AJC Review 1936

REVIEW OF THE YEAR 5696*
BY HARRY SCHNEIDERMAN
I
THE UNITED STATES
While much of the attention of the American Jewish

community continued to be centered upon events affecting
their brethren in Germany, tragic occurrences in Poland
and in Palestine also gave American Jews cause for great
concern during the period under review.
REACTION TO BERLIN RIOTS
Almost at the beginning of the period, a wave of anti-

Jewish riots and acts of brutality against Jews was reported
from Berlin. These occurrences could not be denied by the
Nazi government. Their incidence was authenticated by
eye-witnesses, including Varian Fry, editor of The Living
Age, who gave a vivid description of them to the Associated
Press. Public opinion in the United States was aroused,
and leading newspapers denounced the Nazi government
as responsible for the conditions which had led to the riots.
Senators David I. Walsh (Mass.), Millard E. Tydings
(Md.), J. Hamilton Lewis (111.), and Pat McCarran (Nev.),
gave public expression to their sense of outrage. Dr. Ivan
Lee Holt, president of the Federal Council of the Churches
of Christ in America, also issued a statement deploring
"the barbaric treatment of Christians and Jews in
Germany." On July 24, 1935, Senator William H. King
(Utah) urged that an investigation of Nazi persecution of
Jews and Catholics be made to ascertain if the United
States would be warranted in severing diplomatic relations
with Germany.
*The period covered by this review is from July 1, 1935, to June 30. 1936. It is based
on reports in the Jewish and general press of the United States and a number of
foreign countries.
175
176 AMERICAN JEWISH YEAR BOOK
A huge mass meeting in Brooklyn, New York, adopted a

protest resolution in which an appeal was addressed to
President Roosevelt to intervene officially in the name of
the people of the United States; some speakers demanded
the breaking off of commercial and diplomatic relations
with Germany, if persecutions did not cease. A similar
mass meeting was held in Madison Square Garden, New
York City. In Washington, a large public meeting, held
on August 22, 1935, heard addresses by United States
Senators, representatives of labor organizations, and
religious leaders. Senator William H. King of Utah declared
that he "would not hesitate to vote to rescind the com-
mercial treaty between the United States and Germany if
the Hitler regime continues its cruel and paganistic course
against Jews, Catholics, and Protestants."
At about the same time, the Minnesota Federation of
Labor at its annual convention held in Red Wing,
Minnesota, unanimously adopted a resolution asking the
United States Government officially to voice a protest
against Nazi persecution of minorities.
In Boston, an unusually interesting event occurred. On
August 12, the General Assembly of Massachusetts adopted
a resolution condemning Nazi Germany's persecution of
minorities. The resolution, which was introduced by
Representatives Albert E. Morris of Everett and Thomas
Dorgan of -Boston, Mass., declared that the General
Assembly "views with alarm that certain inhabitants of
Germany are being persecuted on account of their religious
faith and nationality." It affirmed the "conviction and
belief that freedom and equality of mankind, regardless
of race, creed or color, is indispensable to the maintenance
of modern civilization." A few days later Baron Kurt von
Tippelskirch, German Consul General at Boston, issued a
statement declaring that the State was overstepping the
bounds of international propriety and threatening to bring
the matter to the attention of the German Embassy for
diplomatic action. This statement was, in turn, declared
improper by Governor James M. Curley who retorted that
the Nazi program was "abhorrent to right-thinking men
REVIEW OF THE YEAR 5696 177
and women the world over." "I am quite satisfied,"

declared Governor Curley, "that the action taken by the
Legislature of Massachusetts is but a formal expression of
the opinion of the public as a whole."
Within the Jewish community, the anti-Jewish excesses
in Germany were followed by two steps. On July 22, 1935,
an emergency conference; sponsored jointly by the American
Jewish Congress and the Jewish Labor Committee, adopted
a resolution calling upon President Roosevelt to make
representations to the German Government expressing the
concern of the American people over the outbreaks of
violence.
On July 26, a delegation, comprising representatives of
the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish
Congress, the B'nai B'rith, and the Jewish Labor Com-
mittee, waited upon the Hon. William Phillips, Under
Secretary of State who was acting as Secretary in the
absence of the Hon. Cordell Hull, and submitted a remon-
strance calling attention not only to the events which had
just occurred but also to the continuing persecution of Jews
as well as of Catholic and Protestant groups and liberal
democratic elements in general; the United States Govern-
ment was requested to protest against these persecutions
and to take appropriate steps to inform the German Govern-
ment of the sense of outrage of the American people. Mr.
Phillips assured the delegation orally of the sympathy of
the government of the United States, and, a few days later,
embodied these assurances in a letter addressed to the
signatories of the remonstrance. (For the text of these
documents, see the Twenty-ninth Annual Report of the
American Jewish Committee, printed in this volume).
While no public announcement has been made of any
action by the United States Government in connection with
events in Germany, that such action was taken was in-
dicated by President Roosevelt in his annual message to
Congress, delivered by him in person and broadcast by
radio on the evening of January 3, 1935. In the course of
this message, the President said: "We have sought by every
legitimate means to exert our moral influence against
repression, against intolerance, and against autocracy, a n d

in favor of freedom of expression equally before the law,
religious tolerance and popular rule."
T H E S. S. B R E M E N A F F A I R
Besides events in Germany, occurrences in the United

States during July and August 1935, also served to draw
public attention to Nazi policies. T h e most striking of
these happenings was the incident involving the H a p a g -
Lloyd liner Bremen. On July 26, a crowd estimated as
numbering from four to five thousand persons staged an
anti-Nazi demonstration at the New York City pier where
this steamer was berthed. T h e demonstration reached a
climax when a flag bearing the swastika symbol was ripped
from the staff at the bow of the ship and was tossed into the
river. This action precipitated a clash between police and
demonstrators in which several persons were severely h u r t
and some of the mob were arrested, all of them non-Jews.
T h e policeman most seriously injured, who, it was sub-
sequently reported, gave the rioters most determined
resistance, was Detective M a t t h e w Solomon, a Jew.
This episode a t once became the occasion for diplomatic
exchanges. Although the Hon. Wilbur J. Carr, then Acting
Secretary of State, a t a press conference, expressed regret
over the incident, the German Government instructed Dr.
Rudolph Leitner, its charge d'affaires, to present a formal
protest. T h e note was transmitted to Governor Herbert
H . Lehman of New York for an investigation and report.
Subsequently, the Hon. William Phillips, Under Secretary
of State, in an interview with newspapermen, replied to
the German protest with a defense of the conduct of the
New York police. While regretting t h a t " t h e German
national emblem should, during the disturbance which
took place, n o t have received t h a t respect to which it is
entitled," Mr. Phillips blamed the steamship c o m p a n y for
not having adopted precautionary measures, as the police
had urged. He emphasized the fact t h a t a Jewish detective
had been injured while defending the Nazi emblem.
The affair was further complicated when, in September,

six of the rioters came up for a hearing before Magistrate
Louis B. Brodsky, a Jew. He ordered one of the rioters
held for trial and freed the remaining five, explaining his
act in a lengthy statement in the course of which he con-
doned the riot because, in his opinion, the demonstrators
had regarded the swastika as similar to "the black flag of
piracy," and the disturbance had been "provoked by this
flaunting of an emblem to those who regarded it as a defiant
challenge to society." Judge Brodsky's act and his explana-
tory statement attracted widespread attention. News-
papers in the United States were almost unanimously of
the opinion that the incident was unfortunate. The press
of Germany was indignant and some organs indulged in
abusive personal attacks against the magistrate. Dr. Hans
Luther, the German Ambassador, in person, lodged a
protest with the Hon. Cordell Hull, Secretary of State,
who sent a request for a report to Governor Lehman who,
in turn, asked the Hon. Jacob Gould Schurman, Jr., chief
city magistrate, to submit an account of the incident.
Several days later it was announced that, without waiting
for the report of Governor Lehman, Secretary of State Hull
had given an oral apology to Dr. Leitner, Counsellor of the
German embassy, for Judge Brodsky's remarks. Secretary
Hull had stated: "Although, in this country, the right of
freedom of speech is well recognized by our fundamental
law, it is to be regretted that an official having no responsi-
bility for maintaining relations between the United States
and other countries should, regardless of what he may
personally think of the laws and policies of other govern-
ments, thus indulge in expressions offensive to another
government with which we have official connections."
Mr. Hull's act made it possible for Herr Hitler, in proclaim-
ing the swastika banner as the official emblem of the Reich,
to refer to "the insult to the German flag—which had been
settled in the most loyal manner by the American govern-
ment." This proclamation was made in the course of the
celebration of the National Socialist Party Day (Der
Parteitag der Freiheit), at Nuremberg, on September 15,
1935, when the infamous edicts were promulgated which
have been aptly termed "ghetto laws."
In the course of the same speech before the Reichstag

a t Nuremberg, Herr Hitler attacked the Jews for their
alleged link with Communism. This charge was repudiated
in a declaration issued in October by Dr. Cyrus Adler,
president of the American Jewish Committee; Alfred M.
Cohen, president of the B'nai B'rith; and B. C. Vladeck,
chairman of the Jewish Labor Committee. The German
Chancellor repeated his allegations on November 27, 1935,
in an interview with Hugh Baillie, president of the United
Press. Shortly afterward, the United Press published an
interview with Dr. Adler, refuting and ridiculing Hitler's
statements.
In the meantime, another international incident had
developed in New York City. Toward the end of July,
Mayor Fiorello H. LaGuardia directed Paul Moss, Com-
missioner of Licenses, to deny the application of a German
national for a license to practice as a masseur. This step
drew from Dr. Hans Borchers, German Consul General in
New York City,- a protest in which he averred that the
Mayor's act was a breach of the commercial treaty between
the United States and Germany, which gave Germans in
the United States the same rights as are accorded to
American citizens in Germany. To this, the Mayor retorted
that, while the treaty should be reciprocal "it is well known
that American citizens of the Jewish faith have been dis-
criminated against in Germany." The Mayor was not
moved from his stand by protest meetings held by German
residents of the city, which were made the vehicle for
abusive anti-Jewish utterances and bitter denunciations of
Mr. LaGuardia. And, when the State Department informed
Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel of New York City,
that the German-American commercial treaty of 1935 was
still in effect and that no complaints of any violation of it
had been received from American citizens, Mayor
LaGuardia insisted that this assertion was "contrary to
information I (he) received as a member of Congress during
the latter part of my (his) term." Later, he supported this
contention by referring to five press releases of the Depart-
ment of State, all complaining of discrimination by Ger-
many as against American holders of German bonds. At the
same time, the German Government issued a semi-official
declaration asserting that Mayor LaGuardia's action was a
breach of the German-American treaty, but made no
attempt to take official steps. The incident was eventually
closed by the departure of the license applicant for Ger-
many.
Probably the first legal controversy involving the Nazi
racial laws to be brought into an American court was based
on the claim of one, Marcel M. Holzer, against the Reichs-
bahn (German State Railroads), for damages because, in
violation of a contract, he had beeen discharged from
employment. In deciding that Holzer could bring suit in
an American court, Justice William T. Collins of the New
York Supreme Court bench declared on June 20 that "we
are . . . . not obligated by the law of comity to enforce the
law of Germany when its enforcement is sought here contrary
to our every sense of justice, liberty and morality." "We
are in no wise seeking to interfere with the internal affairs
of Germany," Justice Collins said. "We are not at the
moment concerned with the conscience of Germany, but
with our own. We are but applying our public policy to
an action pending here because the policy of Germany so
shockingly conflicts with ours."
THE OLYMPIC GAMES

All these events served to give impetus to the movement
against the participation of American athletes in the
Olympic Games, scheduled to take place in Berlin in the
summer of 1936. It will be recalled that there had been
agitation against participation in 1933 and 1934 (see
American Jewish Year Book, Vol. 36, p. 126 et seq.; Vol. 37,
p. 138-139).
Former Judge Jeremiah T. Mahoney of the New York
State Supreme Court, president of the Amateur Athletic
Union, became the .recognized leader of the anti-Olympic
movement when he announced, on July 25, 1935, that he
would personally vote against American participation,
if reports of discrimination against Jewish athletes were
substantiated. He reaffirmed this stand in a, radio address
over a nation-wide network in August. AyeryJBrundage;
president of the American Olympic Committee, declared
in reply that he had not heard of any discrimination and

that he would continue to support the Games.
During succeeding months a number of protests against
American participation in the Games were heard. The
Christian Century, a Protestant journal, urged that the
Games be moved to some other country where fair play
would be guaranteed, and in August the Commonweal,
Catholic weekly, demanded a boycott of the Olympics.
On August 13, Senator Peter G. Gerry of Rhode Island
demanded in the Senate that American sportsmen "give
serious consideration to the question of whether we should
participate in the Olympic Games if conditions in Germany
continue as they are." Senator David I. Walsh of Mass-
achusetts supported his demand that the United States
consider withdrawal from the Olympics. Several days later,
Representative Emanual Celler of New York introduced
a resolution in the House, intended to discourage American
participation by prohibiting the use of public or semi-
public funds to defray expenses of Americans seeking to
compete in the events.
Other American leaders and important organizations also
expressed their opposition. In September, Governor George
H. Earle of Pennsylvania demanded withdrawal of Ameri-
can teams from the Games because, he said, Nazi policies
were "wholly contrary to the Olympic spirit of fair sports-
manship." The National Council of Methodist Youth
appealed, in October, to American church leaders to urge
their parishioners to shun the Games as "one of the most
effective means of expressing the moral indignation of
civilized people at the return to barbarism" in Germany.
Several weeks later, the 55th Annual convention of the
American Federation of Labor, at Atlantic City, voted to
oppose American participation.
These views, however, were not shared by men who were
connected with the arrangement of the games. William M.
Henry, technical director of the 1932 Olympiad at Los
Angeles, returning from Germany in August, and Frederick
W. Rubien, secretary of the American Olympic Committee,
returning in September, both defended the plans for
American participation, declaring they had seen no signs
of anti-Jewish discrimination in sports. This view was
upheld by General Charles H. Sherrill, American member

