Ford Refuses Straus’s Challenge to Submit Accusations to an Impartial Jury

The refusal of Henry Ford to accept the challenge of Nathan Straus made at the National Conference on Palestine held in Boston recently, that he submit his accusation against the Jewish people to an impartial jury of which he was to name eight of the ten members, was intimated in advance releases of an article which is to appear in the “Dearborn Independent,” Ford’s publication.

In refusing the challenge, Mr. Ford repeats through his “Dearborn Independent” all of his previous accusations which have been proven time and again to be baseless. The article charges again:

REITERATES CHARGES

“That the international Jew is in direct control of all financial centres of Government, including the United States Federal Reserve System.

“That he pulls so many strings in business that no banker or business man feels safe to oppose him.

“That he either owns the press or controls it so that only pro-Jewish facts are ever admitted to print.

“That he controls the revolutionary elements of the world, on one hand, and the ultra-conservative elements on the other, so he has equal power in Communist Russia and in capitalistic England, not to mention the theatre, motion picture or agriculture.

“That the international Jew is the chief control, therefore, in the making of war, of which he is also the chief profiteer.”

“Issuing challenges was a favorite pastime with Jewish publicity hunters several years ago,” says the Independent. “They quite innocently assumed, or wished the public to assume, that to ignore the challenge was a confession of error.

“The interesting point they overlooked was that a challenge has already been issued to them. The debate already has started, and one side of the argument is in.

“The Dearborn Independent,’ in a very full and pertinent statement, laid the matter before the only competent judges in this cause, namely, before the American people, and it is now proper for Jewish spokesmen to meet the issue by addressing their defense to the same judges. Issuing new challenges does not obscure the fact that a previous one still stands.

REFUSES JURY

“To suggest, as Mr. Straus does, a smaller jury of New York clergymen and publicists, who do not know a Jewish question exists and would not dare to say so if they did, is merely to pretend to be issuing a challenge while evading one already issued to whom it may concern.

“Having, it is hoped, set Mr. Straus right as to the priority of the challenge, we should like to continue our friendly service by straightening him out on other points where he seems to be misled.

“For instance, he speaks of ‘a campaign of slander against the Jewish people.’ It is regretable that Mr. Straus has not striven for accuracy here. If every Jew were an international Jewish financier, then Mr. Straus would be justified in saying ‘the Jewish people.’ And if telling the truth is ‘slander,’ then Mr. Straus would be justified in the use of the term to describe the Dearborn Independent’s disclosures. But as neither supposition can possibly be true, Mr. Straus’s statement fails of its own weakness.

“The ‘slander’ consists of calling attention to the claims which the Jews have made for their pre-eminence in the world. These claims are largely true and have been made by responsible Jewish leaders. To repeat these for the benefit of other people cannot possibly be ‘slander.’ “

AGAIN “THE INTERNATIONAL JEW”

The article then asserts that the “international Jew” invented the current financial and interest system, and “is today in direct control of all financial centres of government, including the United States Federal Reserve system, which he organized and is now perfecting according to his original plan.”

The “international Jew,” the article continues, “is the most closely organized racial entity in the world, with an espionage system that covers every village and every larger centre in the country.

“These statements are deducible from the most deliberate utterances of Jewish spokesmen and illustrated at large by Jewish history. To agree with the Jewish claim to preeminence in these matters is no more ‘slander’ than to agree to their claim to preeminence in the clothing trade. Besides that it is a service to the American people to tell them who their bosses are.

“It might interest Mr. Straus’s suggested jury to take up the above statements, find their numerous counterparts in Jewish history and then compare the claims with the actual facts. This magazine will be glad to direct them to the sources.

At the Hotel Plaza Mr. Straus said he had nothing to say at present in answer to Mr. Ford. “My Boston speech and other utterances stand as made,” the philanthropist said.

JEWISH LEADERS COMMENT

The new attack by Henry Ford caused comment by various Jewish leaders, who denounced the Detroit manufacturer’s action as cowardly and evading the issue.

Paul M. Warburg declined to be injected into the controversy personally, states the “New York American.” His attitude, however, is known to be this, the paper states:

Warburg considers Ford’s charges “frivolous,” and one more of a hundred misstatements. Warburg is authority for the statement that there is not one Jew employed in the Federal Reserve system, to his knowledge. In a word, Jewish influence in the affairs of the Federal Reserve system is, according to this former member of the board, non-existent.

Daniel Frohman, one of the most distinguished Jews in the world of the theatre, said:

“I don’t care what Ford says about Jewish influence in the theatre or elsewhere. A good Catholic, a good Jewish or a good Methodist is entitled to his opinions, and if Mr. Ford includes himself in any of those categories his opinion is his.”

Mr. Untermyer challenged Mr. Ford to enter the jurisdiction of the United States Court in this district and submit to the service of papers.

TERMS CHARGES “RUBBISH”

Mr. Untermyer said: “There is nothing new about this rubbish. It is like the ravings of a madman. When Ford launched into journalism by buying the ‘Dearborn Independent’ its circulation began and continued a rapid decline. It then began this despicable campaign of vilification to bolster its failing fortunes by the most transparent, lying appeals to bigotry ever foisted upon a credulous public.

“The Jews are not in control of all or any financial centers unless J. P. Morgan & Co., George F. Baker, John D. Rockefeller, the Bankers Trust Company, Guaranty Trust Company, First National Bank, the steel trust and the other investment banks are Jews or controlled by Jews.

“The Federal Reserve system, of which Mr. Strong is governor, has 95 percent of its managers and directors non-Jews and has no connection with the Jews of the country.

“The Jews do not own or control 2 percent of the press. How any man, however ignorant, bigoted or brazen, could have the temerity to assert that ‘only pro-Jewish facts are admitted to print’ is beyond understanding except on the theory that he is just crazy.”

“Poor Mr. Ford, pitiably poor despite his fortune,” Rabbi Wise said, “replies to Nathan Straus by repeating the protocol defamation of the Jew, though the forged character of these was definitely established some years ago by some of the foremost scholars and teachers of the nation.

“The Christian world, which reasons and feels aright, knows what to think of Ford’s charge of Jewish omnipotence in the light of the truth that nearly half the world’s Jews are without elementary rights or barest necessaries in East European lands.”

Congressman Emanuel Celler said: “The alleged reply of Ford to Nathan Straus is not the reply of Ford at all. It is the work of one of his paid journalists and Ford’s bigotry forces him to subscribe to it.

“He cannot understand the Jew. His shrinking away from Straus’s challenge to have a jury of ten New York publicists and clergymen to pass upon the integrity of the Jewish people as a whole is a cowardly admission of his wrong. His charge that such a jury would neither know or admit that there was a Jewish question is an unwarranted aspersion upon the honesty of such eminent New York publicists as Elihu Root. William D. Guthrie, Nicholas Murray Butler, and upon such eminent divines as Cardinal Hayes, Bishop Manning and Dr. Holmes, any or all of whom could serve upon such a jury.”