Lipsky’s Repudiated Statements Are Verified by His Hearers

The Jewish Daily Bulletin is in receipt of the following communication from Carl Sherman:

“I notice in the Jewish Daily Bulletin of January 6, an account of the address by Mr. Louis Lipsky at the meeting of the New York City Election Committee for the American Jewish Congress, the tenor of which completely misrepresents the spirit and text of Mr. Lipsky’s address.

“As the chairman of the meeting, I can attest:

“1. To the fact that neither in Mr. Lipsky’s words nor in those of any other speaker was there the abusive attitude which your report unfortunately attributes to the meeting.

“2. Mr. Lipsky was not engaged in a discussion of personalities. His address was devoted exclusively to a discussion of philosophies of Jewish life, and the name of the American Jewish Committee was mentioned only incidentally in his presentation.

“3. He said that the Jews of America would have to decide for themselves whether they prefer to have their affairs conducted without public scrutiny or for the benefit of public discussion, and called upon ‘those Jews who believe in the open consideration of all Jewish matters to take their stand under the banner of the American Jewish Congress.’

“4. He did not call for the abolition or destruction of Jewish federations or any other groups. He deplored a system of control in Jewish institutions whereby no opportunity was given for public discussion or for action based upon vote. This, he said, has the effect of killing off initiative on the part of the Jews and in absolving them of communal responsibility.

“5. Implicit in the text and in the spirit of Mr. Lipsky’s words was the view that adherence to the Congress or to any other group is a matter of choice.

“You will find this was the theme of his address as contained in his prepared statement which reached your office and in the extension of his remarks extemporaneously.

“May I ask you to publish these remarks in the interest of the impartiality which the Jewish Daily Bulletin should maintain?”

A BLANKET DENIAL

Mr. Sherman in his attempt to whitewash Mr. Lipsky follows the easy method of placing in the mouth of The Bulletin statements which were never made by it. The Bulletin, for example, never reported that Mr. Lipsky called for the “abolition or destruction of Jewish federations.” What The Bulletin stated was that Mr. Lipsky said that the Congress “must destroy the leadership of wealth.”

It is rather strange that instead of correcting the report himself. Mr. Lipsky has Mr. Sherman issue a denial. Perhaps Mr. Lipsky assumes that a denial issued by a third person will meet with more credence.

LIPSKY BLAMES REPORTER

The New Palestine, like Mr. Sherman, in denying the report of The Bulletin does not refer to any specific remark in the report, but rather indulges in generalities. The New Palestine ascribes to The Bulletin devious designs with regard to the report. Mr. Lipsky obviously applies to The Bulletin methods and standards which he follows himself. Lacking the courage to stand by his statements, and as is the habit of the politician, he blames it on the reporter.

The correctness of the story published in The Bulletin is confirmed by the following letter received from Mr. Shepard Stone:

“I have read the news report headed ‘Calls Work of A. J. Committee Inconsequential, Hits Aid Body’ in the Jewish Daily Bulletin of January 6, 1935. Though the New York Times did not carry any report, so far as I know. I was present during the meeting mentioned in the article. The story, in my estimation, is substantially correct and a fair and truthful description of Mr. Lipsky’s speech.

“Shepard Stone.”