of the International Olympic Committee, who warned that
continued agitation against participation would intensify
anti-Jewish feeling in this country. In October, he made
public a letter from Captain Hans von Tschammer und
Osten, chief of the German Olympic Committee, giving
assurance that there would be no discrimination in Germany
on racial grounds. The General's statements amazed Jewish
and liberal opinion throughout America, and were vigor-
ously refuted by William B. Chamberlain, Secretary of
the Committee on Fair Play in Sports, which had been
organized to carry on the struggle against participation,
with George Gordon Battle and Dr. Henry Smith Leiper
acting as co-chairmen. Mr. Chamberlain declared that
fair play had "been denied not only to Jewish athletes in
Germany but also to Catholic and Protestant sport clubs
which do not accept Nazi doctrines of conscience."
In October, Mr. Mahoney cited a formidable list of Nazi
violations of the Olympic pledge in answer to assertions,
made in Germany by Dr. Theodor Lewald, that Germany
was living up to her obligations. Though he had been
ousted from the presidency of the German Olympics
Association and the Reich Sports Association because of
his partial Jewish ancestry, Dr. Lewald had been retained
by the Nazi Government as a temporary sports expert.
His statements were also ridiculed by Dr. Charles S.
MacFarland, general secretary emeritus of the Federal
Council of Churches of Christ in America.
On October 24, leading Catholic and Protestant figures
issued a statement advocating American withdrawal from
the Games. Signers included Dr. Samuel McCrea Cavert,
general secretary of the Federal Council of Churches of
Christ in America; Michael Williams, editor, and George
N. Shuster, managing editor, of the Commonweal; Dr.
Henry Smith Leiper; Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt; Dr.
Henry Sloane Coffin, president of the Union Theological
Seminary; Dr. Tyler Dennett, president of Williams
College; Dr. John H. Finley; Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick;
former Ambassador to Germany, James W. Gerard; William
Green, president of the A. F. of L.; Rev. Dr. John Haynes
Holmes; Mayor Fiorello H. LaGuardia; Amos Pinchot;

and Dr. Mary E. Woolley, president of Holyoke College.
In November, representatives of 75,000 German-
Americans went on record for the postponement of the
Olympics and their removal from Berlin, at a special
meeting of the German-American League for Culture.
Later in the same month, 138 Protestant clergymen and
educators joined in a public statement demanding American
withdrawal to make it clear "to the Nazi government that
its cruel treatment of 'non-Aryans' is repugnant to the
conscience of the world." A few days later, Ernest Lee
Jahncke, one of the three American members of the Inter-
national Olympic Committee, caused a sensation by the
publication of letters to Dr. Lewald and to Count Henri
de Baillet-Latour, chairman of the International Olympic
Committee, in which Mr. Jahncke declared that to hold the
games in Germany would be a blow to the Olympic ideal.
Father Charles E. Coughlin, Detroit radio priest, also urged
support of the Olympic boycott, as did the presidents of
41 American colleges, in a statement made public on
December 2.
The anti-Olympic movement received a temporary set-
back in November when, after several denials of ever having
received an invitation, Helene Mayer, 1932 Olympic fencing
champion, who was living in Los Angeles, accepted a hur-
ried Nazi bid to take part in the Berlin Games. It was
reported that the fact that Miss Mayer had relatives in
Germany had influenced her acceptance. Officials at Mills
College, California, where she was a language instructor,
announced that "she would represent Germany only if
granted full German citizenship rights." The Nazi govern-
ment granted her request by declaring her an "Aryan,"
although she was of mixed parentage.
Opposition to the Berlin Olympics reached a climax in
New York at a massmeeting held on December 3. Speakers
included Governor Earle of Pennsylvania; Mayor LaGuardia
of New York; Alfred J. Lill, member of the American
Olympic Committee; Jeremiah T. Mahoney; Dr. Frank
Bohn, publicist; Walter White, secretary of the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People; Joseph
Schlossberg of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union;
and Francis A. Henson, treasurer of the Committee on Fair

Play in Sports.
A large section of the American press strongly upheld
the anti-Olympics movement, as did former Olympics
participants, including Jesse Owens, track; Jack Shea,
ice-skating; Lillian Copeland, discus; Stella Walsh, sprint;
Frank Wykoff, relay; Irving Jaffe, ice-skating, and many
others. Organizations advocating non-participation in the
Olympics included the New Jersey American Legion, the
International Typographical Union, the New Jersey Meth-
odist Episcopal Church, the Baltimore City Council, the
Catholic War Veterans, the American Youth Congress,
the American League Against War and Fascism, and
innumerable others.
In October, the New York Amateur Athletic Union,
largest of the 34 groups in the national organization, voted
down a resolution to boycott the Olympics. Several other
district A. A. U. groups, however, voted for the boycott
of the Games; they included the Pacific Association, the
Indiana-Kentucky Association, the South Atlantic Associ-
ation, the New Jersey Association, and the Middle Atlantic
Association.
On December 7, at the annual convention of the national
Amateur Athletic Union, in New York, petitions containing
500,000 names and resolutions from organizations number-
ing a total of 1,500,000 members, all demanding non-
participation in the Berlin Olympics, were presented just
before the sessions began. Avery Brundage was elected
president of the A. A. U. after Mr. Mahoney withdrew his
name as a candidate. Mr. Brundage told the convention
that, no matter how it voted, an American team would be
sent to Germany. He repeated many charges he had
previously made, and the debate was the most bitter in
the organization's history. In the midst of the heated
discussion, a compromise measure, offered by Supreme
Court Justice Aron D. Steuer, proposing the naming of a
commission of three to investigate conditions in Germany,
was rejected by a margin of 2K votes. In the closing hours,
the convention adopted a resolution backing participation
in the Games, with the reservation that the sending of an
American team "must not be taken to imply endorsement
of the principles or practices of the Nazi G o v e r n m e n t . "

T h e resolution recognized t h a t the situation in Germany-
would require the "vigilance" of the International Olympic
Committee and the International A m a t e u r Athletic Fed-
eration.
T h e adoption of this resolution, however, did not satify
m a n y individuals and groups. M r . M a h o n e y declared t h a t
he would continue " t o devote m y (his) energies to preserv-
ing the honor of American athletes." H e also resigned from
the American Olympic Committee Executive. His example
was followed by several other active members. Several
individuals invited to compete in the Olympics also refused
to do so. These included H e n r y Neugass, co-holder of the
world's record for the 100-yard dash; Charles Wakefield
C a d m a n , invited to take p a r t in the musical aspects of the
Olympics; and members of the League of American Artists,
who voted against participation in the Olympic a r t exhibits.
T h e winter games of the Olympiad were held from
F e b r u a r y 6 to 16, 1936. Returning to t h e United States
in F e b r u a r y from Garmisch-Partenkirchen, where the
events were held, Gustavus T . Kirby, treasurer of A.O.C.,
declared he had seen no sign of anti-Jewish discrimination.
At the same time, Westbrook Pegler, columnist for a news-
paper syndicate, who also attended the games, cabled a
series of articles in which he scathingly condemned Nazi
t r e a t m e n t of Jews and other minorities, which evoked
widespread comment.
Later, scattered reports indicated t h a t the American
Olympics Committee was experiencing considerable diffi-
culty in its campaign to raise $350,000 to send the American
team to Germany. At their annual winter meeting in
December, the club owners of the National and American
Baseball Leagues flatly rejected a request from the A m a t e u r
Baseball Federation for a $20,000 appropriation to help
send an American team to Berlin. On December 3 1 , M r .
Brundage announced t h a t only $16,000 had been collected
for the American Olympic team. On the same d a y , t h e
American Olympic Committee unanimously voted t o
remove all members not in s y m p a t h y with its policies.
A new drive to raise funds for the American Olympic

team was begun June 24, when leaders in industry, finance,
transportation and trade organized a New York Olympic
Committee. On July 2, the New York Olympic Committee,
in a newspaper advertisement, appealed for contributions
to enable American athletes to go to the Games. The
appeal revealed that $140,000 was still required for the
$250,000 objective. The Committee placed emphasis on
the statement that "the Olympic Games are run by an
International Olympic Committee which functions entirely
apart from the German or any other Government." The
Committee continued: "The Games are to be held this year
in Berlin. The German Government provides the arrange-
ments, but, at the 'starting gun,' retires from any authority
over the conduct or judging of the Games."
Late in June the Committee on Fair Play in Sports
announced that a team of outstanding American athletes;
was sailing for Barcelona, Spain, to take part in the Peoples;
Olympics to be held there from July 19 to 26. The Com~
mittee described the decision to send a team to represent:
the United States as "our final gesture of protest against
the Hitler Nazi Games in Berlin." The statement went
on to say: "We are acting in response to an invitation;
from the organizing committee in Barcelona, which ap-
pealed to all democratic countries to defend human freedom,
culture and progress by taking part in an international,
truly Olympic manifestation, free to all progressive sports-
men."
AMERICAN COLLEGES AND THE HEIDELBERG FESTIVAL

Public attention was drawn to the German situation also
by the discussion of the propriety of the acceptance by
American colleges and universities of the invitation to
participate in the 550th anniversary celebration of the
Heidelberg University, scheduled for June 27 to 30, 1936.
Early in March, 1936, a news report from Berlin stated
that eight institutions in the United States and one in
Canada had accepted the invitation. The American colleges
and universities said to have done so were Columbia Uni-
versity, Harvard University, University of Michigan,
Vassar College, Amherst College, Cornell University, the

College of the City of New York, and Western Reserve
University. Authorities of the last two denied having
received invitations. Under-graduate organizations a t
Columbia University protested against its acceptance of
the Heidelberg invitation. Hendrik Willem van Loon,
noted author, an alumnus of Cornell, declared t h a t it "was
incredible t h a t Hitler's bright boys would care to associate
with representatives of a university founded b y t h a t emi-
nently broad-minded Quaker Ezra Cornell." Dr. J o h n
L. Newcomb, President of the University of Virginia,
announced t h a t the institution had declined the Heidelberg
invitation "promptly, firmly and politely." On the other
hand, President Alexander G. R u t h v e n of the University
of Michigan confirmed acceptance of the invitation of t h e
Heidelberg fete. H e was quoted as saying t h a t the German
persecution of Jews and Catholics is not a n y worse t h a n
Italy's onslaught on Ethiopia.
Although there were some refusals, more than a score
of American universities were represented a t the celebra-
tion, which began J u n e 27. T h e y included Birmingham
Southern College, Carleton College, Columbia University,
Cornell University, Davidson College, Dickinson College,
H a r v a r d University, Johns Hopkins University, Louisiana
State University, Municipal University of Omaha, Stamford
University, University of Idaho, University of Illinois,
University of Iowa, University of Michigan, Vanderbilt
University, Vassar College, Yale University, Dallas Uni-
versity, Hendrix College, Wittenberg College, University
of M o n t a n a , Downer College and Pennsylvania University.
British universities were not represented, for both Oxford
and Cambridge had refused to send delegates, and invita-
tions issued to other British universities had been hurriedly
withdrawn. American visitors, acquainted with the new
university building presented to Heidelberg in 1931 b y
former Ambassador Jacob Gould Schurman and other
American alumni and friends of Heidelberg, including m a n y
Jews, were startled by a notable change in its facade. Until
a few days previous, the inscription above the entrance
had read: " T o the Eternal Spirit," and was surmounted
by a statue of Athena, the Goddess of Wisdom. The
inscription had been changed to read: "To the German

Spirit," and the statue was replaced by a golden swastika
and German eagle. Dr. Schurman, who, because of his
services to Heidelberg, had been expected to be the chief
foreign guest of honor, was absent. It was reported that he
was prevented from attending because he was detained in
Geneva by work connected with the approaching League
of Nations Assembly.
OTHER PROTESTS AGAINST NAZI POLICIES

While discussion regarding the Heidelberg fete was
going on, a storm of protest was aroused by the appoint-
ment of Dr. Wilhelm Furtwaengler, Director of the Prussian
State Opera, as musical director of the New York Philhar-
monic Symphony Society, on the ground that his accept-
ance of an honorary appointment by the Nazi government
implied his approval of Nazi policies. Some patrons of the
organization announced that they would cancel their
subscriptions unless Furtwaengler's appointment were
cancelled; the Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League threatened
a boycott of the concerts, and the Jewish Labor Committee
sent a letter to the members of the orchestra appealing to
them to refuse to work with a Nazi sympathizer. Not all
who publicly expressed opinions on the matter, however,
approved of the movement to oust Furtwaengler, nor was
there agreement on the matter among Jews. The contro-
versy was closed by the withdrawal of the conductor who,
in a cablegram to the Society, stated that he would decline
to serve "until the public realizes that politics and music
are separate."
Several months later, it was announced that the United
States Conference of Mayors which had met at Washington
in November, 1935, had refused to attend the congress of
the International Union of Local Authorities which was to
be held in Berlin in June, 1936. In a letter to the director
of the United States Conference of Mayors, Mayor
LaGuardia of New York City cited a previous unofficial
decision of the Conference not to attend. "It seems rather
paradoxical," the letter declared, "for municipal author-
ities to gather for the purpose of discussing local self-

government in a country where all local self-government
has been completely obliterated."
On the similar argument that "there is nothing in the
teaching methods of Germany which we wish to use here,"
advanced by James Marshall, vice-president, the New York
City Board of Education voted, in mid-May 1936, against
granting a leave of absence to a High School official for the
purpose of studying methods of foreign language instruction
in European countries, including Germany. Later, the
Board granted the leave with the understanding that
Germany would not be among the countries visited.
In the preceding month, Rabbi Jonah B. Wise, one of
the co-chairmen of the Joint Distribution Committee
campaign for funds for European relief and reconstruction,
made public telegrams from .presidents and chancellors of
thirteen important American colleges and universities,
deploring the exclusion of Jewish children from the public
schools of Germany which had been ordered under a recent
decree.
Synagogues and churches in the New York area offered
a common prayer for the oppressed of the earth on Saturday
and Sunday, May 2 and 3, 1936. The prayer was sponsored
by the American Christian Committee for German Refugees,
the Committee for the Relief and Liberation of Victims of
Persecutions in Europe, and the New York Board of Jewish
Ministers.
Other protests against Nazi policies included that of
Governor George H. Earle of Pennsylvania, in the course
of an Armistice Day radio address broadcast under the
auspices of the Jewish War Veterans of the United States;
that of the Executive Committee of the Federal Council
of the Churches of Christ in America which, on Novem-
ber 22, 1935, adopted a resolution endorsing the protest, of
dignitaries of the Church of England; that of 3,500 German-
Americans who, on December 15th, 1935, attended a
German Day meeting in New York City called by the
German-American League for Culture; and that of William
Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, and
other labor leaders, on May 3, 1936, at a mass meeting in
Madison Square Garden in New York City attended by

