J. D. B. News Letter

O. E. d’Avigdor Goldsmid, president of the Board of Jewish Deputies, Lord Rothschild, Sir Meyer Spielman, Major H. L. Nathan, M.P., Colonel Charles Waley-Cohen, Nathan Laski, and Miss Nettie Adler, were selected by the Board of Jewish Deputies at its meeting held last night, to be the seven representatives of the Anglo-Jewish Community on the Jewish Agency. The Zionist Organization informed the Palestine Committee of the Board that Great Britain and Ireland will be represented by seven members instead of six.

The Community is entitled to elect also 21 Deputy representatives to the Jewish Agency. The names of Rabbi S. Daiches, Councillor M. H. Davis, A. S. Diamond, Dr. M. Epstein, Cyril Q. Henriques, Laurie Magues, and Michael Marcus, M.P., were approved as a first list.

The names had been recommended by the Palestine Committee of the Board, and were approved after a somewhat heated debate, initiated by Councillor S. Finburgh. ex-M.P. for Salford, and one of the members of the Palestine Committee. Mr. Finburgh said that the Chairman of the Palestine Committee. (O. E. d’Avigdor Goldsmid), had taken if upon himself to suggest the names of persons to be recommended for nomination to the Jewish Agency. When the Palestine Committee met last Wednesday, to his (Mr. Finburgh’s) consternation and despite his warning, the Chairman had placed seven names before the Committee. He protested against the principle of one person introducing and forcing down their throats a thing they did not want.

Lionel L. Coben supported Mr. Finburgh. The Board, he said, ought to have had the right and the prerogative of directly nominating the names.

Councillor M. H. Davis said that they ought to be fair to their president. The Committee had asked Mr. Goldsmid to bring forward the names and reserved the right to agree or disagree.

Dr. Epstein said that the impression had been conveyed that the president had brought forward a number of names and forced them through. This was not the case. The president met the Committee and brought forward the names on the Committee’s instructions. These names were not the president’s but the Committee’s. On five of the names the Committee was unanimous, but on the other two there was divergence of opinion.

Mr. Goldsmid said that never before in his life had he listened to an attack such as was made on him by Mr. Finburgh. What happened at a meeting of a Committee of the Board was usually confidential and it was a question of taste whether it should

(Continued on Page 7)

(Continued from Page 5)

have been revealed by Mr. Finburgh. But be that as it may, it had been suggested that he had taken seven names and thrown them at the Palestine Committee. He was not resting under that imputation. At the first meeting of the Palestine Committee a prolonged discussion had taken place on the question of the names, and the Committee had asked him and Mr. Laski to submit names. The Committee was not fettered or tied in any way. He had tried to be fair in this matter, as he was on other things. If the Board thought that Mr. Finburgh was justified in the criticism which he had made of him, and of his conduct on the Committee, he placed himself in the Board’s hands.

Mr. Finburgh said that he was sorry that if in the heat of the debate he had used words which Mr. Goldsmid resented. He had made his complaint and was satisfied, but no one could better testify than he to Mr. Goldsmid’s fairness, but in this case…

Prior to the discussion, Mr. Bolloton moved that Mr. Finburgh’s name be substituted among the seven, in place of that of Colonel Charles Waley-Cohen. Mr. Finburgh said in this connection that he had not intended to be nominated, as he expected to enter a Kurhaus, but as a matter of principle, on account of Mr. Goldsmid’s action, he had decided to stand. The amendment was, however, afterwards withdrawn.

N. Laski, in moving the adoption of the Palestine Committee’s report, said that he had hoped Sir Herbert Samuel’s name would have been among the seven submitted. Sir Herbert had intimated, however, that he could not accept the position. Sir Herbert, he said, would mention his reason for not doing so at Zurich. (Sir Herbert Samuel, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency understands, will attend and will speak at the opening meeting of the Jewish Agency Council in Zurich August 11.)

Major Isidore Salmon, M. P., was elected Vice-President of the Board of Deputies in place of the late Joseph Prag. He polled 98 votes. Councillor Davis received 19 votes. The other candidates nominated, Rabbi S. Daiches, Councillor S. Finburgh, Dr. D. Jochelman, and Elsley Zeitlyn, withdrew their names.

A deputation from the Board will meet the Home Secretary in October, H. S. Schildkraut, the Chairman of the Aliens Committee, said in submitting the report of his Committee. It would be accompanied by Jewish members of Parliament of all Parties, to make representations with regard to the registration of alien children, and the deportation of aliens, and also with regard to the naturalization of aliens.

He had good reason, Mr. Schildkraut said, to believe that the present Government were a little more favorable to their views than the last Government.

A. E. Samuels said that the Deputation should ask whether there was possibility of a reversion to the conditions obtaining in regard to alien between 1905 and 1914.

Mr. Schildkraut asked the Deputie to submit their suggestions to his Committee.

