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 charge that the demand for higher requirements for admission to the bar in New York is in reality a movement to limit the number of Jewish lawyers is made by the Jewish press. This charge, hinted at by the “Jewish Morning Journal”, which was quoted here yesterday, is expressed emphatically by the “Day” and the “Jewish Daily News.”

Both papers state they have no objection to the raising of the requirements for bar admission but criticize the injection of a Jewish issue into the question, as was done by Herbert Fordham in his Albany address. Says the “Day” (Mar. 8): “This movement does not represent a desire to elevate and dignify the profession but a maneuver against a certain element in the profession, or, to put it plainly and brutally–against the growing number of Jewish lawyers in New York. It is desired to raise the standards in the belief that by making the requirements more difficult the Jewish law students will be frightened away. And Mr. Fordham, who spoke for higher requirements, formulated this very definitely. He predicated his thesis on the ground that there are too many Jews in the profession anyway and that most of them ‘come from ignorant families, who lack American traditions and an American background.’ In this way the cat has been let out of the bag and the effort in the direction of higher standards supposedly for the whole legal profession assumes a totally different aspect; it appears as the old, ugly and un-American effort to restrict the Jews.”

The paper urges that the entire project of higher requirements be carefully scrutinized to make sure that, if applied, it should be effective for everybody, not only for the Jews.

The “Jewish Daily News” observes: “The complaint against the Jewish lawyers is not because they lack an American background nor because they come from ignorant families, but, on the contrary, precisely because the Jewish lawyers understand law and devote themselves to it with all their sincerity. The cause of the trouble is not Jewish inability, but rather Jewish ability. They cannot bear to think of our Marshalls, our Brandeises and our Cardozas.

“This is not a question, it seems, of raising the requirements for law students. Jews are not afraid of higher requirements. It is a question of an agitation against Jewish lawyers.”

THE PROPOSAL TO REMOVE THE “CHEREM” AGAINST SPINOZA

The report that the radical members of the Warsaw Kehillah are planning to propose that that body remove the “cherem” or act of excommunication issued against Baruch Spinoza in the 17th century by the Kehillah of Amsterdam, is viewed as absurd by the orthodox papers, the “Jewish Morning Journal” and the “Jewish Daily News”.

There is an impression prevalent among Jews as well as non-Jews, the “Morning Journal” says, that the “cherem” placed on Spinoza was a result of the fanaticism of the leaders of the Amsterdam Jewish community who took vengeance on one who dared to doubt the principles of the Jewish religion.

“This.” the paper declares, “is far from the truth. Those who do not trust the Jewish historians on this point can find the explanation in the popular book of Prof. Will Durant, ‘The History of Philosophy.’ Prof. Durant relates in his chapter on Spinoza, what is well known to those who are familiar with the situation in Holland at that time. The Jews had arrived there only recently, they were not sure of their position and atheism at that time, even in the liberal Holland, was regarded as dangerous. The state persecuted outspoken atheists, and the Jews feared lest they lose in the eyes of the Dutch population if a second attack on religion were to be recorded on their account shortly after the trouble they had with Uriel Acosta. They felt, therefore, that, as a matter of self-protection, they were compelled to repudiate the man whom the people of Holland had begun to regard as dangerous.”

The “Jewish Daily News” thinks that if the proposal to remove the “cherem” against Spinoza will actually be made it will merely offer “an opportunity to laugh at the stupidity of the radical members of the Warsaw Kehillah.” The question is “out of order”, the paper argues, because (1) the Warsaw Kehillah is not a body intended to deal with the philosophical opinions of private individuals, (2) the Warsaw Kehillah is not a higher court than the court of the Amsterdam community which excommunicated Spinoza and (3) the Warsaw Kehillah has no “power of attorney” to make claims in behalf of Spinoza. The paper further ridicules the idea, declaring that it is questionable whether Spinoza would desire to be accepted into the Warsaw Kehillah, and asks: “Anyway, why drag the pantheistic philosopher, who wrote against Judaism, into the Kehillah?”