16,000 persons, marking the opening of a nation-wide
campaign to raise funds to aid the victims of persecution
in Europe.
THE TRADE BOYCOTT MOVEMENT
In connection with the movement to boycott German

goods and services, the following interesting facts are
worthy of note here. In July, 1935, Samuel Untermyer,
president of the World Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi Council,
called upon Catholics "as a body" to join in the boycott
against Germany. He declared that such a united campaign
was "the only effective weapon" which would "result in a
restoration of their rights to the oppressed German racial,
religious and political minorities."
In mid-November, 1935, protests rose from the American
Federation of Labor and many other groups when it was
revealed that German steel had been purchased for the
New York Triborough Bridge, a project which was being
financed in part by Federal funds. Authorities declared
that the transaction had been carried out according to the
regulations requiring purchase from the lowest bidder.
It was admitted in Berlin that the steel had been sold under
cost, in violation of the tariff law against "dumping."
Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes announced in a
letter to William Green, president of the American Federa-
tion of Labor, that the Public Works Administration would
change its regulations to make impossible the purchase of
foreign materials for P.W.A. projects unless approval is
first obtained from the P.W.A. Administrator. President
Roosevelt confirmed the ruling. The original $19,000 order
was cancelled, and American steel was used.
In February, 1936, a Joint American Council for Boycott
to extend the boycott of German goods and services was
established by agreement between the American Jewish
Congress and the Jewish Labor Committee. At a confer-
ence in New York, the Council decided to send out some
200 sympathizers to picket stores selling German goods.
ASSISTANCE TO R E F U G E E S
T h e expression of public opinion in the United States
was not restricted to protests, however. It will be recalled
that, in M a y 1934, an American Christian Committee for
German Refugees had been established by a number of
Christian leaders, lay and clerical. In September, 1935,
the organization of the Emergency Committee in Aid of
Political Refugees from Nazism, under the chairmanship
of Dr. F r a n k Bohn, historian and publicist, was reported.
A t the same time it was announced t h a t the two committees
would cooperate with James G. McDonald, High Com-
missioner for Refugees (Jewish and Other) Coming from
Germany.
In October, 1935, Dr. Albert Einstein and Alfred E.
Smith, former Governor of New York, joined in an appeal
for funds to aid "non-Ayran" refugees from Germany,
and a similar appeal was issued by more than 150 Catholic
and Protestant clergymen and laymen, headed by Dr. S.
Parkes Cadman.
In the meantime, at a meeting of the governing body
of the High Commission, held in London, in July, Mr.
McDonald announced the formation in the United States
of a Refugee Economic Corporation, with an authorized
capital of $10,000,000, of which $1,250,000 had been sub-
scribed "for the purpose of assisting and furthering the
constructive settlement of the refugees." H e also disclosed
the fact t h a t approximately $10,000,000 had been devoted
to aiding refugees from Germany; virtually all of these
funds had come from collections made b y Jewish relief
organizations, including the American Jewish Joint Dis-
tribution Committee. Mr. McDonald voiced the demand
for an organization directly responsible to the League of
Nations to deal with all international refugee problems.
At about the same time, announcement of the establish-
ment of the Refugee Economic Corporation was made in
New York by Mr. Felix M. Warburg, its president, who
said: " I t is not our intention to duplicate the philanthropic
activities now ably carried on by a number of organizations
for the relief of these unfortunate homeless people. W e
hope to render financial assistance on a constructive eco-
nomic and business-like basis for their settlement."
R E S I G N A T I O N O F H I G H COMMISSIONER M C D O N A L D
Shortly after his arrival in New York in December, Mr.

McDonald m a d e public a letter in which he submitted his
resignation as High Commissioner. His letter, which was
d a t e d London, December 27, demanded t h a t t h e League
intercede with G e r m a n y in behalf of Jews and other per-
secuted minorities, and urged t h a t his Commission be made
a p a r t of the League organization rather t h a n be maintained
as a separate unit.
" T h e moral authority of the League of Nations and of
S t a t e Members of the League," Mr. McDonald wrote,
" m u s t be directed towards a determined appeal to the
German government in the name of h u m a n i t y a n d of the
principles of public law in Europe. T h e y must ask for a
modification of policies which constitute a source of unrest
and perplexity in the world, a challenge to the conscience
of mankind, a n d a menace to the legitimate interests of the
States affected by the immigration of German refugees."
M r . McDonald described Nazi measures against Jews
and "non-Aryans," pointing o u t t h a t more than half t h e
German Jews had already been deprived of their livelihood
and t h a t , in m a n y towns, starvation drives against Jews
have been conducted. H e praised the cooperation of
philanthropic groups and stressed the necessity of "renewed
efforts of the philanthropic bodies," b u t he emphasized
t h a t the "Governments, acting through the League of
Nations, m u s t make possible a solution."
Declaring his efforts were weakened b y the separation
of the Commission from the League, Mr. McDonald
reiterated the necessity for League action and expressed
the hope t h a t intercession would meet with response.
" W i t h o u t such response," he said, " t h e problems caused
b y the persecution of the Jews and the 'non-Aryans' will
n o t be solved b y philanthropic action, b u t will continue to
constitute a danger to international peace and a source of
injury t o the legitimate interests of other s t a t e s . "
T h e letter of resignation was accompanied b y an appendix
analyzing German administrative decrees and jurisprudence
and their effects on the problem of the refugees.
Mr. McDonald's letter of resignation and its annex

attracted country-wide attention. Both letter and annex
were reprinted in full or in extensive quotations in the press.
The Christian Century, a leading Protestant weekly, re-
printed the documents in a special supplement, copies of
which were widely distributed. At its twenty-ninth annual
meeting, held in New York City, on January 6, 1936, the
American Jewish Committee adopted a resolution express-
ing its appreciation and gratitude for Mr. McDonald's
"unstinted and courageous efforts" on behalf of the refugees,
and "the hope that the League of Nations, to which Mr.
McDonald addressed his strong and noble plea for inter-
cession to 'avert existing and impending tragedies,' will act
in conformity with its principles to call the German National
Socialist Government before the bar of international
justice." (For complete text of resolution, see Annual
Report of the American Jewish Corrimitt.ee, below.)
About a week later, in a letter to Mr. McDonald, Matthew
Woll, Chairman of the Chest for Liberation of Workers of
Europe, representing the 3,000,000 workers in the American
Federation of Labor, supported Mr. McDonald's demand
that "the nations of the world use all the influence and all
the legal means they possess to stop the complete annihila-
tion of the Jewish race in the Third Reich and the brutal
suppression of civic and religious freedom."
In March, 1936, the Joint Distribution Committee made
public a letter of felicitation which it had addressed to
Sir Neill Malcolm who had been appointed to succeed Mr.
McDonald as High Comissioner for Refugees. The letter
conveyed to the new High Commissioner assurances of the
organization's complete' cooperation in his task.
Discussion of the refugee situation evoked, in some
quarters, a demand for the facilitation of the admission
into the United States of such victims of persecution. Thus
on January 23, 1936, in the United States Senate, Senator
William H. King of Utah urged that the United States
open its doors as a haven to Jewish refugees from Germany.
Declaring that 600,000 Jews were subject to "ruthless
persecution under decrees of the present German regime,"
Senator King said it was evident that these people would
be driven from Germany and would face the necessity of
finding a place of refuge. 1ft May, the Massachusetts

General t o u r t (Legislature) adopted a resolution to mem-
oriaitfee Congress "to afford the privilege of entry into this
c&tintry to those persons who are being discriminated
against and persecuted in Germany on religious or racial
grounds, by a suspension of the present immigration laws
for a period of two years with reference to such persons."
In this connection, it is interesting to note that, on June 6,
1936, the Department of State announced that while the
United States would be represented by an observer, it
would not take active part in the inter-governmental
conference on refugees, to be held in Geneva on July 2,
uader the auspices of the League of Nations High Com-
mission for Refugees, on the ground that "the status of
aliens coming to the United States is already regulated by
law, whether or not they are refugees."
In connection with the subject of refugees from Germany,
it is interesting to note that, according to an announcement
Iby the United Palestine Appeal, early in April 1936, a total
<of 36,372 Jews coming from Germany had entered Palestine,
from January 1933 to December, 1935, this number com-
prising seventy percent of the refugees who had found
homes overseas. The German-Palestine barter agreement
(Haavara), under which is made possible the salvaging of
part of the property in Germany of Jewish immigrants to
Palestine, was the subject of widespread discussion in the
United States toward the close of 1935. The opposition to
the project was led by B. C. Vladeck, chairman of the
Jewish Labor Committee, New York City, who charged
that those in control of the Haavara received a considerable
commission on each transaction and that the company was
acting as a distributing agency for German goods in the
Near East. These charges were denied in cablegrams from
the Histadruth, the Palestine labor union; and the Pal-
estine Jewish Agency defended the Haavarah in a cable
to the American Hebrew, declaring: "The opponents of
Haavarah must be challenged to show an alternative
method for saving the German Jews, or else they should
state publicly that they prefer abandoning them to their
fate."
A N T I - J E W I S H OUTBREAKS IN POLAND
U p to the time of the outbreaks of anti-British a n d

anti-Jewish disorders in Palestine, the situation of t h e
Jews of Poland was second in the minds and hearts of Jews
in the United States, the catastrophe in G e r m a n y con-
tinuing to be first as it has been since February, 1933. In
the fall of 1935, began w h a t a t first appeared to be the
perennial anti-Jewish riots in the colleges of Poland. T h e
excesses were resumed, however, in the early spring of 1936.
T h e y were so widespread and so frequently accompanied
b y unprecedented barbarity t h a t m a n y observers came to
believe t h a t they were organized and directed by a central
authority. T h e belief was also current t h a t local authorities
in Poland did not always act as vigorously as they could
in preventing the riots or in quelling them after they h a d
broken out. T h e outrages were watched with much anxiety
b y Jewish organizations in America, which protested in
various forms. In November, Dr. Sylvester Gruszka,
Polish Consul-General in New York, speaking for the
Polish Charge d'Affaires, gave assurances to a delegation
of the Federation of Polish Jews in America t h a t his govern-
ment would take action to halt the excesses and punish the
perpetrators.
T h e outbreak of a new series of anti-Jewish outrages in
March, drew further protests from the Federation of Polish
Jews. On March 22, the American Jewish Congress called
an emergency conference, which adopted a resolution urging
American intervention in behalf of Polish Jews. The
conference also called upon the Polish Government " t o
take immediate and effective steps to protect Jewish life
and p r o p e r t y " and asked the League of Nations to "investi-
gate these wrongs and to take such measures as will lead
to the re-establishment of law, order and equality." Prior
to the emergency conference, the American Jewish Congress
made public messages from members or the United States
Senate and of the House of Representatives, condemning
the persecution of Jews. At about the same time the New
York office of the World Federation of Polish Jews, which
had been formed in London in November, 1935, declared
t h a t April 12 had been set aside as a d a y of protest against
anti-Jewish excesses in Poland. The Jewish Labor Com-

mittee, headed by B. C. Vladeck, announced that it would
call on the 500,000 persons in its affiliated trade unions and
labor organizations to observe a "hunger day" on April 2,
1936, during which they were to be asked to forego one
meal and contribute its cost to a fund for the stricken Jews.
On April 14, a delegation representing the Jewish Labor
Committee and the American Federation of Labor, which
included B. C. Vladeck, chairman of the Jewish Labor
Committee; William Green, president of the American
Federation of Labor; David Dubinsky, president of the
International Ladies Garment Workers Union; Joseph
Schlossberg, Morris Feinstone, and Reuben Guskin, Jewish
labor leaders, submitted to Secretary of State Cordell
Hull a plea for intervention in behalf of Polish Jews, in
the light of recent excesses and discrimination. In a memor-
andum, the delegation charged Poland with openly and
wilfully violating the minorities treaty in discriminating
against Jews in state and municipal utilities and by elimi-
nating Jews from employment in economic activities con-
verted into government monopolies. It expressed hope that
the United States government "will find it possible to
intervene" for reasons of humanity, because President
Wilson helped establish the Polish Republic, and because
Americans "have contributed money and lives in order to
make the independence of Poland possible." In the same
month, protest meetings were held in Philadelphia, Boston,
Detroit, Chicago, and Buffalo.
In the meantime, additional ground for anxiety regarding
the lot of the Jews of Poland was supplied by the intro-
duction in the Polish Sejm of a bill requiring the stunning
of animals, prior to their slaughter. This bill, if passed,
would have made impossible the slaughter according to
the traditional Jewish ritual (Shehitah). The proposal
aroused much opposition in the American community, and
protests were forwarded to the Polish Embassy at Washing-
ton by a number of organizations, including the Union of
Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada, the
Federation of Polish Jews in America, the American Jewish
Congress, and the American Jewish Committee. In reply
to the letter of Dr. Cyrus Adler, the President of the Com-

mittee, Mr. Sokolowski, Charge d'Affaires of the Polish
Embassy declared that the government had introduced
amendments to the bill which would safeguard the right
of Jews to slaughter cattle according to the Jewish ritual.
The Federation of Polish Jews also sent a delegation t o
Secretary of State Hull with a petition asking the United
States government to use its good offices to prevent the
passage of the slaughter bill. Probably in response to this-
request, the American consulate in Warsaw was requested
to submit a report on the bill, with particular reference to
its possible effect on the Jews of Poland. Late in March, the
bill was passed by both houses of the Sejm, amended so as
to permit slaughter without prior stunning, but only as t o a
sufficient number of cattle to supply the needs of the Jewish
population.
During the excitement attending protests against anti-
Jewish excesses in Poland, the more permanent economic
aspects of the Jewish situation in Poland were not over-
looked by the Jewish community. While proceeding
methodically with its regular program of economic help to
Polish Jewry, the Joint Distribution Committee sent special
funds to aid victims of the recurrent excesses. In January
1936, the Federation of Polish Jews in America brought
about the organization of the American Committee Appeal
for the Relief of Jews in Poland, which announced its
intention to raise a fund of $1,000,000. This Committee
also sent emergency funds from time to time.
In June, a new project to help Jews in more than five
hundred small Polish towns was announced through the
Joint Distribution Committee. A fund of $400,000 was t o
be made available for the purpose of assisting the creation
of home industries in the villages. Half of the fund had
been granted by the Polish Government, $100,000 by the
Joint Distribution Committee, and $100,000 had been
raised by Polish Jews themselves.
DISQUIETING REPORTS FROM ROUMANIA

Disquieting reports regarding Roumania also engaged
the attention of Jewish organizations during the period
under review. When, on September 12,1935, the Associated.
Press reported an impending march of supporters of the

