Religious Rackets Mulct Thousands

clause permitting the “congregation” to carry on charity and relief work.

From this point on the method of operation varies little. An office is opened, usually on the lower east side. Sham religious services are held once a week or less frequently.

In the meantime, at some distance from the office, a “boiler room” is opened. This is the technical name for a bare, obscure garret where a battery of telephones is installed to carry on the real operations.

FICTITIOUSLY LISTED

The telephones are listed under a fictitious name. From here “coxeys” do their work. The “coxeys” are the high-power salesmen of the firm. More than half of them have been found to have court records, usually for fraud and obtaining money on false pretenses.

The next step is to obtain the name of a judge or other official to employ in soliciting funds from prospective victims. Usually the name of an out-of-town judge, whose last name corresponds to that of a prominent New York jurist, is used. The judge is either paid for use of his name or duped into giving permission.

In one case it was found that the “coxeys” were using the name of a commissioner of deeds, equivalent to a notary public, which corresponded with that of the New York Police Commissioner.

“Commissioner O’Ryan asked me to call you for a donation. . . .” the “coxeys” then told their victims over the telephone. And it was entirely legal.

HIGH-POWERED SALESMEN

Using the Blue Book and other directories, the “coxey” calls a prominent person, tells him that Commissioner Jones or Judge Jones asked him to call for a donation to the . . . Then follows a high-powered talk on the great work the charity organization is doing. The fact that it is a religious corporation is never mentioned.

Jews have been found to make the best “caps.” (“Cap” is the name applied to a prospective victim). In the first place, the Jew is indiscriminately charitable by tradition. Secondly, many Jews, striving to be “regular” and fit into the community, think that responding to a ‘phone solicitation is the “regular” thing to do.

Let us take a typical case. The “coxey” ‘phones a “cap.” “Good day, sir,” he opens, “I am calling for Judge Jones. He has asked me to call you for a donation to our charity. We are engaged in helping the poor. We give out bread and coal, we . . . ” and so on.

Levine, our fictitious “cap,” promises $10. Immediately the “coxey” ‘phones the office from where a messenger is sent out. These messengers are often young rabbis or rabbinical students.

THE SPLIT

The messenger arrives at the victim’s place of business with surprising speed. If the donation is forthcoming, the messenger keeps ten per cent., twenty-five to forty-five per cent. goes to the “coxey,” and the rest to the promoters.

There is no honor among the thieves. The “coxey” calls the promoters to find out whether the “cap” “came across.” If the promoter says he didn’t, the “coxey” checks up by ‘phoning the “cap” again.

A pretense of doing relief work is kept up by handing out free lunches and, sometimes coal. It was found on investigation that in almost all cases the food and coal were not bought but received by donation or solicitation.

In the meantime the Department of Welfare can do practically nothing. On occasion, the “boiler rooms” are raided on some pretext or another with the aid of the district attorney’s office, but the racket cannot be wiped out.

While the method described above is the usual mode of solicitation, circular letters also are used. The letterheads never mention that the organizations are incorporated as Jewish congregations. Some even mention that they are non-sectarian. A non-sectarian Jewish congregation!

SOMETIMES FALLS IN NET

Once in a while a promoter oversteps himself. In his self-assurance he uses an official’s name without permission, or commits some other error which pushes him over the pale of legality next to which he hovers so precariously.

Then the Department of Welfare cracks down. The promoter is taken to court and penalized. But it has been found that promoters usually open rackets under different names immediately afterward.

In the case of Rabbi Jacob Bienefeld, connected with the Downtown Center of Relief, Herman N. Levin, Welfare Department investigator, charges the Rabbi said over the ‘phone that he was a certain official. The person who was asked for a solicitation, Levin said, recognized the voice. An arrest followed, and the case is now going through the process of numerous adjournments.

Four organizations are now under investigation as possible rackets. The Jewish Daily Bulletin has their names and will publish them if the facts uncovered by the inquiry establish beyond a doubt their shady nature.

A TYPICAL CHARTER

All these organizations are incorporated as Jewish congregations. A typical charter reads in part:

“Purpose: To congregate on Sabbath and other days of the week for the purpose of prayer and religious work and to voluntarily aid . . . its members, coreligionists, and other persons in distress. . . .”

The letterheads of the four organizations were inspected in an extensive Jewish Daily Bulletin investigation. None of them mentioned religious affiliation. One said “non-sectarian.”

Two “honorary officers” of one group recently asked to have their names removed from the letterheads. They were Senator Robert F. Wagner and David Marcus. Neither of these could be reached to discover their reasons for becoming dissatisfied with the organization.

REPEAL URGED

Repeal of the sub-section exempting religious organizations from the necessity of Welfare Department licenses would place a weapon in the hands of the Department to investigate these four organizations fully.

The Board of Aldermen could repeal the paragraph. Until it is repealed or revised, it seems certain that insidious rackets will continue to flourish under the protection of the Jewish religion. A concerted movement is under way for repeal.

Dr. Judah Magnes, Solomon Lowenstein, Magistrate Jonah J. Goldstein, and other prominent Jews have already expressed themselves for repeal of the exemption paragraph.

In the meantime the following advice is offered those asked to contribute to charity:

(1) Refuse to respond to a telephone solicitation, or

(2) Communicate with Deputy Commissioner of Welfare Henry Howe at Worth 2-6420 and ask if the organization is a bona fide charity society before making a donation.