Rev. Marlin Explains Why He Withdrew Unfriendly Remarks

(Jewish Daily Bulletin)

Purther comment was made by the Rev. H. H. Marlin, editor of the page “Current Event and Comment” in the “United Presbyterian” of this city, in a current issue of the magazine, with regard to he editorial which he wrote in the issue of August 2 on “Adherents of Jewish Faith,” which drew forth the criticism of Jewish publications because of unfriendly remarks against the Jews which it contained.

Rev. Marlin, in response to a letter of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, withdrew his unfriendly criticism in a statement he issued for circulation to the Jewish press. In explaining the reasons for the withdrawal of his previous remarks, the Rev. Marlin writes:

“Generally these editorials (criticising Rev. Marlin for his remarks) were bitter, and some of them were violent. However, we are glad to say that we received some letters relative to this matter which, while criticising the editorial, breathed the spirit of kindness and courtesy.

“We felt upon reflection that our article was not wholly just and so, in response to a courteous request on the part of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency for an additional statement, we sent a letter frankly stating that we believed we had not been wholly just to the Jewish race and that we were sorry that we had written it. This statement was printed widely in Jewish papers and some of these papers did not treat us fairly nor generously in their comment on our statement. For instance our article on the Jews may have been somewhat unfortunate, but it certainly was not ‘malicious.’ In general, also, no recognition was made of the fact that the article of which complaint was made contained sentences which were decidedly laudatory of the Jewish race. Moreover, we were not led to make amends by a ‘storm of replies from the Anglo-Jewish press.’ When we are convinced we are right we shall stand unmoved where God places us. Our spirit is Scotch, our blood is Irish and our hair red. And while we do not wish to indulge in any mock heroics yet we truly seek a portion of the spirit which once filled a great Jew who, conscious of God with Him, and alive to the perils of His every hour, said: ‘None of these things move me.’

“We were led to make amends in the first place because of a beautiful letter which we received from William Z. Spiegelman editor of the Jewish Daily Bulletin. It was a courteous letter and of a kind spirit. He is a Jew whom we are beginning to love. After we had sent him the amplifying statement requested he printed it in his paper in a generous spirit. Moreover he wrote us and said: ‘It is only human to err, but it is magnificent to admit the error in as frank and courageous a manner as you have done.’ And the second reason for our amplifying statement was upon serious thought we were convinced that we had not been wholly just in our article as it appeared in public prints. We were rather surprised to know however that it had ‘attracted nation-wide attention,’ and naturally we were very sorry that it had occasioned bitterness in the hearts of our Jewish brothers. We read that editorial again, but this time we read it through Jewish eyes and we clearly saw that it was not generous and that it was not wholly fair. Therefore we regretted it. We were spirit it had been written. We were grieved that we had excited bitterness and that we had occasioned wounds. And that is why we gladly stood before the Jewish world to say: ‘That article was not wholly fair. It is sincerely regretted.'”

DR. RUBINOW EXPLAINS U. P. A. ALLOTMENT

Sir:

I was indeed gratifled to read my good friend. Robert Szoid’s denial of the statement concerning the “Executive Director (of the Zionist Organization, meaning my humble self whose mental operations are more ## to understand than anyone I know,” etc. This eliminates an entirely unnecessary come of personal misunderstanding.

Mr. Szold further referes to “the recent instance where the Executive Director, to getter with the Chairman of the Administrative Committee, made specific recommendations as to a matter of major policy, namely, certain conditions as to participation by Hadassah in U. P. A. and their recommendations were overruled and disregarded.”

May I point out that it isn’t at all the prerogative of the Executive Director that all his recommendations should be accepted by the Administrative Committee without question. The recommendations referred to, made by Dr. Kaplan and myself, did not represent so much our inner convictions as our desire to establish cooperation with Hadassah at all costs. Subsequent events have demonstrated that such cooperation was possible to achieve on terms mutually satisfactory and much more profitable to Palestine as a whole.

May I at this time point out the inaccuracy of the statement of Mr. Isaac Allen (in the ## report of the meeting of the Association for the Reorganization of the Zionist Organization) in reference to the budget. It is not true that the Executive Committee of the Zionist Organization appropriated the sum of $100,000 from the U. P. A. to meet its expenses.

To berin with the Exccutive Committee of the Zionist Organization can make no appropriations on behalf of the U. P. A. It can only ask of the U. P. A. that such an appropriation be made. In preparing the ## Zionist Organization I submitted that so long as it appears necessary to furnish 30,000 subscribers to the U. P. A. with of production of which is over $2.00 per annum a copy, it is only fair to charge the U. P. A. at least the actual cost, which means the sum of $60,000 per annum. The Finance Committee of the U. P. A. has provisionally agreed to that charge, though the final decision will depend on the annual budget that the U. P. A. be requested to make a grant of $40,000 for general publicity.

the total amount of $100,000 is by about $12,000 less than the demand made by the U. P. A. to the Zionist Organization on behalf of the publicantions during the year which expired. It is quite obvious that without the entire machinery of the Zionist Organization the U. P. A. could not collect the amount it undertakes to collect and the $40,000 contribution is only a very small compensation for the voluntary relinquishment on the part of the Zionist Organization of the privilege of asking for general contributions over and above membership fees.

While it is necessary to keep the accounts of the Zionist Organization and the U. P. A. strictly separated it would be idle to expect that that the work of the U. P. A. could go on undisturbed without the work of the Zionist Organization.

The demand that no part of the receipts of the U. P. A. should be used “to create political control for machine politicians” is after all gratuitons, without evidence to substantiate that such a condition exists. The demand that the U. P. A. “be entirely divorced from the direct or indirect control of the Zionist Organization” Leaves the question of the proper control of the U. P. A. entirely in the air, in so far, as the U. P. A. is the federation of several agencies making a combined appeal it is obvious that the control of the U. P. A. must be left in the hands of thes agencies working together. There may be only a question of participation in the collection drive. It is in this spirit that several agencies have perfectly properly asked for specified representation. After all it must not be forgotten that the Keren Hayesod commitments to Palestine is the commitment of the World Zionist Organization of which the Zionist Organization is an integral part.

I have the right to trust that my thirty years experience as statistician, accountant and communal worker are sufilcient guarantoes that the budgets that are prepared either for the Zionist Organization of the U. P. A. will not contain any juggling of data.

Very sincerely yours,

I. M. Rubinow

Executive Director

New York, Oct. 19, 1928