Roumanian National Peasant Party to Bucharest, con-
nected with which was a threat against what was referred
to as "sinister Jewish influence at the Palace," the American
Jewish Committee expressed its concern to the Roumanian
Legation at Washington. The Legation's reply contained
assurances that any party entrusted with the formation
of the Roumanian Government considers it a duty to defend
all categories of citizens and that there would never exist
in Roumania a governmentally fostered anti-Semitism.
In December, further reports concerning an ti-Jewish
activities during the winter months caused the American
Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, the
B'nai B'rith, and the United Roumanian Jews of America,
to telegraph the Roumanian Minister, requesting him to
convey to his government the expression of their profound
•concern. The Minister replied that he was communicating
with his Foreign Office. Subsequently, he reported that
the rumors concerning anti-Jewish agitation were un-
founded, that order reigned throughout the country, that
such sporadic student manifestations as had taken place
were of no consequence, and that measures had already
been taken to prevent their recurrence. On December, the
Joint Distribution Committee announced that it had
received reports that serious conditions threatened half
the Jewish population of Bessarabia and part of the popula-
tion of Moldavia, provinces of Roumania, as a result of
famine.
THE BIRO-BIDJAN PROJECT
The effort of the Soviet Government to settle Jews in
the Biro-Bidjan region in the Far East interested some
sections of the Jewish community. The American Com-
mittee for the Settlement of Jews in Biro-Bidjan had been
formed in February, 1934. In December 1935, this Com-
mittee announced plans to raise a fund of $350,000 to
finance the settlement of Polish, German and other Euro-
pean Jews in the region. The campaign was launched with
a dinner in New York City. Soviet Ambassador Alexander
. A. Troyanovsky, who was the guest of honor, delivered an
address in the course of which he declared that there was n
Jewish problem and that "anti-Semitism has almost com-

pletely disappeared in Soviet Russia."
In May, 1936, more than five hundred delegates, repre-
senting some two hundred organizations, took part in a
conference held in New York, under the auspices of the
American Committee for the Settlement of Jews in Biro-
Bidjan. The conference expressed satisfaction with the
Soviet program which enabled 5,000 Jewish families from
Poland, Roumania and other countries to settle in the
Jewish Autonomous Region, and urged that negotiations
be entered into with the Soviet Government for the purpose
of permitting as many Jews as possible to settle there in the
coming years. It was emphasized that Biro-Bidjan is not
to be considered in competition with Palestine, as a place
for the permanent settlement of Jews.
PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL IN PALESTINE

In the earlier months of the period under review, atten-
tion was focussed on the proposed establishment of a
legislative council in Palestine, but in the spring of 1936,
the outbreak of what is virtually an insurrection against
British rule, in the course of which Arab malcontents
perpetrated many outrages, pushed the legislative council
matter into the background.
Opposition to the legislative council on the part of
Zionist organizations in the United States was noted in
last year's Review. (See Volume 37, p. 147). This opposi-
tion became more intense early in January when the out-.
line of the plan for the council was made public by the
British High Commissioner in Palestine. Morris Rothen-
berg, president of the Zionist Organization of America,
pledged the support of American Zionists to the Executive
of the Jewish Agency in opposing immediate establishment
of the council. Characterizing the council as an Arab
weapon against the Jewish Homeland, he warned of the
danger "that the council by devious ways will circumvent
its lack of jurisdiction and constitute a continuous threat
to Jewish rights and Jewish progress in Palestine."
On January 27, representatives of the Zionist Organiza-
tion of America, the Poale Zion-Zeire Zion Party, the
Hashomer Hatzair and Hadassah, meeting jointly in New

York, adopted a resolution branding the proposed Palestine
legislative council as "undemocratic and contrary to the
spirit and intent of the Mandate." Messages supporting
the protest were received from various Zionist and non-
Zionist leaders and organizations throughout the country.
Several days later, the resolution was presented to Sir
Ronald Lindsay, British Ambassador to the United States,
by a delegation headed by Morris Rothenberg.
In February, speakers at the convention of Mizrachi
Organization, held in Washington, declared that the Jewish
homeland movement was being handicapped by Great
Britain's efforts to establish a legislative council in Pales-
tine. Speaking at the convention, Charles Edward Russell,
president of the Pro-Palestine Federation, asserted that
England had "manifestly no intention of carrying out the
provisions of the Balfour Declaration." A similar view was
expressed by Herbert Morrison, British labor leader, mem-
ber of Parliament and leader of the London County Council,
at a New York meeting of Zionist leaders, held in April.
THE RIOTS IN PALESTINE

The bloody rioting in Palestine, beginning about April 17,
turned the attention of the entire Jewish community to
that country and enlisted the interest of large sections of
non-Jews as well.
On April 23, the Zionist Organization of America an-
nounced that David Ben-Gurion, chairman of the Executive
of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, had given assurances
by telephone from Jerusalem that nothing had occurred to
swerve the Jewish community from its rebuilding work,
that the heroism, self-restraint and discipline of the Jewish
community under attack was a source of pride to the
Executive, and that the High Comissioner had assured the
Agency that the government was prepared to cope with
any emergency. At the same time, the Zionist Organization
of America announced the formation of a special committee,
representing all Zionist parties, for the purpose of organizing
American Jewish support for Palestine Jews during the
emergency. A small sub-committee was also formed, which

was to meet daily during the riot crisis.
In M a y , a resolution urging Arabs to ignore the propa-
g a n d a of hatred a n d animosity stimulated b y their leaders
was adopted at the annual convention in New York of the
Federation of Palestinian Jews, members of which are
native Palestinians.
In the same month, reports t h a t the Italian government
was responsible for the Arab general strike and disorders
in Palestine elicited a denial from Ambassador Augusto
Rosso, who ascribed the reports to anti-Italian propaganda-
On M a y 31, a Christian delegation headed by Biship
J a m e s E. Freeman of Washington submitted to British-
Ambassador Sir Ronald Lindsay a petition urging G r e a t
Britain to steer a course favoring establishment of a free-
Jewish national home in Palestine. T h e petition, sponsored
b y the Pro-Palestine Federation of America, expressed t h e
opinion t h a t enlightened Christian leadership in the United
States favors a larger Jewish immigration into Palestine.
I t urged a clear and definite policy on the p a r t of the British
government in carrying out the stipulations of the Palestine
m a n d a t e . Signers of the petition included Samuel H a r d e n
Church, president of the Carnegie Institute of P i t t s b u r g h ;
Dr. S. Parkes C a d m a n , president of the Union of Congrega-
tional Churches in America; Dr. I v a n Lee Holt, president
of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ; Dr. Frederick
B. Robinson, president of the City College of New Y o r k ;
and Dr. J o h n Haynes Holmes, of the C o m m u n i t y Church,
New York.
T h e petition presented by the Pro-Palestine Federation
elicited a reply from Dr. William Ernest Hocking, professor
of philosophy a t H a r v a r d and chairman of the L a y m e n ' s
Foreign Missions inquiry, who described the proposals as
"positively mischievous" in an article in the Christian
Century, an undenominational journal, on J u l y 1. He
asserted t h a t " t h e Balfour declaration, even if it had a
basis in international right, does not give Palestine to the
Jews, nor obligated Great Britain to transform it into a
Jewish state, nor promise to make Palestine as a whole
the national home of the Jewish people." Pointing o u t
that Palestine does not belong to Great Britain, but is held

as a British mandate under the League of Nations, Professor
Hocking declared: "Like all mandates, the presumption
is that it is to be administered for the benefit of the inhabi-
tants, most of whom are Arabs." He attacked the right-
wing Zionist program. "Whatever and whoever turns
Palestine into a place of discord, a scene of clashing claims
and hatreds, as the revisionist policy apparently does,"
he said, "is false to the meaning of Palestine and treasonable
to the spirit of Zionism and the true interest of the Jews,
for it presents them to the world in the unhappy light of a
group which, when released from opposition, becomes at
once the oppressors of others."
In an abridged form, Professor Hocking's article had
been previously published in The New York Times, The
New York Herald Tribune, and several other important
newspapers, as letters to the editor. His views attracted
wide attention, for they were considered representative of
one section of opinion among liberal American Christians.
On June 21, The New York Times published a reply from
Charles Edward Russell, president of the Pro-Palestine
Federation, who refuted Dr. Hocking's interpretation of
the Mandate, quoting the late Sir Arthur James Balfour
as having said in a speech, on June 21, 1932, that it was the
intention of the British Government to "help transfer
Palestine into a Jewish homeland." Mr. Russell declared
that "the world of Islam has not been betrayed," since
"the millions of hounded and persecuted Jews have no
place in the whole world that will admit them, while the
Arabs have an empire of their own."
The serious crisis in Palestine evoked wide editorial
comment in the American press, which took the attitude
either that Great Britain should fulfill her responsibilities
as mandatory power by putting down Arab uprisings, or
that, as The New York Times declared, "it should be
obvious that Arab-Jewish cooperation is the only solution."
The press was unanimous in characterizing the friction in
Palestine as extremely regrettable, particularly in view of
the delicate international situation.
ACTIVITIES OF ZIONIST ORGANIZATIONS
Communal concern with Palestine and its upbuilding
was, however, not restricted to the proposed legislative
council and the Arab riots. The normal activities of the
various organizations especially interested in Palestine
and the Zionist movement were continued without abate-
ment.
At its thirty-eighth annual convention in Atlantic City,
New Jersey, in July, 1935, the Zionist Organization of
America, voted a sweeping reorganization in its fundamental
structure. The convention also demanded the allocation
of a larger number of immigration certificates to Americans
desiring to settle in Palestine, and warned against the
danger of special party interests reducing the World Zionist
Congress to a state of impotence. During the latter half
of June 1936, on the eve of the thirty-ninth annual con-
vention of the Zionist Organization of America, a lively
discussion arose within the ranks of the Organization as to
candidates for the presidency. Mr. Morris Rothenberg,
who had been president for four years, denied rumors that
he would not accept nomination for re-election. At the
same time, it was reported that Dr. Stephen S. Wise had
expressed the willingness to accept the nomination for
president, to a group of Zionists who had appealed to him
to stand for election. The discussion which ensued indicated
that the choice of a president was likely to be the subject
of much debate at the Zionist Convention.
In July 1935, it was announced that the Mizrachi Youth
Organization had severed all connection with the Mizrachi
Organization of America, and was to be an independent
body called Hapoel Hamizrachi of America. In October,
an agreement for cooperation was reached between the
Mizrachi Organization of America and youth groups. The
differences between the two organizations were said to have
been "primarily administrative rather than ideological."
In the same month, the executive board of the Mizrachi
Organization decided to establish a Mizrachi Land Develop-
ment Corporation for the Colonization of American religious
Jews in Palestine and, in February 1936, the same organiza-
tion decided to found a colony in Palestine for orthodox
laborers and middle class Jews.
In July 1935, Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organiza-

tion, announced that its struggle for equal property rights
for Jewish women in Palestine had ended in victory when
the Jewish National Fund granted a demand that a wife be
permitted to be a co-lessee with her husband on leases of
National Fund land. In November, the same organization
announced plans to include the transferring of Jewish
refugee children from European lands to Palestine as a part
of its 1936 program. At the annual convention of Hadassah
in Cleveland, in December, $75,000 was raised for the
Rothschild-Hadassah University Hospital to be built in
Palestine. The organization decided to support the Youth
Aliyah movement for transferring youth to Palestine. The
seventy-fifth anniversary of the birthday of Miss Henrietta
Szold, founder of Hadassah and one of the leaders of the
Zionist movement in general, was widely celebrated in the
United States. The national celebration was arranged by
the 300 chapters of Hadassah. Many prominent persons
paid tribute to her work, although she refused to participate
in any of the celebrations arranged for her. She was received
at City Hall, New York, and given the key to the city by
Mayor LaGuardia. Hadassah chapters purchased more
than 1,000 trees through the Jewish National Fund as a
birthday gift, and the National Board of Hadassah pre-
sented her with $5,000 for the establishment of model
kitchens in several Palestinian colonies.
Elections to the first international Congress of the New
Zionist Organization, the independent body formed by
the Zionist Revisionists, were held in many countries in
August, 1935. The Zionist Revisionist headquarters in
New York reported that 35,846 votes had been cast for
the single list of delegates to the Congress, which was held
in Vienna in September.
Reports of economic organizations interested in Palestine
reconstruction indicated progress and improvement. Thus,
the American Branch of the Jewish National Fund reported
that during the twelve months from June 1, 1935, contribu-
tions totalled $406,937, as compared with $262,382 collected
during the corresponding period beginning on June 1, 1934,
an increase of over fifty percent. The report of the Pal-
estine Economic Corporation revealed that the Corporation
had, in 1935, made new investments in Palestine aggrega-

ting $508,981. Its net assets amounted to $3,549,564, more
than a four-fold increase of the original capital.
The American Economic Committee for Palestine,
organized in 1932 to develop methods, and to reveal and
utilize opportunities and resources for the furthering of
Zionist work in Palest/ne, reported in June that, in the year
ending May 31, 1936, the Committee's Central Bureau for
Economic Information at Tel Aviv, Palestine, had serviced
a total of 1,715 inquirers. The inquiries came from persons
from more than 40 countries. More than half (55%) of
those who inquired in person were immigrants from Ger-
many, and 48% of the mail requests for information came
from German Jews: The 710 inquirers who stated their
capital resources reported an aggregate capital of £P2,984-
850 (approximately $14,924,250), or an average of about
$21,000 per person.
THE WORLD JEWISH CONGRESS MOVEMENT

