News Brief

within the immediate scope of our effort to call public attention to the outrages committed by the Soviets in general and the Yevsektzia in particular.

I must say that I have had no official instructions of any kind to address any prominent individuals. I wrote to you especially, because I have been very much troubled in mind by the apparent indifference to the religious situation in Russia on part of several American Jewish groups and particularly those leaders and spokesmen who stress Judaism as the center and foundation of Jewish life.

As to your reference to the colonization in Russia, I would say that, aside from my beliefs as a Zionist, I would not, as a mere student of Jewish conditions abroad, agree that the settlement of the Jews in Palestine can be put on the same plane with colonization in Russia or Argentine. I am not unmindful of the difficulties that confront us in Palestine, but the forces and the impulses which are associate with the return to Zion can hardly be obtained in connection with any other colonization enterprise elsewhere. But, again, it was the subject of religious repressions that was uppermost in my mind.

I was therefore disappointed not to receive your comment on this particular aspect of a most disturbing situation.

Yours very sincerely,

BERNARD G. RICHARDS.

It will be noted that again all that was asked of me was “a word of opinion” or “a comment” upon the general situation in Soviet Russia as it affected our Jewish brethren there. Thereupon I replied to Mr. Richards with my letter of Jan. 3rd. This letter, together with his reply thereto, dated Feb. 3rd, Mr. Richards, or rather the organization of which he is the efficient Executive Director, saw fit to publish, but with the omission of the preceding correspondence, which led up to these two letters.

My letter of Jan. 3rd gave a somewhat academic response to the request for an opinion and a comment. Academic life and training have accustomed me to think along these lines, and to realize that every question must necessarily have two sides, and that both sides must be considered objectively and dispassionately, if a reasonable opinion is to be presented. This I endeavored to do. However, not attributing any particular significance to this letter and believing it to be entirely a matter of private correspondence, and being likewise exceedingly busy at the moment, I did not take time to revise the letter and to satisfy myself that it reflected my views adequately and in a manner for which I would be willing to assume full responsibility before the public. The views were, it is almost needless to say, altogether personal and in no way representative of any institution or of any wing of Judaism. Somehow I sensed that my letter would not satisfy Mr. Richards, even though I did not yet have the least suspicion of any ulterior motive in his correspondence with me. Even at that moment I was naive. Accordingly I invited a reply from him, and stated my willingness to consider carefully and sympathetically any suggestions, particularly those of a practical nature, which he might offer. I imagined that his reply to this letter would be as prompt as that to my previous letter.

I waited in vain for this reply. On Jan. 30th I had to go east on important business. I returned to my office only on Feb. 10th. What transpired then the following letter from me to Mr. Richards will make plain:

February 18, 1930.

Mr. Bernard G. Richards,

Executive Director,

American Jewish Congress,

53 West 42nd St.,

New York City.

Dear Sir:

Upon my return to my office on February 10th, after an 11-days’ trip east, I found your letter of February 3rd upon my desk. In fact, the letter was buried in a heap of correspondence which had accumulated during my absence, of such size that I did not get to it until the next day, February 11th. That was my first sight of your letter. I read it rather hastily at that time and put it aside to reply to it as soon as I could get matters of more urgent character, requiring immediate attention, out of the way, and could give to it likewise the careful consideration which I thought it deserved.

Moreover, since this letter, dated February 3rd is in reply to my letter to you dated January 3rd, since, in other words, you had taken exactly one month in which to reply to my letter, I naturally felt that there was no particular hurry in replying to this last letter of yours.

What was my astonishment therefore to find that you had given, not our entire correspondence, but only my last letter to you and your reply to me, to the Jewish Daily Bulletin for publication, and that this had appeared in the issue of the Bulletin of Thursday, February 13th. This means, of course, that you must have given these letters to the Bulletin at least several days before the date of publication. This means in turn that consciously you allowed me no opportunity to reply to your last letter and to answer the questions and objections to my position which you raised in your letter.

Furthermore, you will admit, I am sure, that in none of your letters to me did you give the slightest intimation that you intended to publish this correspondence, or at least a part of it, nor did you at any time ask my consent to have my letter or letters to you published. To me this seems an unheard of procedure.

I am therefore writing to you today to ask you to make clear to me first, whether you think it was right and honorable to publish my letter to you, understood by me at least to be a purely personal communication, and to publish it without having informed me in advance of your intention and also without securing my consent thereto and without allowing me any opportunity to reply to your last letter; and second, to request you to inform me definitely of what worthy and worthwhile purpose you hoped to achieve by making these letters public.

May I request a prompt reply to this letter.

Very truly yours,

JULIAN MORGENSTERN,

To this letter Mr. Richards has not yet replied. In truth I did not expect him to, for, on one hand, what reply could he make that would justify his action and the purpose behind it; and on the other hand, had he not achieved his purpose? Seemingly Mr. Richards believes in the principle that the end justifies the means.

However, subsequent information has made me realize that in all this I may have done Mr. Richards a slight injustice. I find that the two letters, mine of Jan. 3rd and his very clever, insinuating and caustic reply thereto, were sent out, not to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency alone, as I had first supposed, but to all the Jewish press and press agencies; and they were sent out, not by Mr. Richards personally, but by the organization of which he is the very efficient Executive Director; and the “release” bears the following very intesting caption:

AMERICAN JEWISH CONGRESS

33 West 42nd Street

New York, N. Y.

(For Immediate Release)

Dr. Morgenstern Proposes Reform Judaism as Solution of Religious Repressions in Russia.

President of Hebrew Union College States That Yevsektzia Stands for Spiritual Progress in Communication to Executive Secretary American Jewish Congress.

Mr. Richards in Spirited Reply Deplores Lack of Sympathy and Condemns Raising Question of Reform Versus Orthodoxy in Face of Calamity.

Dilemma of Russian Jewry Described as Tragedy.

I am no longer as naive as I was. I have been taught a valuable lesson by a very competent teacher. I understand much better today than I did two short months ago, just what Jewish politics is (Even though I still hesitate, I can no longer refrain from using the adjective). It is indeed an interesting game, and no doubt fruitful for those who can play it skillfully. But in the face of the tragic situation which confronts our brethren in Russia today, and not only in Russia, but also in Palestine, in Poland, in Roumania and in other lands, and of