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.]

The complaint that the present administration in Washington has not appointed any Jews to important political posts, is made by S. Dingol in the “Day,” in the course of an article in which he voices the opinion that Jewish influence in American politics is declining.

“It is a disgrace,” writes Mr. Dingol, “that there is not even one Jew in the United States Senate, despite the fact that according to the proportion of the Jewish population in the country the Jews are entitled to at least three Senators.

“Our political influence shows tendencies of becoming weaker rather than stronger. It is no secret how our cabinet is constituted. The appointments are made with a view of satisfying various elements and sections of the country. We had a Jewish cabinet member during Roosevelt’s administration; during Taft’s administration we had a Jewish ambassador to Turkey; during Wilson’s administration one Jew was appointed to the Supreme Court and another was made ambassador to Turkey. Even in Harding’s administration a Jew was appointed diplomatic representative to Persia. But under our present administration not one Jew was appointed to an important post.”

NORMAN HAPGOOD ATTACKS TACTICS OF CONGRESSMAN JOHNSON

An attack on the tactics of Chairman Johnson, of the House Immigration Committee, is made by Norman Hapgood, former Ambassador to Denmark, in a despatch from Washington, D. C. to the New York “American” of April {SPAN}###nd.{/SPAN}”On July 1 we start in on a new plan of fixing the quota. It may be a sound plan, or it may be a snobbish and foolish one. My point is that it was slipped into a bill after it had reached the stage of conference and was never discussed,” Mr. Hapgood charges.

“Chairman Johnson, of the House Committee on Immigration, was the statesman who accomplished that feat,” we read further. “He is now busy accomplishing another. It is to introduce registration of aliens without having anybody realize that it is being done. It is to give a bunch of inspectors power over the opinions of as many people as possible.

“He has been holding some scrimpy hearings on the immigration bills and bullying any witness who does not say what he wants said, so obviously that even a member of the committee was led to protest.”

OPPOSES “COMPULSORY CHAPEL”

The continuance of “compulsory chapel” at American colleges and universities, is regarded by the Chicago “Daily Journal” (April 1) as “out of tune with the whole theory of American life.”

Referring to the argument of the authorities at Yale that chapel should be continued because it builds up collegiate solidarity for the students to assemble frequently, the paper contends that while it may be for the best interests of every American college to gather the students together at stated intervals, “it would help greatly if in further discussion a clear distinction should be made between compulsory religious worship, for which nothing can be said, and college secular assembly, for which many arguments can be advanced.”

NATIVE STOCK, IMMIGRANTS AND THE PROBLEM OF CRIME

To attribute the problem of crime, as it exists throughout the country today, to the floods of immigrants who come and settle here is neither an accurate nor a constructive solution of the problem, asserts Sidney Hillman, President of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, in a statement to the New York “American” (April 3).

“The criminal personnel, as it from day to day becomes known through one crime after another,” Mr. Hillman explains, “represents a complete cross-section of the American population, from our native stock to the most recent of immigrants. The discovery of the source of this criminal disease and the course of the contagion has so far been a matter of little more than fruitless speculation.

“The root of the matter, if there is one, is much more likely to be found in the tendency of the many educational and Americanizing agencies to pay tribute to the form and letter of American institutions and to forget their spirit.”

“DOAR HAYOM” CRITICIZES ROSENWALD

The failure of Julius Rosenwald and Gimbel to visit Palestine recently when they were in Egypt, in the course of a world tour, is commented on by the “Doar Hayom,” (March 5), Palestine Hebrew paper, which writes:

“At the same time that Baron Felix de Manassah of Egypt left the Egyptian luxuries and proceeded for a pleasure trip and rest to Galilee, at the hot springs of Tiberias, the ‘magnificent place,’ as he called it, two Jewish millionaires of America, Julius Rosenwald and Gimbel, arrived in Egypt. Apparently they are busy with Tutank-hamen in Luxor and cannot therefore fatigue themselves for a day or so to visit Palestine. Apparently they cannot give of their money for Palestine as well as for the negroes in Chicago and Egypt. It is possible that our friend Rosenwald is afraid of coming to Palestine lest he be reminded of his pledge made before the war to subscribe the amount of $25,000 for the erection of a People’s House. At that time a magnificent reception and much noise was made in his honor, as is the custom here…”

JACOB P. ADLER

With Jacob Adler passes the heroic age of the Yiddish Theatre, declares the New York “Times” (Apr. 2) commenting editorially on the death of Jacob P. Adler, the noted Jewish actor.

“Whether or not his King Lear ranked with the Othello of Salvini and the Hamlet of Edwin Booth, as Leo Ditrichstein has declared, it unquestionably belonged to the same great school,” the paper writes. “Thirty years ago the folk of the east side ‘Ghetto,’ for the most part immigrants lately arrived, lived in the cultural atmosphere of Middle Europe. Inexperienced in metropolitan life and for the most part untouched as yet by American sophistication, they combined a primitive simplicity and strength of emotion with vigorous, if naive, intelligence. In the technique of the theatre they were Victorian, but in nature and spirit Elizabethan. They laughed and wept and cheered, not only unashamed, but with joy and pride in their emotions. To this folk Adler brought a drama as primitive as themselves, touched with a broadly human sympathy and illumined with moods of nobility.”

The “Forward” points out that Jacob Adler’s talent came to its full development in New York. “He came here,” the paper says, “with fine artistic powers, but they were crude powers. It was only after he came here that he found his first real opportunity and the first forceful influence. This was necessary in order to open higher roads to his acting qualities. He was here about thirty-five years and it can be said that during thirty of these years he stood out as one of the biggest figures in our theatre world.”

“Had Jacob Adler played on the general stage he would have made his mark and been set down as among the greatest of tragedians,” avers the “Jewish Daily News.” “Those who witnessed his Shylock in ‘The Merchant of Venice’ when he first played it in the old American Theatre will remember his triumph. Surrounded by an English-speaking cast he thrilled the vast audiences that thronged to the playhouse to see him. The roles be created have been essayed by others but the Adler tradition stands forth as the finest effort.”

Through his role on the Jewish stage, the “Jewish Morning Journal” points out, Jacob Adler played also an important role “in a cultural development which makes his name conspicuous in the history of Jewish culture of the age in which he lived and worked.”

The “Evening World” observes:

“Jacob Adler lies dead, in this city of his greatest triumphs. He had not been seen much upon the stage of recent years. But he is not forgotten and it is remembered of him that he was undisputably a real artist of the theatre.”