The proposed establishment of a World Jewish Congress
again aroused discussion during the period now under
review as it had in several previous years. (See Vol. 34,
pp. 29-31; Vol. 36, pp. 240, 241; and Vol. 37, pp. 144-146).
At a meeting of its national executive committee on
January 5, 1936, the American Jewish Congress adopted
a resolution favoring the calling of a world Jewish congress
no later than the summer of 1936, and calling for prepara-
tions for nationwide elections of delegates. In February,
the Executive Committee for a World Jewish Congress,
meeting in Paris, decided to hold the Congress in August,
1936. A tentative program was drawn up, including the
Palestine question, creation of a permanent Jewish repre-
sentative body, the struggle for Jewish economic and pol-
itical equality, the problem of the German Jews, the fight
against anti-Semitism, economic reconstruction among the
Jews, democratization of Jewish philanthropic institutions,
emigration of Jews from certain countries, and creation of
a world-wide central Jewish fund. It was reported that
the question of the basis of representation was debated
with considerable heat at this meeting. Louis Lipsky, who
represented the American Jewish Congress, opposed elec-

tions by direct individual ballot in the United States,
holding that the choice of delegates to the World Congress
by existing organizations is democratic. In April, Mr.
Lipsky made public a tentative program for the World
Congress, according to which it would seek 1) the establish-
ment of an "executive body representative of the organized
Jewries of the world for the defense of the political and
economic rights of the Jews"; 2) the establishment of "an
economic institute to gather the facts with regard to the
economic life of the Jewish people and to cooperate in the
reconstruction of the economic life of the Jews in any
country in which their existence is threatened through
discrimination and inequality"; 3) the creation of "an
institute for the regulation and coordination of all Jewish
immigration agencies."
In the same month, Dr. A. J. Rongy, chairman of the
National Governing Council of the Zionist Organization
of America, announced that he had polled the members of
the Council, and that thirty-two of the fifty replies opposed
. immediate convocation of a world Jewish congress, thirteen
favored it, and five were non-committal. In connection
with the poll, Dr. Rongy had written a letter, expressing
opposition to the congress on the ground that it might
detract from the importance of Palestine and Zionism, and
that holding of the congress would be used to stir up anti-
Jewish feeling during the presidential election campaign
in the United States.
A few days later, the American Jewish Congress an-
nounced that seventeen national organizations, all of them
affiliated with the Congress, had responded to its call to
participate in preparations for the first session of the World
Jewish Congress. At a meeting on April 19, by a vote of
twenty-seven to three, the administrative committee of
the Zionist Organization of America decided to participate
in the election of delegates to the World Jewish Congress.
On May 7, the Hon. Alfred M. Cohen, president of B'nai
B'rith, international fraternal order, announced that the
organization would not participate in the proposed World
Jewish Congress. Mr. Cohen said "the vote of the Order's
executive committee showed an overwhelming unfavorable
sentiment to the holding of a world Jewish congress in the

near future." On May 13, the American Jewish Com-
mittee announced that its executive committee, at a meeting
on May 11, had adopted with only one dissenting vote a
resolution not to participate in the World Jewish Congress.
This resolution, the Committee declared, confirmed the
position previously taken by the American Jewish Com-
mittee and unanimously supported by delegates to the
annual meeting of the American Jewish Committee held in
1935.
On June 1, a statement urging proponents of the World
Jewish Congress "to give further consideration to this
project before this step is actually taken," was issued by
Dr. A. J. Rongy, chairman of the National Governing
Council of the Zionist Organization of America; I. D.
Morrison, New York attorney and Zionist worker; Judge
Edward Lazansky; E. I. Kaufman of Washington, D. C ;
James N. Rosenberg of New York City, and others. The
statement expressed the view that such a Congress at this
time will be productive of more harm than good; that it
will not and cannot truly represent the Jews of the world,
because a number of important communities and sections
of communities were not participating; and that such a
convention with such a name would be exploited by anti-
Jewish agitators as a separatist Jewish movement within
the various countries of which Jews are citizens.
On the following day, in its weekly Bulletin, the American
Jewish Congress"made public a letter marked "private and
not for publication," which Dr. Cyrus Adler had sent to
a number of American Rabbis, in which Dr. Adler had
expressed the view that the World Jewish Congress might
lead to a pan-Arabic congress. This view the Congress
Bulletin refuted, asserting that the convocation of an Arab
congress depends not on any Jewish action but on internal
Arab affairs.
In a public statement issued June 8, the American Jewish
Committee outlined the reasons for its opposition to the
proposed world gathering. The statement, signed by Dr.
Cyrus Adler, president, and Sol M. Stroock, chairman of
the Executive Committee, said the proposed Congress
"would have no power to enforce its decisions and would
not even be in a position to command the support of the

representatives who vote for the propositions placed before
the Congress." The statement said also: "It [the Congress]
would have no right to speak in the name of the responsible
bodies, here and abroad, who oppose the entire concept,
and who represent large constituencies. While it cannot
serve any useful purpose which is not now being served by
voluntary Jewish organizations in these countries, the
proposed world Jewish congress can only endanger the
status of the Jews in the countries of which they are
citizens."
Dr. Adler and Mr. Stroock attacked the expressed aim of
the proposed Congress "to establish, and become responsible
for, a permanent agency for economic life of Jews in thos.e
lands in which discrimination is practiced against them,
and where they are the victims of social and economic
persecution."
"This proposal," Dr. Adler and Mr. Stroock said, "is,
in effect, a plan to supplant tried agencies which have done
notable service for the Jews of the world, and which enjoy
the respect and confidence of both the general and Jewish
public, and to endeavor to take their direction out of the
capable hands in which they are, or, if this does not succeed,
to bring about a confusion which would weaken these
existing agencies and replace them by an organization
which would be without means or power to carry into effect
the plans which have been and are continuing to be set up,
and which have been of great benefit to the Jews in those
countries in which such benefits are so urgently required."
Lastly, they declared that "the proposed Jewish parliament
would give aid and comfort to those who promote hostility
against Jews on the ground of alleged 'national' solidarity."
The views of those opposed to the world congress were
bitterly attacked at a "nominating convention" in New
York City, on June 7, by Dr. Stephen S. Wise and other
speakers, including Dr. Georg Bernhard, former editor of
the Vossische Zeitung in Berlin, Germany, and subsequently
of the Pariser Tageblatt, who had come to the United States
to help arouse American Jews to the need for a world Jewish
congress. Such nominating conventions were held by
representatives of local organizations in a number of com-
munities throughout the country; they elected delegates

to a "national electoral conference" to be held in Wash-
ington on June 13 and 14, which, in turn, would elect the
seventy American representatives to the world congress.
On June 10, James N. Rosenberg again expressed opposi-
tion to the proposed Congress, reporting that he had
received similar expressions of opinion from organizations
and representative Jewish leaders in more than two hundred
cities. He expressed the hope that Dr. Stephen S. Wise
"will, in the interests of democracy, tell the meeting in
Washington [the electoral conference] the extent of the
opposition throughout the country." On June 12, a pam-
phlet, sponsored by Mr. Rosenberg, Dr. A. J. Rongy and
Edmund I. Kaufman, appealed to delegates to the national
electoral conference to postpone the world gathering and
promised that "we will cooperate with you in a sincere
effort to find a way of accomplishing unity of method
among us."
The opponents of the world congress project were again
attacked at the two-day national electoral conference which
opened on June 12 in Washington. Dr. Stephen S. Wise
told the 1,100 delegates that plans for the holding of the
gathering in Geneva would be carried through, and assured
opponents that he was willing to accept whatever conse-
quences would arise from the holding of it. The conference
selected fifty-two delegates who, together with twenty to
be named by organizations affiliated with the American
Jewish Congress and five delegates at large, were to repre-
sent the United States at the World Congress. The con-
ference instructed the delegates to submit to the World
Congress proposals which were substantially the same as
those set forth by Louis Lipsky, and referred to above.
On June 15, James N. Rosenberg issued a statement,
signed by seventy-one American Jewish leaders, expressing
opposition to the convocation of the proposed World Jewish
Congress. The statement declared that "the project is
opposed by many important Jewish organizations and by
many thousands of Jews throughout the country. The
proposed 'World Jewish Congress' cannot therefore be
regarded as representing them or as having any authority
to speak in their or our names."
Several weeks before this, on May 26, Mr. Rosenberg

made public an open letter to Dr. Stephen S. Wise, con-
demning statements made in a pamphlet issued by the
American Jewish Congress, in defense of the plan to estab-
lish a permanent central relief agency at the proposed World
Jewish Congress. These statements had criticized existing
relief organizations because "they derive their funds largely
from public appeals, and they use these public funds as
trustees, but do not hold themselves accountable to any
forum of public opinion," and because "they have been
able to accomplish only palliative work." Mr. Rosenberg
denied these charges, pointing out that the Joint Distri-
bution Committee and other relief organizations carry
on economic aid, educational and agricultural work in
Poland, Russia, Palestine and elsewhere. He reviewed the
constructive activities of these organizations instancing
"the wide development of agricultural and industrial life,
the rebuilding of homes, housing, a vast program of medical,
health and sanitary work, child care work and much cul-
tural work." The Joint Distribution Committee, Mr.
Rosenberg declared, had devoted $9,700,000 in Palestine
to malaria control, medical work, promotion of cooperative
societies, and erection of low-cost houses for workers.
Referring to relief work in Germany, he said that it had
been developed along three lines: 1) retraining of young
German Jews for productive work in agriculture or industry
in Palestine; 2) assistance for emigrants from Germany to
find homes in other lands; 3) setting up of a Jewish school
system, which at the present time cares for 20,000 of the
German Jewish children excluded from general public
schools in Germany.
ASSISTANCE TO OVERSEAS COMMUNITIES
Two important events in connection with fund-raising
for overseas relief and reconstruction occurred during the
period under review. The first was the separation of the
hitherto joint appeals of the American Jewish Joint Distri-
bution Committee (J. D. C.) and the United Palestine
Campaign, sponsored by some of the organizations which
are especially interested in raising funds for work in Pal-
estine. The second important event was the visit of three
212 AMERICAN JEWISH YBAR BOOK
leaders of British Jewry, who presented proposals for a

cooperative large-scale effort to promote the emigration
of Jews from Germany.
It will be recalled that joint fund-raising, under the
name United Jewish Appeal, was agreed to in March 1934,
when announcement was made that a fund of $3,250,000
would be the objective. Early in September, 1935, it was
reported that, up to September 1, the sum of $1,500,000
had been raised. In October, a call to Americans of all
creeds and races to contribute to the United Jewish Appeal
was issued in a joint statement of more than 200 non-Jews,
including bishops, deans of theological schools, leaders of
Christian organizations, university presidents and other
notable laymen.
On October 28, the Executive Committee of the United
Jewish Appeal agreed to the termination of the joint fund-
raising effort. This decision was explained in a statement
declaring that while the united effort had important advan-
tages and had conferred benefits on the Jewish community,
yet "the sums raised had not shown an increase commen-
surate with the great need, nor did they measure up to what
was expected of American Jewry, in view of improved
economic conditions." The statement declared further that
it was recognized "that one of the advantages of separate
campaigns was that both the Joint Distribution Committee
and the American Palestine Campaign would be free to
intensify their special appeals and could enlist in their
particular efforts additional supporters for their respective
programs in the field of European aid and reconstruction,
and Palestine upbuilding." It was noted, however, that
the decision "does not preclude the possibility of joint
local drives, on an optional basis, in such communities
where a joint campaign may be regarded as advisable."
In a statement issued early in December, the Joint
Distribution Committee reported that American Jews had
contributed $2,654,000 for the relief of Jews in Germany
and Eastern Europe from the Spring of 1933 to September,
1935. The statement emphasized that the condition of the
Jews was becoming increasingly worse. The report, written
by Joseph C. Hyman, declared that "millions face complete
destruction" and that "the situation of the refugees in all
countries has become most precarious." Felix M. Warburg,

honorary chairman, stated that "we will continue, as we
have from the beginning of our work in 1914, to include
Palestine in our efforts, but we will have to concentrate
on bringing aid to the German and Polish Jews."
The Joint Distribution Committee campaign and that
of the Palestine organizations, which was given the name
United Palestine Appeal, were both launched at about the
same time; each set itself the objective of $3,500,000.
The Joint Distribution Committee drive was launched in
December, at a conference in Chicago of one hundred fifty
Jewish leaders from thirty states and Canada. Felix M.
Warburg accepted the chairmanship of the campaign.
The United Palestine Appeal launched its campaign in
New York City, in January 1936, with Dr. Stephen S. Wise
as national chairman. Early in July, Dr. Israel Goldstein
reported that in the preceding five months the United
Palestine Appeal and affiliated agencies had raised
$1,551,606, the largest comparative total since 1928.
Toward the end of April 1936, the Joint Distribution
Committee announced that it would not allot any money
for Palestine in 1936 because it was "faced with almost
unbearable burdens" in Germany, Poland and other
countries. The statement went on to say that the Joint
Distribution Committee has paid one half of the transpor-
tation expenses of German refugees to Palestine, spent
large sums in training them for work in Palestine and plans
to continue such expenditures, "but it feels justified in
expecting other agencies to give them their start in Pales-
tine." At the same time, the Joint Distribution Committee
announced that no further expenditures would be made
in Russia because "the work of farm settlement in the
Crimea and the Ukraine, and of placing Jews in Russian
industrial life has proceeded so successfully that we are
happily freed from such a duty at this time." On June 18,
Isidor Coons, National Campaign Director of the J. D. C.
reported at the mid-year meeting af the Plan and Scope
Committee that $2,136,998 had been pledged by 642 com-
munities in the J. D. C.'s $3,500,000 campaign. This sum
was nearly three times the amount pledged at the same
time the previous year.
On November 10, the Peoples ORT Federation launched

a $500,000 campaign for funds to carry on its work of
promoting agriculture and technical trades among Jews in
Poland, Russia and other Eastern European countries.
The ORT later arranged to incorporate its campaign with
that of the Joint Distribution Committee, receiving a share
of the funds raised in the latter's campaign.
VISIT OF DELEGATION OF BRITISH J E W S
Early in 1936, widespread discussion was aroused by a

report of the intended visit to the United States of three
British Jewish leaders— Sir Herbert Samuel, former High
Commissioner of Palestine; Viscount Bearsted, leading
industrialist; and Simon Marks, merchant, and vice-
president of the English Zionist Organization. Much of
the discussion grew out of a report from the London cor-
respondent of The New York Times, which turned out to
have been inaccurate, that these British Jews were coming
to America to discuss with Jewish leaders here a plan for
the transfer, from Germany to Palestine and British
territories, of from 100,000 to 250,000 Jews at a cost of
$15,000,000 of which $500,000 had already been pledged
by three British Jews. According to the same report, the
emigrating German Jews would be enabled to realize on
their property in Germany out of the proceeds of the sale
of German exports abroad, by an arrangement similar to
the transfer agreement which has enabled German Jews
going to Palestine to obtain part of the value of property
left by them in Germany. This part of the report in The
New York Times evoked denials and protests from Jewish
organizations.
A categorical denial was issued by the executive com-
mittee of the Zionist Organization of America. The state-
ment declared that the visit of the three British Jews was
for the purpose of helping to raise funds to facilitate
large-scale settlement of German Jews in Palestine. " I t is
unthinkable," the statement said, "that Jews will partici-
pate in any such scheme as has been reported in the press,
under which German Jews are to be held as hostages until
they are ransomed by Jewish money to be used in stimu-

