Insists Central Conference Should Not Have Acted on “controverted” Political Question

Rabbi Samuel Schulman, of Temple Emanu-el, in a statement made to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency yesterday, replies to Rabbi Edward L. Israel, chairman of the Social Justice Commission of the Central Conference of American Rabbis and reiterates his criticism of the action of the Conference in adopting Rabbi Israel’s report on the ground that it was taking a stand on a controverted political question.

“If any Rabbi wishes to be a Socialist, that is his privilege as an individual,” Rabbi Schulman declares. “But I object to the Central Conference being turned into a debating society on political questions, upon ways and means of meeting the present emergency by legislation upon which men may differ in perfect good faith and with equally exalted ethical motives. When I said that the Conference made itself a tail to the kite of Socialism, it was an exact description of the situation. The Conference met a few days before the election. There were three candidates for the Presidency who represented different types of thought on the questions of the day—Mr. Hoover, Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Thomas. I must add a fourth one, Mr. Foster. As far as I know it was Mr. Thomas who advocated the levy on capital. Therefore I hold that the Conference took a stand on a controverted political question. Such a stand, I hold, is highly undesirable for the Conference as an intelligent person can readily understand. I may add that as an individual a man may say anything, but for the Central Conference of American Rabbis to do what it did, is most undignified, most imprudent and can only make the Conference ridiculous,” Rabbi Schulman holds.

“What does Rabbi Israel mean, as he says in his rejoinder to me and as he says in his report by the phrase: ‘private exploitation of the profit-system’?” Rabbi Schulman asks and answers: “Any one acquainted with the literature recognizes in such a phrase an echo of socialistic theory. The present system is based on wages, rent, interest and profits. ‘Profits’ is a technical term in political economy. Certainly profits may be easily made to appear as unethical. But is the Central Conference of American Rabbis ready to say that it is willing to overthrow the present system and have an industrial organization of our country whereby ‘profits’ will be eliminated? As to ethical values, I hold that the present system, with all its faults,— and nothing human is perfect, and much in it can be reformed and modified—has profound ethical implications, and is carried on according to these implications.

“The only alternative to our present system,” says Rabbi Schulman, “if it is to be abolished, is the object lesson at present at work in Russia. What I criticized is the sophomoric haste with

which the Conference proceeded to ally itself with socialistic thought and the dogmatism with which it counselled measures of taxation with respect to which men differ from the very point of view of meeting the present emergency of putting an end to it as soon as possible and of re-establishing normal industry.”

Declaring that Rabbi Israel “preaches a funeral sermon over me with flowers,” Rabbi Schulman repudiates the allegation that he is only a theologian. He points out that his training had been along the lines of philosophical, social and economic subjects, that in fact the Social Justice Commission idea was first advanced to the Central Conference by him; that as far back as 1902 he declared that it was the duty of society to discover some means of protecting the masses of men against the recurring crises which seem in evitably to accompany the capitalist system.