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 passing by the U. S. Senate of the Wadsworth amendment to permit the entry of 35,000 wives and minor children of declarants, is greeted by New York newspapers as a step commendable for its humanity in that it aims to reunite families separated by the quota laws.

The “Times,” in an editorial entitled “A Speech That Changed Votes”, lauds Senator Wadsworth for carrying through the amendment against what seemed certain defeat. The paper writes: “The story is hackneyed of the United States Senator who said that during the thirty years of his service at Washington he had heard many speeches that changed his convictions. but thanked Heaven that he had never heard one that changed his vote. Last Tuesday, however, a speech was made in the Senate which did change votes. It was delivered by Senator Wadsworth of New York in support his amendment to the Immigration act. At least two Senators who had expected to vote against the amendment, Senator Bingham of Connecticut and Senator Bingham of Connecticut and Senator Bruce of Maryland, rose to announce that they had been convinced and converted. There must have been several others of the same mind, for when the vote was taken the amendment was agreed to by 39 yeas against 37 nays…. The decision of the Senate was noteworthy as showing that, at least in non-partisan matters, reason and humane considerations may transform an expected minority into a majority.”

As amended, the bill should pass and be signed by the President, urges the “World” pointing out that “neither the original bill nor the amendment is inconsistent with the new immigration policy of the Nation. It cannot be necessary to that policy that American women married abroad should be denied entrance into their native country, or that 35,000 waiting wives and children of men who are rightfully in the country should be unable to rejoin them.”

The “Telegram” says: “Humane as well as practical reasons made the action of the United States Senate in passing Senator Wadsworth’s amendment admitting the families of resident aliens to American shores a fitting event of the Christmas season.”

By adopting Senator Wadsworth’s amendment, avers the “Evening Post,” the Senate “has given its indorsement to a broadening of the law which is not only practical and humane but a contribution toward the solution of the vexing problem of Americanization. The new plan would enable these prospective citizens fo take deeper root in American soil, Family life is the greatest of all stabilizers, not only from a sociological point of view but morally as well.”

The “Day” declares that “by its action the Senate has in part rectified its error in rejecting Senator Wadsworth’s bill at the previous session. Senator Wadsworth’s amendment had to be accepted not, as Senator Reed would have it, because of political pressure by immigrant groups, but because the measure, as adopted by the Senate, is even more in the interests of America itself than in the interests of the immigrant families.”

Exception to the general approval of the Senate act is taken by the “Herald-Tribune,” which fears that “if this attempt, moderate and definite, to widen the non-quota privilege should succeed there is every likelihood that Congress will be bombarded with appeals for further extensions, which, if granted, will fritter away the benefits of numerical limitation.” As a justification of its attitude the paper adds:

“To select a favored 35,000 for nonquota entrance would but make more bitter the disappointment of the thousands left out. It is better for Congress to adhere to the line which it drew deliberately in 1924.”

The “Jewish Daily News” takes the “Herald-Tribune” to task, saying: “When a big New York newspaper such as the ‘Herald-Tribune’ has reached a point of cruelty where it is not ashamed to invent an excuse of mercy to the thousands who will be left out above the 35,000 as an argument for not admitting the 35,000, it is indeed an indication of how deepseated hatred to immigrants has become in America.”