lating German trade."
The New York Times, which had originally reported the
plan from London, editorially criticized the scheme as
"further evidence of her [Germany's] disregard of funda-
mental decency and her tramping under foot of elemental
morality." The reported scheme was condemned also by
the Executive Committee of the Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi
League in a public statement which declared that the pro-
posal which, incidentally, proved the effectiveness of the
anti-Nazi boycott, would "put a premium upon barbarous
and medieval methods of government"; and that an emi-
gration plan "not involving an increase in German exports
can and should be worked out." A number of other organi-
zations interested in the German situation also expressed
their opposition to the reported plan. It was pointed out
by critics of the plan that aside from objections to it 6n
the ground of the aid it would afford German trade, the
plan was exceptionable because it would benefit only those
German Jews who have property and would not help those
sections of the German Jewry which are suffering most
acutely from the present situation.
Upon their arrival in New York City on January 21, the
three men denied reports that the plan which they wished
to discuss involved flooding the world with Nazi goods.
They said their mission was "to agree upon methods for
aiding the Jews who are forced to leave a country in which
their lives have been made intolerable."
At a convention in St. Louis of the National Council of
Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds, Sir Herbert Samuel,
spokesman for the British delegation, and Felix M. Warburg
outlined plans for aiding German Jews, particularly youths,
to emigrate with the aid of gifts and loans. The Council
pledged American Jews to help raise the sum necessary
to transfer 100,000 Jews from Germany, estimated at
$10,000,000 for.this country and $5,000,000 for Great
Britain. Assuring the delegates that there was no plan to
"ransom" German Jews or specifically to help the wealthy,
Sir Herbert emphasized the necessity of bringing Jewish
vouths "to countries where they can fill their lungs with the
fresh air of liberty and where they are free from discrimina-
tion and degradation."
On January 28, the plans of the British delegation were
enthusiastically endorsed by six hundred Jewish leaders
at a reception in New York, given by the Joint Distri-
bution Committee. A resolution, presented by William
Rosenwald and unanimously adopted, pledged cooperation
in the effort to raise $15,000,000 throughout the world.
The resolution declared that the plans in no way "con-
template or include any measures which will aid or facilitate
the export of German goods," adding that this stipulation
was "an essential condition." It was disclosed that Mr.
Marks and Lord Bearsted had each pledged a personal
contribution of $500,000 to the Fund.
Lord Bearsted and Mr. Marks addressed the National
Conference on Palestine, held in Washington on February 1,
and attended by some 1,200 delegates. The conference
adopted a program to facilitate settlement in Palestine of
100,000 oppressed Jews in Germany and Poland, going on
record in support of the plan proposed by the British
mission. In explaining the broad outlines of the plan to
aid 100,000 to leave German within four years at an
average cost of $150 for each man, woman and child,
Lord Bearsted declared it was necessary "to avoid doing
anything which might be construed as dumping the Jewish
population of Germany in any country" and called for
orderly and planned emigration. In his address, Mr. Marks
declared that unless Jews are helped to leave Germany,
there would be "a complete breakdown in the structural
life of German Jewry, a stampede into neighboring coun-
tries, the existence among friendly nations of thousands
of wandering, impoverished Jews, the heavy and wasteful
costs of relief for refugees, and a direct stimulus to the
forces everywhere making for anti-Semitism."
On the eve of their departure, early in February, the
British delegation expressed gratification over the results
of their visit to this country, and Sir Herbert Samuel
disclosed that an executive committee, (later called the
World Council for German Jewry) including American
members, would be set up to work out details of the plan.
Subsequently, the directors of both the United Palestine
Appeal and the Joint Distribution Committee announced

that no additional fund-raising would be required to
obtain American Jewry's quota of the fund required to
effectuate the British plan, as a considerable part of the
$3,500,000 which each of the campaigns was seeking, would
go into that fund.
ANTI-JEWISH MOVEMENTS
While a great deal of the time and attention of the Jewish
community of the United States was devoted to the fore-
going events and movements, all of them connected with
concern for the welfare of Jews overseas, the community
was not without problems of direct concern to its own
members. As in several years past, the most important of
these problems, during the period now under review, were
those which grew out of anti-Jewish movements. Except
for the comparatively short-lived phenomenon of the Ku
Klux Klan, antagonism to Jews in the United States never
assumed the proportions of a movement until 1933. As we
have pointed out in previous reviews, it was in that year
that the beginning of two virtually distinct though related
anti-Jewish movements had their beginning in the United
States.
The first was evoked by repercussions to events in Ger-
many. It was partly a response on the part of German
residents of more recent origin to the reaction of American
Jews to the anti-Jewish policies of the Hitler regime, but
it was undoubtedly stimulated by agencies in Germany
which had been set the task of justifying these policies
before public opinion abroad.
The second type of anti-Jewish movement found its
adherents in native American circles. It was essentially
prompted by a desire to apply the scapegoat technique,
which had been so effective in Germany, to divert public
attention from the real, complex causes of unrest in the
United States. This movement was undoubtedly given
impetus and inspiration by the Nazi anti-Jewish policies;
it is very unlikely that it would have acquired its com-
paratively large following, had it not been for the embold-
ening effects of the example of a reputedly civilized state.
NAZI AGITATION IN AMERICA

There were, during the period, a few scattered events
which showed that these anti-Jewish movements still con-
stitute a real threat to the well-being of the Jews of America
and a menace to the peaceful cooperation of all ethnic
elements in the United States. But, owing chiefly perhaps
to the improvement in economic conditions, neither of
these movements made much progress during the twelve-
month.
Early in September 1935, Fritz Gissibl, newly-elected
head of the Friends of New Germany, discussed plans, at
the group's third annual convention, for "a year of renewed
battle" for the purpose of "uniting the German elements
in this country in one block in support of the National
Socialist Weltanschauung." But, aside from the publication
of several newspapers of limited circulation, and denuncia-
tions of Magistrate Brodsky for his statement in the 5. S.
Bremen affair, and of Mayor Fiorello H. LaGuardia of New
York for his refusal to grant a license to a German masseur,
the only signs of "battle" vouchsafed to the general public
were reports of dissensions within the ranks of the groups
seeking to Nazify America. In July 1935, these dissensions
had resulted in the splitting of the Friends of New Germany.
The new group—the American National Socialist League—
declared it was interested more in American than in German
affairs. Its leader, Anton Haegele claimed a following of
4,000.
At a rally protesting against Magistrate Brodsky's state-
ment, the Friends of New Germany proclaimed a campaign
to introduce Nazi principles in the United States. Their
stand deepened the rift between the moderate elements
represented by the United German Societies, and the more
violent pro-Hitler groups. The cleavage was accentuated
by the exclusion of the Friends of the New Germany from
the German Day celebration, held in New York City on
October 8, 1935. Fritz Gissibl, national leader of the
Friends, attacked the United German Societies, the Steuben
Society, and other German-American groups, at a rally
several days after the celebration. Incidentally, it was
remarked that while the speakers at the German Day cele-
bration, including Ambassador Luther, all voiced strong
support of the Nazi regime, anti-Jewish attacks were

neither as frequent nor as violent as at previous celebra-
tions. Late in December, the National Socialist Party in
Germany ordered all Germans in the United States who
were not yet American citizens to withdraw from politically
active bodies such as the Friends of New Germany. At a
convention in Chicago, held in March 1936, the Friends of
New Germany officially changed the name of the organiza-
tion to the German-American League. The League an-
nounced that it would "combat the Moscow-directed mad-
ness of the Red world menace and its Jewish bacillus-
carriers." It limited membership to American citizens of
German origin. At a mass meeting on April 1, leaders
declared that the League would seek a "firm foothold" in
the political life of the United States.
There are no indications that efforts along these lines
have so far met with any success. On the contrary, con-
siderable opposition to the propagation of Nazi ideas was
shown. Thus, in August, 1935, two hotels and a club in
New York City refused accomodations to the Association
of German-American Technologists which insisted on flying
the Nazi swastika flag at its convention, because, as one
of the hotels put it, "display of this flag on a number of
recent occasions here in New York incited riots and major
disturbances." In October 1935, the Friends of New Ger-
many were barred from holding a German folks festival
in a large auditorium in New York City. In the same
month, delegates to a meeting, held in Milwaukee, of the
Wisconsin Central Federation of German Societies defeated,
by a substantial majority, attempts to have the swastika
displayed at a German-American celebration in Milwaukee.
Later, by a vote of 53 to 19, the Nazi leader and his followers*
were expelled from the meeting.
In September 1935, the Friends of Democracy, organized
in New York City and headed by Eugene F. Grigat, an-
nounced its intention to oppose pro-Nazi organizations in
America as well as all manifestations of "the rotten Hitler
philosophy."
The dangers to public peace inherent in the Nazi move-
ment were shown when, in October 1935, six New York
Hitlerites who were driving a truck through the New York
220 AMERICAN JEWISH YEAR'BOOK •
City garment center to advertise a Nazi rally, were

assaulted.
It will be seen, therefore, that the decline in the Nazi
anti-Jewish movement noted in the preceding Review
continued during the period covered here. From the begin-
ning, the movement did not have the support of representa-
tives of the decent and respectable German-American
elements in various parts of the country. The factional
squabbling among the leaders of the movement, and the
conduct of the Nazi Government, especially its re-arming
policy and its violation of treaties, did not inspire the
American public with any great desire to adopt Nazi ideas
or methods. In this connection, the following paragraph
from the report submitted by the Executive Committee
of the American Jewish Committee at the Twenty-ninth
Annual Meeting of that organization on January 5, 1936,
is noteworthy:
"The disrepute into which the Nazi movement here has
fallen is not unknown to the Nazi leaders in Germany.
Your Committee has reason to believe, however, that
efforts to influence public opinion in this country have not
been abandoned by the propaganda authorities in Germany,
but that such efforts are likely to be made along much
more skillful and subtle lines and on a wider front."
THE SENTINELS OF THE REPUBLIC

There were also a number of events and sensational
disclosures which showed that native, as distinguished
from imported, anti-Jewish movements have gained a
considerable following. These movements seek recruits
largely among those opposed to, or dissatisfied with, the
economic and social policies of the present national admini-
stration. Part of the stock-in-trade of the demogogues who
lead these movements is the entirely groundless assertion
that these policies are inspired by "the Jews." Some
agitators go further and say that the "New Deal" is part
of the alleged Jewish plot to dominate the world, outlined
in the oft-repudiated "Protocols of the Wise Elders of
Zion."
As was pointed out in last year's review, this school of
agitators exploit latent anti-Jewish prejudice by making
a great deal of ado about the number of Jews connected with
the administration. Some of these demogogues go further
and spread rumors that certain government officials are
of Jewish origin, who are in fact not so. Miss Frances
Perkins, Secretary of Labor, was especially the target for
such rumors. In April, 1936, she found herself forced to
issue a public statement denying continued undercover
gossip that she was Jewish and that her real name was
Matilda Wutski. In her statement, Miss Perkins declared:
"If I were a Jew, I would make no secret of it. On the con-
trary, I would be glad to acknowledge it."
On April 17, 1936, at a meeting of a committee of the
United States Senate, appointed to investigate lobbying,
Senator Lewis B. Schwellenbach of Washington read into
the record an exchange of letters between Alexander Lincoln
of Boston, president of the Sentinels of the Republic, an
anti-administration organization, and one, W. Cleveland
Runyon, an attorney of Plainfield, New Jersey. In his
letter to Lincoln, Runyon referred to President Roosevelt
and "the Jewish brigade" he took to Washington. Runyon
wrote: "This fight for Western Christian Civilization can
certainly be won, but only if we recognize that the enemy
is world-wide and that it is Jewish in origin." In his reply,
Lincoln said: "I think, as you say, that the Jewish threat
is a real one. My hope is in the election next autumn, and
I believe that our real opportunity is in accomplishing the
defeat of Roosevelt." In a second letter Runyon said:
"The old-line Americans of $1,200 a year want a Hitler."
The Senate Committee also produced a large number of
letters which had passed between Lincoln and Captain
William H. Stayton, secretary of the American Liberty
League, an organization of Democrats opposed to the
Roosevelt policies. The letters discussed a merger of the
Sentinels and the League, which however, was not con-
summated.
The first reaction to these disclosures was a demand by
Governor James M. Curley of Massachusetts that Lincoln
be ousted from his office as member of the State Tax
Appeals Board. In a radio address, Governor Curley
declared: "It must be apparent in the light of the Lincoln

correspondence that the Sentinels of America, whose real
name should be the 'Vultures of America,' were organized
for even more insidious and sinister purposes than the
defeat of Roosevelt. They were organized to destroy the
standing of the Jews in America, which standing has been
built up through faithful, devoted and patriotic service
since the foundation of the Republic." A few days later,
Lincoln resigned from the State Board of Tax Appeals and
withdrew his candidacy for the Republican state pre-
primary convention. In a public statement, Lincoln said
his anti-Jewish utterances had been misinterpreted, and
that he had referred solely to those of Jewish origin active
in the communist movement.
Early in May, the American Liberty League announced
that a regular meeting of its administrative committee had
adopted a resolution declaring "false and without founda-
tion" allegations that the League was anti-Semitic. The
resolution said that because of "the studied attempt" made
to convey the impression the League was anti-Jewish, it
wished to deny that it "is opposed to any individual or to
any groups of individuals because of creed, race or color."
It declared that "the League resents the attempt of those
who, because of self-interest or for any other reason, seek
to convey impressions concerning its attitude that are
wholly erroneous and for which there is no possible basis
of fact." The resolution called attention to the League's
platform, which specifically upholds the American principle
of civil and religious liberties.
THE BLACK LEGION

Scarcely was the discussion on this incident over when,
on May 22, 1936, the existence of a secret society of night
riders, known as the Black Legion, was bared during
investigation of the murder of a Detroit W. P. A. worker.
The organization, whose membership was variously estimated
at from 50,000 to 6,000,000, was an outgrowth of the Ku
Klux Klan. In the course of the investigation of murder
charges brought against seven members, evidence was
produced which pointed to a widespread, well-knit organiza-
tion in Michigan, Ohio and other middle-western states.

