Jacob De Haas Replies to Rabbi Heller’s Letter

Editor, Jewish Daily Bulletin,

I am glad that Rabbi Heller agrees to at least one fact stated by me in my letter to Mr. Gordon of St. Paul. I am, however, compelled categorically to contradict him as to the “ultimatum” phase of the Brandeis memorandum.

1. At the meeting in Justice Brandeis’ office Rr. Ratnoff asked point blank and was told that the document was not an ultimatum.

2. Discussion was attempted by Rabbi Heller of a possible composition of the committee of nine, and I replied “we have called this the ‘two jump’ plan. If you can accept the general principle it might be feasible to discuss the names.”

3. The Z.O.A. Committee pointed out that it had no power of negotiation, that it could only report to the Administrative Committee, and asked whether further conference after their reporting to the Administrative Committee might be held. While nothing definite was arrived at on this point, it was understood that such meeting could take place.

4. The question of absolute ultimatum was raised in another form, the full details of which escape me. It was incidental to the presentation of the plan at the convention and the phrase was used by Justice Brandeis “we do not expect you to cross the ‘t’s’ and dot the ‘i’s’.”

5. Justice Brandeis did not say “this is our final judgment” or use any words that could be so construed.

6. Having read somewhere that the plan was regarded as an ultimatum, on the morning of May 28, I phoned David Freiberger and discussed this point with him. He assured me that he would take care to report at the meeting of the Administrative Committee that evening that the plan was not an ultimatum, but he indicated that the decision of the Committee would be to refer the plan to the Convention without comment.

7. On May 29 Mr. Freiberger assured me that he had reported that the plan was not an ultimatum.

Now as to Rabbi Heller’s “carefully considered counter-proposal.” If it existed it was not presented. Rabbi Heller spoke of the committee having thought of the possibility of a “three-three and one” committee, the odd one to be a neutral or impartial person.

I have said that the Z.O.A. Committee came to Washington without a plan, without even a united opinion as to what it was driving at and I repeat that was my impression and still is.

I had weeks before the first meeting, at Justice Brandeis’ request, indicated to Mr. Freiberger the date, etc., he desired should be presented, if possible prior to that meeting. As this request was not complied with the discussion at the first session turned largely on data; but the views enunciated by the members of the Z.O.A. Committee were obviously divided. I am not sure but at the second meeting I felt the Committee represented three view points even if the middle one was not clear to me. I for one was concerned that this Committee had no definite plan and had not prepared one. I did not hesitate to express that opinion to Mr. Gordon.

Permit me finally to contradict the statement which I understand was made at the Z. O. A. Administrative Committee last Wednesday. I have not circularized the districts. I have not solicited delegates, I have made no propaganda. I have—and I have no hesitation about it—answered questions that have been addressed to me by friends in all parts of the country. Jacob de Haas.