Ford Tax Trial Furnishes Clue to Origin of His Anti-semitic Campaign

(Jewish Daily Bulletin)

What is believed to be a clue to the origin of Henry Ford’s campaign of hatred against the Jews was disclosed at the trial here of the former minority stock holders of the Ford Motor Car Company against an income tax assessment of $30,000,000.

The story deals with the circumstances surrounding the sale of two thousand shares of Ford stock held by the late John F. Dodge and Horace E. Dodge to Henry Ford and Edsel Ford in 1919, which is the basis of the Treasury Department’s levy. The stock was sold for $12,500 a share.

Two options obtained on the Dodge stock in advance of the final sale to the Fords were disclosed in a deposition made by A. L. McMeans, who was secretary of Dodge Brothers, Inc., in 1919. One was obtained by Sigmund K. Rothschild, an insurance man of New York. The terms of the option offered the 2,000 shares of stock to a syndicate represented by Rothschild, at $18,000,000. The option lapsed when the syndicate became worried over Mr. Ford’s published statement that he planned to turn over his plants to the Government for war time use.

The second option was negotiated by Mr. Rothschild, but when the time came to fill in the name of the person holding the option the name of Emanuel T. Berger, a Detroit lawyer now dead; was used. When agents of the Old Colony Trust Company, acting for the Fords, took to the trail of the Dodge stock they were blocked by the Berger option. Mr. McMeans’s deposition set forth that Howard E. Bloomer, attorney for John F. Dodge, figured in the negotiations.

According to the deposition the option was finally surmounted. The testimony quoted John F. Dodge as saying that the Old Colony Trust Company had paid $675,000 for an option supplanting the Berger call. Mr. McMeans’s deposition said that the $675,000 was divided evenly three ways, the sharers being himself, Mr. Dodge and Mr. Bloomer. Rothschild, said the witness, had been “frozen out.”

McMeans said that he had informed Mr. Dodge that he thought the $675,000 should have been “split” four ways, this including Rothschild. Mr. Dodge was “positive” in refusing to count the insurance man as a participant. McMeans swore that he finally gave Rothschild $56,000 of his own share.

DR. D. PHILIPSON CORRECTS QUOTATION FROM “JEWISH DAILY NEWS”

Sir:

Your issue of Friday, January 21 has just come to hand. I am amazed that you reproduced in your column “Digest of Public Opinion on Jewish Matters” the scurriblous attack on my address at the Cleveland convention of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations which appeared in the Jewish Daily News.

There was no mention in my address of “Titus the Cruel,” nor could any one by the most vivid stretch of imagination find in the address even a suggestion that would justify the statement attributed to me that “Titus the Cruel performed a good deed by destroying the Temple and dispersing the Jewish people to all the corners of the world.” The only reference I made to the destruction of the temple is contained in my statement concerning Isaac M. Wise when I said “For him Judaism spelt democracy too, and therefore he perceived that the American environment gave Judaism such an opportunity for its true development as it had not had since the Roman legions set flame to the temple that crowned Moriah’s height and the Jews were scattered to the four corners of the earth.”

My address will appear in full in the columns of the American Israelite at the end of this week. A perusal thereof will convince you, I am sure, that you lent yourself, doubtless unintentionally, to spreading into further quarters a false and unjustifiable report.

The same perusal will make clear also how mistaken was the report concerning the address in your issue of January 18 in which I am made to claim the perfection of the reform movement. Quite the contrary was the case. Towards the close of the address I pointed out a number of instances in which the reform movement has fallen short.

Very truly yours,

DAVID PHILIPSON.

Cincinnati, January 23, 1927.

Editors’ note: The “Jewish Daily Bulletin” is glad to publish this correction. The Digest of the “Jewish Daily Bulletin” reprints quotations from the editorials of papers usually in accessible to our readers. Quotation, of course, does not indicate approval. By quoting various comments the “Bulletin” enables its readers to learn the trend of public opinion in various quarters and affords the opportunity for removing an erroneous impression, as in this case.

