Reveals 3 of Jewish School Board Asked Jewish Subjects in Protestant School Course

That three members of the Montreal Jewish School Commission, Rabbi Herman Abramowitz, A. Z. Cohen and Michael Garber, insisted during their negotiations with the Protestant Board that the teaching of Jewish subjects be included in the curriculum of Montreal’s Protestant schools, is revealed for the first time in a statement which Nathan Gordon, honorary secretary of the Jewish School Commission, has given to the Jewish Daily Bulletin as a final reply to H. M. Caiserman’s letter attacking the Jewish School Commission, which appeared in the Bulletin of last Thursday, and which was in reply to a previous letter by Mr. Gordon.

The Jewish School Commission consists of seven members. The demand of Jewish subjects was decidedly and of the three members for the inclusion absolutely rejected by the Protestant Board, declares Mr. Gordon.

REFUTES STATEMENT

“If your report of Mr. Caiserman’s remarks is correct, then I am bound to say that almost every remark ascribed to him is either untrue, unfair or misleading and no one knows this better than Mr. Caiserman himself,” Mr. Gordon states in his letter. “For example, Mr. Caiserman states that the Jewish School Commission could have delayed any action until July 1, 1930. He must know that this is a mis-statement and that the delay specified in the Act extends only until April 1, 1931.

“Mr. Caiserman naively says, ‘At that time the provincial elections would have been over and with them the anti-Semitic outburst on the part of the Conservative party.’ He knows very well that the Conservative party stands pledged to repeal the Act in question, that a demand for Jewish schools would cause the defeat of the Government and that it was the feeling of the Commission that this question should not be permitted to become a political toy during any election campaign.

“Mr. Caiserman blames the Commission for not having secured Jewish representation on the school board. He knows very well that this is impossible, because it has been declared unconstitutional by the decision of the Privy Council and ultra vires of the Protestant Board.

REFUSAL OF BOARD

“Mr. Caiserman asks why the Commission did not make provision for the teaching of Jewish subjects in the regular curriculum. The answer is that the Commission attempted to do so. In fact, Dr. Abramowitz presented this point to the Protestant Board and did it most forcefully and eloquently. He was ably seconded by Mr. A. Z. Cohen and Mr. M. Garber. But the Protestant Board decidedly and absolutely refused to consider this matter. Mr. Caiserman knows this quite well.

“Mr. Caiserman gives it as his opinion that the provision in the present agreement enabling Jewish children to attend Protestant schools is unconstitutional. I beg leave to differ with him and would earnestly recommend that he read carefully the judgment of the Privy Council.

“Mr. Caiserman asks why we refused to hold a referendum on the question. We were not asked to do so and we never considered the advisability of doing so. The machinery for such a project is lacking, and the expense would have been prohibitive. We have no funds at our disposal for a thing of this sort. But I am inclined to think that if we had done so, the vast majority would have voted in favor of our agreement. I say again that 95 percent, nay 98 percent, of this community is delighted with it and has hailed it with much satisfaction.

“Mr. Caiserman declares that his Committee received reports from Mr. Garber only four weeks ago. This may be so, but his Committee nevertheless knew that our Commission was holding meetings, and it could quite easily have discussed the school question with us much sooner than the day appointed for the execution of the agreement.”