DIVIDED ON STAND TO BE TAKEN TO WARD ROUMANIA

Morris Meyer raised a question on the report of the Joint Foreign Committee, submitted by Lucien Wolf concerning the action of the presen government of Roumania in amending the law relating to the organization o the Jewish Communities. For administrative and technical reasons, he said it might not be possible for the Board to intervene, but what was happening in Roumania was a matter for the deepest anxiety. There was only one small minority for the pact-the Agudists-but it was against the wish o the majority of the Roumanian Jewish Community. The Roumanian Government had no right to interfere with the internal affairs of the Jewish Community, and an expression of the opinion of the Board deprecating the Roumanian Government’s action should be sent.

H. A. Goodman said that he deplored Mr. Myer’s remarks. This was a matter which was the internal affair of the Roumanian Community, which they should settle themselves with the Roumanian Government. Roumanian Jewry had asked for no outside intervention, and as the Board has not been asked, it should make no intervention or protest.

Lucien Wolf said that it had been pictured that the case of Roumanian Jewry in connection with the Law was one of intolerable persecution and at infraction of treaty rights. This was not so. This was not a new law, but an amendment of an old law, and instead of compelling all Jews to form part of a united community, it was permissive for the three main bodies to form a Kultus Gemeinde of their own. The Deputies must remember that it was permissive. They could not intervene to propose that Jewish minorities should be oppressed by Jewish majorities. If the United Synagogue in this country proposed that a Bill should be brought forward in Parliament to compel all sections of the Anglo-Jewish Community to join the United Synagogue, what would they say? In Roumania it was not a matter of oppression, but one which he was sure would right itself to the great advantage of the Roumanian Jewish Community.

TO PROTEST TO NORWEGIAN GOVERNMENT ON SCHECHITA

During the past month, the report stated, the Joint Foreign Committee has been much occupied with the formidable resuscitation of the agitation in Norway for the abolition of

(Continued on Page 8)

(Continued from Page 7)

Schechita in that country. In 1926-27 bills for the abolition of Schechita were introduced into the Norwegian Storthing, and were supported by a large measure of public opinion which had been inflamed by demagogic misrepresentations. The Jewish Community of Oslo appealed to the Joint Foreign Committee, and owing to the representations it made to the Norweffian Government both bills were defeated.

Last May the anti-Schechita party promoted a fresh bill in the Storthing. The preparations had been made with great secrecy, and the sponsors of the Bill made full use of the facilities afforded by the Parliamentary Procedure to press the Bill through all its stages. The Joint Foreign Committee acted with all possible promptitude and once more presented the case for the Jewish Community to the Norwegian Government. Notwithstanding the courageously expressed sympathy of the Prime Minister and of other leading members of the Storthing, the bill was rapidly carried through both Houses, and will come into operation on January 1st, 1930.

In view of the fact that Sweden has already adopted similar legislation, and that there seems to be some danger of the example of the two Scandinavian kingdoms being followed in Denmark the Committee feel that no effort should be spared to persuade the Norwegian Parliament to reconsider its decision. The Committee has according to adopted a resolution which will be communicated to the Norwegian Government, in which it expresses its profound regret at the adoption of a legislative measure, which can only be regarded as an act of persecution, and violation of minorities rights. It has further resolved to publish and circulate the correspondence which has passed between the Committee and the Norwegian Government, and the Presidents have been authorized to take such further action as may be practicable to defend the religious interest other Norwegian co-religionists.

In 1928, when the question of the demolition of Jews’ Court, Lincoln, was under consideration, the report of the Press Committee submitted to the meeting said, “The Times” stated that the Well in the Jews’ Court was being shown to visitors as the actual Well associated with the Lincoln Blood Libe Case in the 13th century. The Committee have been informed that the Lincoln Archeological Society have ascertained that the Well is of recent date and that the man who made it is known.

The Committee drew the attention of the Lincoln Corporation to these fact and have been informed by the town clerk that it is unlikely that the Well would be shown again to visitors.

SIR HERBERT NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH SEVENTH DOMINION IDEA

“A new form of Zionism has arisen which is seeking to make Palestine a Seventh Dominion of the British Empire,” declared Sir Herbert Samuel at the Herzl Memorial meeting held here. “I do not desire here to argue about its merits or demerits, but I say, for Jewish reasons, for British reasons and for international reasons, I do not agree with it; but those who do agree with it and who take a different view from myself, can agree with the rest of us in helping to create a strong Jewish Agency which will include all sections. And not the least far-seeing step which the Zionist Organization has taken was the invitation which Dr. Weizmann and the Zionist Organization have extended for those sections to join with them to labor for Palestine. It is an act of self-sacrifice and renunciation to volunteer to give half the seats to the others, most of them who have done little for the cause, but they (the Zionist Organization) regard the end in view as more important than any organization, and I hope the outcome and the response given by the communities, will be to create an Agency powerful in personnel, actuated by a constructive spirit to speed the work in Palestine.

“I am convinced, Sir Herbert concluded, that the world cannot do without religion. It am not now speaking of the formulated creeds, but of the spirit that underlies them all. Unless the essence of religion is there, morality may wither and civilization become corrupt, and I say the Jews do not exist for Jews alone. The tribal idea is dead; the universalistic idea has taken its place. Herzl had that great faith he was armed with justice, and impelled by the mighty tradition of the past and the noble vision of the future. It is right that we should pay tribute to his memory.”