Montreal Yiddish Newspaper Dissatisfied with Personnel of Jewish School Commission

Though not satisfied with the personnel of the Jewish School Commission of Seven, a majority of whom are said to be opposed to separate Jewish schools, the Montreal Yiddish daily, “Eagle,” nevertheless hails the appointment of a Montreal Jewish School Commission by the government of the Province of Quebec as an historic occurrence, marking the recognition by the provincial government of the right of Montreal Jews to control the education of their children.

“It is clear that the commission is not such as will under all circumstances choose the path of separate schools,” says an editorial in the “Eagle” of April 25th. “There is only one out-and-out separatist in the commission, Michael Garber. There is a second representative of ‘down-town, Dr. Max Weisman. We know very little of the doctor’s attitude towards the school question, since he has never made a public statement with regard to it. We know, however, that Dr. Weisman is too much a man of the people, too intimate with the Jewish masses, to ignore their voice and their wishes.

“The other five members of the commission have an attitude towards the school question which is more or less known. The only one of the five who has been standing more or less aside and has only on certain occasions let it be known that the idea of a separate panel, if it should be impossible for us to get our rights in a different manner, doesn’t frighten him, is Rabbi Abramowitz. A. S. Cohen, too, has not officially intervened in the fight, but one can imagine his trend of thought on this question. The same can be said of Edgar M. Berliner. As regards Messrs. Nathan Gordon and S. W. Livingston, their attitude is well known, although we hear that Mr. Gordon has somewhat modified his uncompromising attitude because of the events of the past few years. With regard to Mr. Livingston, he has only recently declared that he would regard it as a calamity if a separate panel should be created. Mr. Livingston, however, has to his credit a public opposition to a certain plan proposed more than a year ago, which would have solved the question in a dishonorable maner.

“It is in short not a commission for erecting separate schools, but for solving the Jewish school question in a more or less honorable manner. Our attitude towards the question is well known and certainly the choice of the commission is not such as can satisfy us. Still, we do not intend to adopt an attitude of non-confidence towards it. We are too well acquainted with the difficulties surrounding the entire question to allow ourselves from the very beginning to undermine that discipline and loyalty which is necessary at this moment with regard to our school question.”