Louis Marshall Scores Exploitation of Jewish Name in Politics

Advises Against Political Organization To Get Behind Jewish Young Men Deserving Recognition’; There is no ‘Hebrew Vote’; Religion Should Not Be Injected into Political Campaigns

Unqualified censure of those who seek to exploit their Jewish religious affiliation for the sake of political gain and attempt to influence Jewish voters by methods of organization, was voiced by Louis Marshall, president of the American Jewish Committee, when a plan to form a “Hebrew Democratic Club” was presented to him.

The sponsors of this plan asked the opinion of Mr. Marshall on its advisability. The inquiry elicited a reply, the text of which was made public yesterday by the American Jewish Committee following the twenty-first annual meeting of the Committee.

The secretary had communicated with Mr. Marshall, informing him that the club had been organized in July of this year and that within three months thereafter an active membership of more than 250 men had been built up.

“The objects of our organization,” the secretary wrote, “are to promote the welfare of the Jewish people, to take an active part in civic welfare and betterment, charitable interests, and to get behind those Jewish young men who are deserving of political recognition.” He went on to inform Mr. Marshall that there had been some discussion “in regard to the use of the name ‘Hebrew’ in connection with a political organization” and the club was desirous of obtaining the views on that question of leading Jews. In response to the secretary’s request that Mr. Marshall give his impartial opinion on the matter, he wrote the letter which follows:

“I am in receipt of yours of the 3rd instant, in which you ask my opinion as to the propriety of using the word ‘Hebrew’ in connection with a political organization. I am very glad to embrace this opportunity to express to you my views on this important subject.

“To my mind nothing can be more objectionable than to resort to such practice. It is undignified, it is un-American, it is un-Jewish. In this country, where there is a separation of Church and State, where freedom of conscience is guaranteed by State and Federal Constitutions, where every dweller in the land may unquestionably observe his religious belief, where we are all one people, to designate a political club as Hebrew, Jewish, Catholic, German, Irish or Italian, is an evidence of shockingly bad taste and of a lack of appreciation of what America stands for. Whenever I hear of any body of men who thus brand themselves politically, I immediately ask myself what is their game, whose political chestnuts are they seeking to pull out of the fire, what is their conception of citizenship and politics, whose collar are they wearing and what boss are they seeking to influence? Every decent-thinking man when confronted with such a situation recoils in disgust.

“I approve of political clubs, whether they be Republican, Democratic or independent, provided they are devoted to the serious study of political and governmental principles, to the education of their members in the organic law of the State and Nation and in matter of public concern. But when such a club is called either the Hebrew Republican Club or the Hebrew Democratic Club, it at once gives rise to the impression that the men in the club are influenced by sordid reasons and not by those elevated considerations which should lead to the formation of such an organization. The non-Jew at once entertains suspicion of such an organization and loses respect for its members. Even politicians gauge the club by the name which it adopts and draw inferences which are not complimentary to the sponsors.

“We Jews especially owe a duty to ourselves to occupy a dignified attitude toward public questions–not to cheapen our name, not to permit it to be dragged through the mud of ward politics. It should have to us a sacred connotation and should not be placed in danger of being soiled and contaminated. Morevoer, why should we Jews give rise to any inference that we have a special ax to grind, that our politics have a selfish tinge, and why should we, who in the past suffered because of our religion, now create even a suspicion that we are entering into politics under the banner of separatism? We are opposed to the Ku-Klux-Klan, we were opposed to the A. P. A. and to the Know Nothings, but we are imitating them when we call ourselves Hebrew Democrats and Hebrew Republicans, and Hebrew this and Hebrew that.

“I have at various times been approached by men high in political life with the question, What can be done to gather in ‘the Hebrew vote’? I have told them invariably that there is no Hebrew vote, that we are American citizens, and that we adopt the principles of one or the other of the parties in accordance with our idea as to what best contributes to the welfare of the country. I have also told them that if I ever heard of any attempt by my own party to differentiate between its members on the basis of their religious faith, I would denounce it as being hostile to the spirit which should prevail in our country. On every occasion these gentlemen have apologized and have thanked me for the opinions expressed.

“I am perhaps speaking more vehemently than is necessary, but I regard this to be a matter of vital importance. I am probably impelled to do so the more by that part of your letterhead which reads ‘Hebrew Democratic Club of X for the Interest of Hebrew Citizens of X.’ Can anything be more damning than such an expression? What is the interest of the Hebrew citizens of X as distinguished from the interest of all the citizens of X–Jewish. Catholic or Protestant? Suppose our Catholic friends should form a club and call it the Catholic Republican Club of X for the interest of the Catholic Citizens of X, or some of our Protestant friends should call a club the Presbyterian Democratic Club of X for the interest of the Presbyterian Citizens of X. Who would protest loudest under such circumstances? I venture to say that it would be the citizens of the Jewish faith, and they would be entirely justified unless by their own example they encouraged such forms of organization.

“Coming to the second paragraph of your letter, I feel shocked. You say: ‘The objects of our organization are to promote the welfare of the Jewish people, to take an active part in civic welfare and betterment, charitable interests, and to get behind those Jewish young men who are deserving of political recognition.’

“I do not understand why you differentiate between ‘the welfare of the Jewish people’ and ‘civic welfare and betterment.’ Does not the promotion of the latter promote the welfare of the Jewish people as fully as it deserves to be promoted?

“I do not know what ‘charitable interests’ have to do with a political club, I know that there are some political clubs which during election time seek charitable contributions from political candidates. To me this is a degradation of one of the noblest sentiments of humanity.

“And then to form a club for the purpose of having it advance the interests of ‘Jewish young men who are deserving of political recognition.’ You are playing with fire and with edged tools when you announce this as the ultimate purpose of your organization. This idea of getting political recognition because one is a Jew is, to me, unspeakably shameful. Men will get their deserts without that kind of boosting. Let the Jewish young men become good citizens, perform their public and private duties, gain a reputation for integrity and ability and modesty, and it will not be necessary to form a club to hoist them into public office.

“I earnestly hope that your organization will revise its purposes and change its name without delay. By doing so its members would honor the Jewish name instead of debasing it.”

The prize winners of the Fifth Annual Essay Contest conducted by the Department of Immigrant Aid and Immigrant Education, of the National Council of Jewish Women, have been announced in the current issue of “The Immigrant,” the bulletin of the Department.

The prizes were awarded to Mrs. Ida Katz of Philadelphia, Mrs. Fanny Marcus of New York City. Mrs. Pauline Schuster of Philadelphia, and Mrs. Annie Sternberg of New York.

The Judges were Allen T. Burns. Executive Director of the Association of Community Chests and Councils; Mrs. Elmer Eckhouse of Newark N.J., Chairman of the Department of Farm and Rural Work of the National Council of Jewish Women; and Miss Sarah Elkus, Director of Day Classes for Adults in English and Citizenship. Board of Education, New York City.