COMMUNICATION TO THE EDITOR

Sir:

Both the spirit and the content of your report of the Social Justice Program at the Cleveland Convention present such an erroneous impression of the actual proceedings that I would request you to note the following facts. Your account stated “Rabbi Foster was the only rabbi who strongly opposed the adoption of the proposals.” The fact is Rabbi Gup of Providence, R. I., Ribbi Silver of Cleveland, and others spoke in opposition to the resolutions of the Social Justice Commission. Your report also records that my “motion to refer the report for further study was defeated by a large majority. The truth of the matter is, I voluntarily withdrew my motion to refer the report back to the committee when by unanimous voice of the Convention, the Chairman promised to allow full discussion of the whole report. I stated clearly that it was only for the purpose of securing ample discussion of a report that manifestly needed revision. The final action of the Convention in materially changing the whole report, proved that the report as presented was not representative of the Convention.

In your report you classify me among the capitalists. I do not object to such a designation, if by such a classification in this particular instance you put me among level -headed, far-sighted, freedom-loving and considerate men, for in their defence of their position, all of the gentlemen named by your correspondent declared that they were friends of the laboring man, desired his welfare and progress, but objected to making the Synagogue an arena for labor disputes or a forum for capitalistic interests. The Synagogue is above labor and capital, it is a House of Prayer for all Jews and membership in the Synagogue and position in its governing board are to be determined not by one’s economic standing, not by one’s trade or profession but solely by one’s loyalty to Judaism. I pointed out that if we were to endorse trade unionism, which Dr. Goldenson as one of the signers of the Committee’s report admitted on the floor of the Convention was the real purpose of the report, we would not further the welfare of the Synagogue, because in hoping to win the working man we would alienate the employers of labor. We must stand for peace and justice in Israel, ready at any time on a given issue to defend labor when its rights are invaded by capital or to uphold capital when labor grows aggressive or autocratic.

It is worthy of note that: By unanimous consent the convention most generously voted me an extension of time for presenting my views on the resolutions.

I constantly urged that friendliness to the laboring man was not the issue, for no one could show a finer record in behalf of justice to the laboring man than I can show but the issue was the protection of the Synagogue as the institution that must be kept free from economic strife.

Dr. Wolsey moreover, admitted that the report of the Social Justice Commission had been largely influenced by my own study of the “Workingman and the Synagogue” which proved my deep interest in the workingman.

The Social Justice Commission itself on the floor of the Convention changed the wording of some of the resolutions, indicating the need of maturer deliberation. When Dr. Wolsey stated that the Commission desired that the adoption of the resolutions imply the endorsement of the long preamble also, Dr. Lee K. Frankel, a member of the Commission, withdrew his signature to the report.

Your report is misleading because you give the impression that by the rejection of certain proposals dealing with the workingman he is not welcome to membership in the Reform Synagogue. That is absolutely incorrect, because the workingman is just as welcome as the banker and most Reform Synagogues by membership dues and school facilities make it just as easy for the poor Jew to identify himself with Jewish religious organizations as the Orthodox and Conservative wings in Israel. The whole matter is less an issue that involves money than a philosophy and religious conceptions.

Why didn’t you state that the most significant resolution of all that the Convention passed by a vote that seemed 700 to 15, was the one I proposed? Compare the resolution that was offered by the committee with the one offered by me and overwhelmingly passed and you will get the whole spirit of the discussion. as follows:

The Committee proposed: “The duty of the synagogue and its pulpit to speak courageously on the rights of labor, for the victims of social and economic injustice as part of its prophetic function to speak the truth.”

The Convention adopted the following: “The duty of the synagogue and its pulpit to speak courageously on all human rights as part of its prophetic function.”

Yours faithfully,

SOLOMON FOSTER.

Rabbi of Temple B’nai Jeshurun.

Newark, N. J., Jan. 23, 1927.

Irving Goldsmith of Saratoga Springs, N. Y., was named by Governor Smith for the Supreme Court bench in the Fourth Judicial District. Mr. Goldsmith, a Democrat, was a candidate for the nomination of Attorney General last fall.