Resolutions that the principles embodied in the Brandeis memorandum are for the best interests of the Zionist cause in America and Palestine and urging American Zionists and the Administrative Committee of the Z.O.A to bring about the acceptance of the memorandum at the Cleveland convention in order that the benefits of leadership by the Brandeis-Mack group might be achieved, were adopted at a meeting of the New York Zionists held at the Pennsylvania Hotel, Wednesday evening.
A resolution urging Justice Brandeis to accept the leadership of the movement at the earliest possible moment after the acceptance of the memorandum by the Cleveland convention was also adopted. The chairman of the meeting, Dr. Norman Salit, was empowered and instructed to select a committee of seven to inform the Administrative Committee of the Zionist Organization and Justice Brandeis, of the meeting’s stand, and to work towards the adoption of the memorandum by the convention. Those appointed were Dr. Salit, David Tennenbaum, Morris Dlugasch, M. Zelden, James W. Wise, Johan J. Smertenko and K. Israeli.
A letter from Judge Julian Mack, clarifying some of the debated points in the memorandum, was read to the meeting. In this letter Judge Mack declared it had been unanimously agreed by Justice Brandeis, his associates and the Administrative Committee, to publish the memorandum. His second point was that the memorandum, so far as details are concerned, is not an ultimatum but is amenable to change. In his third point he said: “I do not understand the doubts that you say have been raised. Justice Brandeis and his associates in signing it, thought that they were stating very clearly the definite responsibility that they assume and of course if the conditions should be fully met, the greater responsibilities therein specified will fall upon them.”
The conference, which was attended by almost one hundred and fifty Zionists “of every view,” according to the resolutions, was called by an independent committee of New York Zionists and confined itself to a heated discussion on the memorandum. Debate on the wording of the resolutions was particularly acrimonious. Following speeches by Dr. Salit, David Tannenbaum and James W. Wise, who discussed the meaning and significance of the memorandum, the meeting was thrown open for a general discussion. While the sentiment displayed was practically unanimous for the acceptance of the memorandum, there was sharp dispute as to how this was to be done and what action the meeting should take.
The meeting was called by a committee consisting of Dr. Salit, Mr. Tennenbaum, Mr. Wise, M. Zeldin, Dr. I. H. Levinthal, M. Dlugasch, B. Fain, H. Zirn and I. Hassan.