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 proposal for a national Jewish chest, made at a meeting in the home of Justice Irving Lehman, is regarded with disfavor by the “Jewish Daily News” and the “Jewish Morning Journal,” of New York, on the ground that such a plan is not feasible and unnecessary and because it would place the control over all Jewish funds in America in the hands of one group.

The “Jewish Daily News” (Nov. 28) terms the plan “a new charity trust” and writes: “To begin with we do not understand how philanthropic, national and cultural institutions can be mixed. If it is possible to speak of a federation of philanthropic institutions, there can be no fusing of national and cultural interests with philanthropic interests under one leadership. Let us take an example: the United Palestine Appeal is out to get $7,500,000 this year. Would the Zionists be compelled to give up their machinery, drop their organization work in regard to the drive and to depend on the national Jewish organization, which would do the work for them and also distribute the funds for them? We cannot conceive of such a thing and we think it would be wrong if it were done.

“In regard to funds that have a specific purpose, as the Zionist funds, the mere collection of the funds does not constitute the whole problem. The manner in which the agitation for the collection is carried out and the men who perform the work are of paramount importance. In such cases the idea and the machinery of collecting the funds are so interwoven that it cannot be done by a general collecting agency such as the one proposed.

“There is another thing we must refer to though we do so with reluctance,” the paper adds in conclusion. “We say it with every feeling of friendship. What we mean is that the control over such a thing is generally in the hands of a small group of American Jews. It is an important group in all respects, especially in regard to charity: we refer to the German Jews in America. But they are after all only one group. And the question is: is it advisable that all Jewish institutions and organizations be placed in the hands of one part of American Jewry. And when a central organization is spoken of, it means no more and no less than that it should be under the leadership of a minority of the American Jews, a minority whose ideas frequently conflict with the ideas of the majority of the Jews who come from Eastern Europe.”

The paper thinks there is too much talk of “control” and asks, finally: “Perhaps we should allow the Jew a bit of freedom, the right to give his money for whatever he deems best and not to subject him to philanthropic organizations which will do the thinking and deciding for him?”

A similar attitude is taken by the “Jewish Morning Journal” which points out the danger of mixing “education with charity, which has not always been a happy combination.” Especially in respect to orthodox education, the paper feels that “a fusion with the Reform representatives of philanthropic institutions can turn out to be very injurious to it.” The paper continues:

“Essentially it is a question of leadership. The federations have not yet learned to respect the orthodox point of view in the matter of orthodox education, as a rule for the very reason that the representatives of the orthodox Jews are not yet strong enough, or more precisely: they are not wealthy or influential enough socially to compel more respect for themselves and the silent masses whom they represent. Under present circumstances, it would be still worse if the leaders of a vast national chest would attempt to take over the control of fund collections which are made in this country for Palestine and on which the fate of great historical institutions in Palestine depends. However,” the paper thinks, “even in this respect the situation is not hopeless. When the facts become known and the passive resistance of the orthodox element becomes obvious, an understanding can be arrived at.”

Approval of the national chest plan is voiced in the “Day” by Dr. S. Margoshes, editor of that paper, who observes:

“It is obvious that the conception underlying this entire effort is the old Federation idea which has proved such an unqualified success in New York and elsewhere in the domain of Jewish philanthropy. The ninety-one Jewish charitable institutions of New York City are in a better position today because of their combination into one charity federation, which makes one annual drive instead of the ninety-one which we used to have in former years. The extension of this Federation idea to national organizations of varying aims and purposes will naturally involve new problems. But should it succeed, there is no doubt but that it will be hailed both by donors and recipients as one of the most important steps in the direction of normalizing Jewish life everywhere.”

A testimonial dinner will be given at the Hotel Astor on Dec. 12 for Sol M. Stroock, President of the Federation for the Support of Jewish Philanthropic Societies, by a group of prominent members of the New York bar. Mar D. ###euer is Chairman of the dinner committee, which includes Supreme Court Justices Nathan Bijur, William Harmon Black, Mitchell L. Erlanger, Mitchell May and Joseph M. Proskauer. Among the attorneys on the committee are Samuel Untermyer, Irwin Untermyer, Leonard M. Wallstein and Jonah J. Goldstein.