Further investigations revealed that "prospective members
are asked if they will take up arms against Jews, Negroes
and Catholics"; that membership was open only to former
members of the Klan; and that the membership application
blank declared that "the object of this Order is: to promote,
protect, and preserve Protestantism; to create and guard
the welfare of the Protestant people socially as well as
politically." Investigation of the activities of the Legion
are still in progress. Resolutions authorizing a congressional
inquiry regarding the Legion and other reputedly sub-
versive organizations were introduced in the House of
Representatives by -the Hon. Samuel Dickstein of New
York City, and in the Senate by the Hon. Elmer Benson
of Minnesota; these'resolutions, which were introduced in
the closing days of the Congress, were not reported by the
committees to which they had been referred.
On the heels of the Black Legion expose, a new sensation
was created when, early in June 1936, Mayor LaGuardia
issued a summons charging criminal libel against one,
Robert E. Edmondson, who had been sending out anti-
Jewish literature from a printing shop in downtown New
York. In a letter to District Attorney William C. Dodge,
the Mayor declared that "unless checked, this type of
agitation may incite to a breach of the peace and public
disorder." The Mayor added: "Since the offense of criminal
libel is an offense against the public in that it may lead to
a breach of the peace, it is proper that the criminal process
should be invoked. The right of free speech is based on
the recognition that those who indulge in it or claim it as
a right must be prepared to be held responsible for their
utterances or their writings if they transgress. The remedy
is not by suppression or curtailment of speech or writing,
but by invoking the law of criminal libel if the statement is
not truthful or the motive unlawful."
In a statement to the press, Edmondson, who described
himself as a newspaper man of forty years' experience,
declared that he started his "educational campaign" "for
Americanism" in 1934, by distributing leaflets at cost, and
that he had thus far circulated 5,000,000 copies. On June 11,
the New York County grand jury voted indictments against
Edmondson, charging malicious criminal libels of Dean

Virginia Gildersleeve of Barnard College, Miss Frances
Perkins, Secretary of Labor, and the Jewish religion. The
case is still pending as this review is being written (mid-
July).
RECOURSE TO LAW
In connection with the question of recourse to law as
a means of suppressing publications which are libelous of
a group, it is interesting to note that on January 9, 1936,
the Hon. J. J. Schwartzwald, member of the Senate of the
State of New York, introduced a bill which would have
made it illegal to incite or advocate "hatred, violence or
hostility against any group or groups of person residing
or being in this State, by reason of race, color, religion or
manner of worship." Jewish organizations were urged by
the New York City Civil Liberties Committee to take a
strong stand against this bill. Miss Fiorina Lasker, chair-
man of the Committee, declared: "No organization detests
religious or race prejudice more than the New York City
Civil Liberties Committee. But the way to cope with this
ugly problem is not through gag legislation. Here is another
case where the suggested cure is worse than the disease itself."
That a similar attitude had been taken by the Lawyer'
Advisory Committee of the American Jewish Committee
was revealed in the report which the Executive Committee
submitted to that body at its twenty-ninth annual meeting
on January 5, 1936. According to this report, the Lawyers
Advisory Committee, which had been established in order
to study the dissemination of malicious anti-Jewish libels,
had reached the conclusion that recourse to law and efforts
to secure additional legislation were seldom advisable. The
report pointed out that "although it is easy to understand
the desire of many Jews to avail themselves of the legal
protection to which they are entitled, due consideration
must be given not only to the legal questions themselves,
but to other factors which are just as, or even more, im-
portant: namely, the possibility of evoking undesirable
publicity; the need of avoiding the intrusion of selfish
publicity-seekers; the difficulty of bringing an action which
will not make a martyr of the defendant; and the para-
mount necessity of refusing to take any action that would

violate the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech,
of the press, and of assembly." "In such cases," the state-
ment concluded, "it may be the part of wisdom to adopt
other means of defending the civil rights of Jews, principally,
a long-range program of education against the deep-rooted,
but not insoluble, prejudice."
In connection with the subject of legislation, it is worthy
of note that, in August 1935, the legislature of Pennsylvania
enacted a law, similar to one in force in New York State,
declaring unlawful and providing penalties for discrimina-
tion "because of race, creed and color" by places of public
resort, such as hotels, restaurants, hospitals, theatres,
schools, universities, and public conveyances.
A religious or racial issue was injected into the political
campaign now in progress, even in advance of the national
conventions of the major parties. On May 18, Daniel F.
Cohalan, former New York State Supreme Court Justice,
made public a letter to James A. Farley, Chairman of the
National Democratic Committee, asking whether he wanted
Governor Herbert H. Lehman to stand for re-election
"because he is a Jew; and does he undertake to deliver the
Jewish vote to Roosevelt in the coming critical crisis?"
The letter added: "If the President and Mr. Farley desire
to select a Jew as the Gubernatorial candidate, could not
an outstanding figure be selected from the many men in
the forefront of the business and professions in New York
City?" Mr. Cohalan's letter was widely condemned by
individuals and in the press.
A few days later, Governor Lehman announced that he
would not be a candidate for re-election, but, following the
Democratic National Convention, in June 1936, he an-
nounced that he would stand for re-election, if nominated.
As this review is being written (mid-July) there are indica-
tions that the religious issue may be raised by adherents
of both the major political parties.
An attempt to measure the extent of the anti-Jewish
movement in the United States was made in a significant
article entitled "The Jews in America," published in the
February 1936 issue of the monthly magazine Fortune.
The article, subsequently printed in book form, attracted
much attention. The editors of Fortune, referred to as the
writers of the article, declared that organized anti-Semitism
in this country is impotent. "Although an estimated half
million people may attend occasional anti-Semitic meetings,
etc.," the writers declared, "there are probably no more
than 15,000 loyal Jew-hating group members in the whole
United States and many of these are loyal only in a negative
and receptive way." Declaring that anti-Jewish agitation
gained a following chiefly by asserting that industry, com-
merce, finance, and the professions in the United States
were largely under the control of Jews, the writers produced
the results of a survey which had led them to conclude that
"there is no basis whatever for the suggestion that Jews
monopolize United States business and industry." The
writers also denied that Jews preponderate in the communist
movement in the United States.
MOVEMENTS FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING
Happily, the forces of intolerance and ill-will did not

have the field to themselves. Organized and systematic
efforts to spread tolerance and good will continued to be
vigorously prosecuted, principally through the initiative
of the National Conference of Jews and Christians. Almost
at the beginning of the period under review, a conference
was held which drew country-wide attention to these
efforts. From August 25 to August 30, 1935, an Institute
of Human Relations was held at Williams College, at
Williamstown, Massachusetts. It was sponsored by the
National Conference of Jews and Christians as a new and
major feature of the nation-wide educational program
undertaken by that organization in collaboration with its
three hundred local committees over the country. The
Institute was organized to give Catholic, Protestant and
Jewish leaders an opportunity to consider their common
interests and concerns as Americans, "an occasion for study
and exchange of experience, not for debate or the passing
of resolutions." Four hundred and fifty-one delegates
attended the proceedings, over which presided Newton D.

Baker, Professor Carleton J. H. Hayes and Roger W.
Straus, co-chairmen of the National Conference. Con-
demnation of Hitler ism, a program of education to prevent
Nazism from gaining a foothold in the United States, and
greater understanding among the religious faiths, were
urged by speakers representing the major religious denomi-
nations. Besides discussions of general problems at public
meetings held morning and evening of each day, round
table discussions and seminars, presided over by authorities
in various fields, took up the problems of human relations.
This highly successful Institute was followed by other
conferences and seminars, notably one at Northwestern
University under the auspices of the Chicago Round Table
of Jews and Christians, toward the end of March, and an
institute of human relations in New York City in May, 1936.
The National Conference of Jews and Christians also
sponsored the third annual observance of Brotherhood Day
on February 22 and 23, 1936. This celebration took for
its slogan "Make America Safe for Differences." The Day
was celebrated far and wide, and culminated in a network
radio broadcast of addresses by President Roosevelt,
Michael Francis Doyle of Philadelphia, an outstanding
Catholic, and Dr. Cyrus Adler, president of the American
Jewish Committee.
A "good-will tour," similar to pilgrimages which had
been so successful in previous years in dramatizing the
movement for a better understanding, was undertaken in
April 1936. Dr. Everett R. Clinchy, director of the National
Conference of Jews and Christians; Father Michael J.
Ahern of Weston College, Weston, Mass., and Rabbi Morris
S. Lazaron of Baltimore, set out from Washington, April
13 on their "pilgrimage of neighborliness." The trio
traveled from coast to coast, visiting twelve states and
twenty-seven cities, addressing 45,000 persons at meetings,
and speaking on the radio in fourteen cities. They returned
to Philadelphia, May 28, reporting that while interfaith
relations were improving, an increase of anti-Jewish feeling
on the Pacific coast was noted. It was reported that, when
attempts were made to exploit such feeling in Spokane,
Washington, the R o m a n Catholic Bishop and the Episcopal

Bishop joined with other citizens in condemning t h e m
vehemently, so t h a t the a t t a c k s were universally repudiated.
In connection with good-will movements, it is interesting

to note t h a t considerable discussion was aroused in Jewish
and non-Jewish circles by a series of editorials, on " T h e
Jewish Problem" in The Christian Century, a prominent
undenominational Protestant journal published in Chicago,
beginning April 29. T h e magazine attacked the char-
acterization of Judaism as a civilization rather than a
religion, as formulated b y Rabbi Mordecai M . Kaplan and
his followers, and warned t h a t "if the Christian community
were once convinced t h a t an impassible gulf is fixed between
itself and the Jewish community, precluding a n y possibility
of reaching a high synthesis through tolerant discussion,
reinforced by the healing and reconciling forces in such a
democracy as ours, its spirit of tolerance would shrivel."
In letters to the editor and in articles in Jewish periodicals,
this stand was attacked and defended by Jewish spokesmen
(see especially The Keconstructionist, M a y 29, 1936; and
Opinion, July 1936). The Christian Century clarified its
stand on July 1, declaring t h a t "though tolerance is neces-
sary it is not in itself a solution of the problem," and t h a t
what it opposed was "advocacy of the development of
J u d a i s m as a civilization, a culture, a nationality of its own,
insulated within the body of American national culture."
T h e periodical again warned t h a t "Judaism, in so far as
it follows the leadership of those who would make of it a
permanent cultural cyst in the body of American civiliza-
tion, will make gentile tolerance more difficult and play
into the hands of the non-Christian and non-rational forces
inherent in every culture."
The activities of the National Conference of Jews and

Christians were supplemented by those of another agency,
more recently organized, the National Committee for
Religion and Welfare Recovery. This Committee sponsored
the celebration of "loyalty d a y s " in churches and syna-
gogues, aimed a t increasing attendance a t religious services.
Such celebrations were held on Saturday, October 5 and
on Sunday, October 6, 1935. The movement had the

support of President Roosevelt, many other prominent
individuals, national church organizations, 2,000 Kiwanis
Clubs, Rotary and women's clubs, national news agencies,
radio stations, and prominent respresentatives of the three
faiths.
This Committee also sponsored a large dinner in New
York City, on February 18, 1936 as a demonstration for
cooperation of all faiths in a spiritual revival in the United
States. The diners were addressed by Secretary of War,
George H. Dern, who brought greetings from the President.
In April, in connection with the celebration of Easter and
Passover, the same Committee arranged a nation-wide
radio broadcast in which Rev. Philip J. Farlong, vice-
president of St. Patrick's Cathedral College; Rev. Dr. W.
Russell Bowie, rector of Grace Episcopal Church, and Dr.
Abraham L. Feinberg, rabbi of Mount Neboh Temple,
made a joint plea- for the "religious cooperation" of the
principal faiths of the world in a united front against
persecution, intolerance and hatred.
The preservation of religious liberty was also the subject
of cooperation between Catholics, Protestants, and Jews.
In November 1935, a closely integrated fight by Protestants,
Catholics and Jews to regain religious liberty in Germany,
Russia, and Mexico, and to preserve it in this country, was
urged at a large meeting in New York City by Rev. Dr.
Arthur J. Brown, chairman of the American Committee
on Religious Rights and Minorities; William F. Sands of
Washington; and Carl Sherman, former New York Attorney
General.
In April 1936, began a movement by Catholic, Protestant
and Jewish leaders, which culminated, in June, in the
establishment, by fifteen prominent business men, bankers,
clergymen and lawyers, of the American League for Relig-
ious Liberty. The League announced that it will work for
the protection of religious freedom everywhere, and that
it would devote its first activities to the relief of victims of
religious persecution in Mexico and Germany, vowing to
continue the work "until the anti-God laws are repealed."
George Gordon Battle, a distinguished New York attorney,
was elected president.
A number of interesting examples of inter-faith coopera-

tion in other directions deserve recording here. In Septem-
ber 1935, leading members of the Catholic and Protestant
communities of Rochester rendered active assistance to
the Jewish community in a $200,000 drive for the comple-
tion of the local Jewish Young Men's and Young Women's
Association building. In the same month, Rabbi Sidney
E. Goldstein, chairman of the social justice commission of
the Central Conference of American Rabbis, announced
that a number of Jews had offered to cooperate with
Protestant and Catholic groups in guaranteeing the con-
tinued existence of The Churchman, Protestant Episcopal
publication, which had been threatened with extinction
as a result of an adverse decision in a libel suit growing out
of its campaign for clean motion pictures. In October,
Bishop Maurice F. McAuliffe, Catholic, Dr. Douglas
MacKenzie, Protestant, and Rabbi Morris Silverman, took
part in a Union Religious Service at Hartford, which
climaxed the Connecticut Tercentenary celebration.
In December, Rabbis Sidney E. Goldstein, chairman of
the Commission on Social Justice of the Central Conference
of American Rabbis, and Milton Steinberg, Chairman of
a similar committee of the Rabbinical Assembly, joined
with eleven Protestant clergymen in a reply to an address
against birth control by Cardinal Hayes of New York City.
In January 1936, seventeen rabbis joined with Catholic
and Protestant clergymen in signing a manifesto declaring
that slum conditions in New York City constitute an
"awful offense against the sanctity of human life," and
demanding that these conditions be ended. In June, twenty-
two rabbis and twenty-seven Protestant ministers joined
in publishing a protest against the attack of the German
Government on the Roman Catholic clergy of that country,
in which many charges of immorality were made.
The record of significant efforts to promote inter-religious
and inter-racial good-will, during the past year, would be
incomplete without reference to important declarations of
President Roosevelt, in addition to those which have already
been mentioned. On October 2, 1935, in an address to
45,000 persons in San Diego, California, President Roosevelt
made it clear, without mentioning the country by name,
that Americans find religious persecution in Germany
abhorrent. "Our flag for a century and a half," he said,
"has been the symbol of the principles of liberty of con-
science, of religious freedom and equality before the law,
and these concepts are deeply ingrained in our national
character. It is true that other nations may, as they do,
enforce contrary rules of conscience and conduct. It is
true that policies that may be pursued under flags other
than our own are beyond our jurisdiction. Yet in our inner
individual lives we can never be indifferent, and we assert
for ourselves complete freedom to embrace, to profess and
to observe the principles for which our flag has so long been
the lofty symbol." Again, in his annual message to Con-
gress, broadcast to the nation on January 3, 1936, President
Roosevelt declared: "We have sought by every legitimate
means to exert our moral influence against repression,
against intolerance, and against autocracy, and in favor
of freedom of expression equally before the law, religious
tolerance and popular rule." In diplomatic but unmis-
takable language, the President laid the war threat to
nations that have "reverted to the old belief in the law of
the sword, or to the fantastic conception that they, and
they alone, are chosen to fulfil a mission and that all the
others among the billion and a half of human beings must
and shall learn from, and be subject to, them."
Again, on May 25, 1936, at a dinner in New York City
sponsored by the United Palestine Appeal, Secretary of
the Interior Harold L. Ickes, who delivered the principal
address, said that he had been asked to say on the Presi-
dent's behalf that "he is distressed and disturbed by the
reversion in certain parts of the world to days and deeds
of an era which all enlightened people had long hoped would
never return," and that it is "his conviction that so long
as minorities of the nations of the world are deprived of
liberty of thought and religion, and the right to lead a
normal, civilized life there can be no true and permanent
understanding between nations." Mr. Ickes went on to
say: "The President expresses through me to you, the
representatives of a great and virile race, the hope that
calmer and more dispassionate judgments will prevail and
asserts the belief that the Government of the United States,
in carrying out the will of the people, will ever give watchful
care to the minorities within its borders, and will maintain
inviolate those vital rights that are guaranteed by the
Constitution even to the most humble of our citizens."
JEWISH COMMUNAL LIFE

