justified interest” as the reason for their unrestrained libelling.”

The “Berliner Tageblatt” points out that while Herr Warburg expressed his wish that Fritsch be pardoned because of his age, the Appeals Court had no right to modify the verdict of the lower court. Moreover, the paper shows, statute 193 on which the Court of Appeals based its decision was inapplicable in this case. Statute 193 declares abusive criticism of works of art are not punishable as such criticism is in the public interest, and by analogy, the “Berliner Tageblatt” says, the statute is applicable to the field of politics, but it cannot apply to cases where the personal honor of individuals is libelled.

“Can the partly vicious, partly absurd libels of Herr Fritsch really be classed with that “criticism of outstanding personalities which is in the public interest,” as the Court held?” the paper asks. “That the accusers (Warburg and Melchior) had the desire to keep the old fool out of prison, is human and can be understood. This modification of the verdict of the lower court, however, means holding out a promise of clemency for future libellers.”

SAYS JEWISH MOTHER’S ATTITUDE TO DEATH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOW MORTALITY OF JEWISH CHILDREN

That the difference in reaction on the part of the Jewish and non-Jewish mother to the idea of sickness and death is one factor in the lower death rate of Jewish children in New York’s East Side than that of the children of any other section of the city’s population, including Fifth Ave. and Riverside Drive, as revealed by the report of the Board of Health, is the opinion of Dr. A. Zeldes, in the “Forward” of Feb. 6.

The reason that the Jewish East Side constitutes an exception as compared with other crowded sections, the Italian, Irish, etc., is explained by Dr. Zeldes in the following way:

“The Jewish mother is concerned with her child’s health more than other mothers. Every medical practitioner knows from personal experience that the Jewish mother sends for the doctor without delay. She does not wait till the child becomes seriously ill. The best doctor is not too good for her and frequently she will pawn her last possession to get one.

“It is quite different with our Christian neighbors, particularly of the poor class. They have a more ‘philosophical,’ one might say a more ‘fatalistic’ attitude to sickness. ‘It it is his fate to live, he will live. . . . They say about their child and send for the doctor too late. . . This is not due to less love for her child on the part of the Christian mother. Mothers are the same, whether Jewish or Gentile, they all love their children. It seems to me it is due to the fact that the Jewish mother has a different reaction to death. The Jewish mother is terribly afraid of death. She knows and feels instinctively that all ends with death. The Christian mother has less fear of death. She is convinced that after death, the real life begins. . . . she is more religious, more believing than the Jewish mother. The average Christian mother is deeply convinced that her child goes to the fold of Jesus, she is convinced that the child is ‘better off’ there and that she will meet him there when she dies. . . The Jewish mother, even when she is religious and believing, is, unknown to herself, not altogether certain. . . . Why this is so is a question that has to do with racial psychology.”

The directors of the American Palestine Bank, Ltd., Tel. Aviv, announced the liquidation of the Bank. A signed statement in the Hebrew press assigned responsibility for the bank’s position to the former management. All depositors and creditors will be paid in full, the statement declared.