We turn now from recording significant occurrences in
the field of Jewish-Christian relations, to note important
happenings within the Jewish community in connection
with religion, ritual, social welfare, and culture.
In the field of religion, the following events are note-
worthy: The annual convention of the Northeast Region
of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, held in
New York City in January 1936, attended by over 1,000
delegates from eight states; the meeting of the Executive
Board of the Union, in Buffalo, in February, 1936, at which
the need of becoming a counterpart of the liberal movement
in world Judaism and of correlating and coordinating the
work of the 286 constituent congregations with the organ-
ized Reform movement in America generally, was stressed
by Jacob W. Mack, chairman, and Roger W. Straus, of
New York, on behalf of the Committee on Good Will
between Christians and Jews, warned that the stress of
social forces was making it even more essential to keep open
those agencies for the exchange of opinion and promotion
of better understanding between Christian and Jew; the
national biennial conventions of the United Synagogue of
America and the Women's League of that body, held in
Washington, D. C, in March, which were addressed by
Secretary of the Interior, Harold L. Ickes, and Mrs.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, and adopted a resolution expres-
sing the view that discussion of social and economic prob-
lems properly belongs in the synagogue, and that it is
not only the right but the duty of the clergy and laity to
espouse all causes which, in their opinion, further the ends
of social and economic justice; in another resolution, the
convention urged synagogues to discourage distinctions
based upon social differences among their members, and
encourage the laboring masses to enter the synagogue and
participate in the management of its affairs; the national
conference in New York, in April 1936 of the Union of

Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, which set up
a permanent committee for social justice, empowered to
fight for the five-day week, slum clearance, and social
security legislation; and the 47th convention of the Central
Conference of American Rabbis in Cape May, New Jersey,
on June 23 to 27.
The conference denounced Fascism and Communism as
incompatible with the democratic philosophy of Judaism
and reaffirmed its support of a "thoroughly socialized
democracy." In another resolution, the delegates petitioned
the Government of the United States "to grant to Jewish
religious conscientious objectors to war the same exemption
from military service as has long been granted to members
of the Society of Friends and similar religious organiza-
tions." A committee on marriage, family and home was
created for the purpose of formulating a program of educa-
tion and service to aid rabbis in their efforts to safeguard
marriage and the family. The conference endorsed Senator
Robert M. LaFollette's resolution for investigating viola-
tions of civil liberties; voted to establish constructive
children's clubs and classes to help eliminate crime by
eliminating child delinquency; objected to "the policy of
any State which strikes at the very practice of religion,
specifically the treatment of Catholics in our sister republic
of Mexico;" expressed "pride at the fine spirit of restraint
and calm which has characterized the great mass of Pal-
estine Jewry during the crisis"; and lamented the "strained
relations" between the United Palestine Appeal and the
American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee.
QUESTIONS OF JEWISH LAW

The problem of the agunah, the deserted wife, was again
taken up by the Rabbinical Assembly of the Jewish Theo-
logical Seminary of America, in November 1935. (See also
Vol. 37, pp. 163-164). Replying to the rebuke of the Union
of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada, the
Assembly stressed the hardship of deserted women, and
warned that law which became "fossilized and inert" led
to contempt of law. It asserted that it strove "to make
Jewish tradition and Jewish law function in the lives of

the Jews." The same question was brought up at the
biennial convention of the United Synagogue in Wash-
ington, when Dr. Louis M. Epstein of Brookline, Mass.,
reporting for the Rabbinical Assembly, urged the delegates
to "strengthen the hands" of the 250 rabbis who had
committed themselves to revision of accepted Jewish law
on this point. He explained that under the reform, the
principle that a man can appoint a "shaliah," or agent,
to act for him is extended to the "Ketubah," or marriage
contract. A special clause is written into the contract
authorizing the wife to act as agent for him in obtaining a
divorce, so that if she is deserted she can seek a divorce in
his name from the Central Court of the Rabbinical
Assembly. The convention approved the proposal of
the Rabbinical Assembly "as a measure calculated to
preserve in modern life the spirit of fairness and equality
in the relation between husband and wife and to enhance
reverence for Jewish law and obedience to its precepts."
Jewish rabbinical law was invoked in two law-suits which
reached the civil courts. In July 1935, the Schulchan Aruch,
code of orthodox Jewish ritual, was upheld by Judge William
A. Moncure of the Richmond, Va., Chancery Court, in a
case growing out of the attempt of the children of Abraham
Goldman to remove his remains from an Orthodox to a
Reform cemetery, although exhuming corpses is contrary
to orthodox law. When the Orthodox congregation trustees
refused permission, the children brought a bill in equity
to enjoin them from preventing the disinterment. After
hearing the testimony of Orthodox and Conservative
rabbis, Judge Moncure refused the injunction on the ground
that the Schulchan Aruch is still binding on Orthodox Jews.
In January 1936, in an opinion that traced the Hebraic
law back to Moses, New York Supreme Court Justice
McCook handed down a decision upholding the right of
the Kashruth Association of New York, a semi-official
organization of laymen and orthodox rabbis, to declare a
ban against all poultry not killed under the supervision of
the organization and not bearing leg-bands or seals sold
by the Association. Another legal case of Jewish interest
involved a pre-nuptial agreement in which Jacob Miller,
a Jew, and his wife, Mrs. Helen White Miller, a Catholic,

had agreed that their children should be raised in the
Catholic faith. The agreement was upheld by New York
Supreme Court Justice Meier Steinbrink, after conferring
with the priest and the rabbi, who had each, without
knowledge of the other, married the couple in separate
religious ceremonies.
JEWISH EDUCATION
In the field of Jewish education, a sharp decrease in the
economic difficulties experienced by Jewish schools, with
attendant strikes of teachers, was noted during the period
under review. There were several important developments
in connection with the provision of facilities for Jewish
education for adults. In December, the National Council
of Young Israel announced a plan to open rotating colleges
in seven American cities, with night courses in Jewish
philosophy, Hebrew language, literature, codes and cere-
monials. The courses, which began in January 1936, were
given in Chicago, Cleveland, Louisville, Rochester, Detroit,
Toronto and Cincinnati. In the same month, the Jewish
Theological Seminary of America, in cooperation with a
number of New Jersey congregations, conducted an Insti-
tute of Jewish Affairs at Newark. The Institute brought
together scholars, rabbis, educators and laymen for lectures
and discussion, in "an experiment in bringing Jews together
to discuss their problems under the direction of experts in
each field." In March 1936, the People's University and
Jewish Teacher's Seminary, New York City, announced
that one of the four schools it would open in the fall of the
year, would be a labor college "to equip men and women
for the successful accomplishment of industrial, political
and cultural tasks in the organized labor movement." The
other schools will be a college of liberal arts and sciences, a
teachers' seminary and a vocational training school. In
May 1935, a nation-wide movement for the establishment
of institutes for adult Jewish study was launched by the
B'nai B'rith under the auspices of the Order's Bureau of
Membership and Cultural Activities. The project is intended
to round out the B'nai B'rith's cultural program.
ACTIVITIES OF W E L F A R E ORGANIZATIONS
In February 1936, over 2,500 women delegates repre-
senting 250 constituent groups of the Federation of Jewish
Women's Organizations of New York met in convention
to discuss "Women's Responsibility in World Affairs."
Resolutions were adopted recommending continuance of
the boycott against Nazi Germany, approval and apprecia-
tion of the efforts of James G. McDonald on behalf of Jewish
refugees from Germany, indorsement of the social service
bureau of the Magistrates Court, avoidance of attendance
at the Olympic Games, support of the neutrality policy
of the United States, and other measures looking toward
the end of war, and amendment of the state labor law to
include all working for hire.
In the same month, Dr. Gabriel Davidson, general
manager of the Jewish Agricultural Society, declared in his
annual report that Jewish farmers in the United States had
weathered the economic difficulties of the last few years
and have been making steady progress in agriculture.
In March, at the 51st annual meeting of H I A S (Hebrew
Sheltering and Immigrant Aid Aociety), it was reported by
Isaac L. Asofsky, general manager, that the number of Jewish
emigrants from Poland exceeded the 1934 figure by 75%.
Other reports showed that 13,428 German Jews had been
forwarded by H I A S and its foreign affiliate, the ICA, to
overseas countries, including the United States, Canada,
and Latin American countries. The Society adopted a
resolution urging Congress to humanize sections of the
immigration law affecting resident aliens, by enacting a
bill, which had been introduced in both Houses by Senator
Marcus A. Coolidge of Massachusetts and Representative
John H. Kerr of North Carolina.
Tribute was paid to Judge Irving Lehman for his devotion
to Jewish youth, education and the community center
movement at a dinner, May 3, 1936, in honor of his fifteen
years as president of the Jewish Welfare Board and his
sixtieth birthday. The dinner concluded the annual meeting
of the Board's national council at which a plan was approved
to bring the 300,000 members of the 316 Jewish centers
throughout the country into closer touch with the central
organization. The Board, which promotes the religious,

intellectual, physical and social well-being of American
Jewish youth, reported, in June, that during 1935 it had
served 41 summer camps of Jewish centers with an enroll-
ment of 20,400 and 46 home camps and play schools with
an enrollment of 9,000; the Board's Army and Navy Service
Department conducted welfare and religious activities at
270 army posts, naval stations and government hospitals
in the United States and outlying possessions. The Board
conducted 969 special services for Jewish holidays, with a
reported attendance of 329,354, and the Lecture and Con-
cert Bureau arranged 139 forums and programs, serving
311 Jewish community centers.
In December 1935, the Council of Jewish Federations
and Welfare Funds announced that a total of $11,144,985
had been received during the fiscal year 1934 by the 68
federations of Jewish charities and welfare funds in the
United States. In April 1936, a permanent body, the
Western State Region of the National Council of Jewish
Federations and Welfare Funds, was formed in San
Francisco at the first Western States regional conference
of communal agencies. The conference decided to broaden
the activities of local federations, develop vocational and
professional guidance for Jewish youth in view of unem-
ployment and discrimination by employers, and recognized
the responsibility of larger Jewish population centers to
act as "spheres of influence" for smaller Jewish com-
munities.
The National Conference of Jewish Social Service held
its 37th annual meeting May 31-June 3 at Atlantic City.
Among the many controversial topics discussed were
1) the "rank and file" movement in social work—the
movement of social workers as distinct from executives;
2) the problem of the increasing anti-Jewish sentiment in
America; and 3) the employment problems facing Jewish
youth in America. Harry L. Glucksman, president of the
Conference, called upon Jewish social work to, retain its
"natural and logical underlying Jewish grouping without
being dogmatically chained to the past, and allow itself
t« be shaped by current social conditions and the needs
such conditions create." Discussing the major problems of
social work, Dr. Solomon Lowenstein of New York declared:

"We must re-evaluate the work, adequacy, efficiency and
sufficiency of our functional agencies of social service in
the light of changed conditions and we must stop to examine
the effect upon our work of the difficult circumstances
under which Jews now exist in a number of foreign
America; and 3) the employment problems facing Jewish
countries." Mr. Glucksman was reelected president of the
conference, which changed its name to the National Con-
ference of Jewish Social Welfare.
The annual convention of the Independent Order B'rith
Abraham, at Saratoga Springs, N. Y., on June 28, 1936,
voted to celebrate the golden jubilee of the order in con-
nection with its 50th convention in New York City in 1937.
Grand Master Max Silverstein, of New York, recommended
that he be authorized to call a non-sectarian conference
of the heads of all American fraternal organizations to
"combat dictatorship tendencies, un-Americanism and
attacks on human rights and liberties."
J E W I S H CULTURAL ACTIVITIES
In the field of Jewish cultural activities, there were but
few significant events, during the period. The Jewish Daily
Bulletin, the only Jewish daily printed in English, suspended
publication July 20, 1935. A weekly Bulletin, inaugurated
on August 9, was discontinued after the December 13 issue.
In October, the first issue of the Washington Jewish Review,
a new English-Jewish weekly, appeared.
In November, the Jewish Publication Society announced
that Mrs. Dorothy Canfield Fisher, Miss Fannie Hurst,
and Edwin Wolf, 2nd, had consented to serve as judges for
the Edwin Wolf Award of $2,500 offered by the Society for
the best novel of Jewish interest. In addition to Volume
37 of the American Jewish Year Book, the Society brought
out, during the review period, "The History of the Jews in
Vienna,",by Dr. Max Grunwald of Vienna, translated from
the German by Dr. Solomon Grayzel and Albert Mordell,
as the fourth in the Historical Jewish Community Series,
and "The Jews of Germany—A Story of Sixteen Centuries,"
by Marvin Lowenthal.
In February 1936, the last two of eight volumes of the

first modern Yiddish translation of the Bible, prepared by
the late Solomon Bloomgarden (Yehoash), Yiddish poet
and scholar, were published. It was reported that the
author had worked for twenty years on the project.
"The Land of Promise," a screen drama portraying the
rebuilding of Palestine, produced by the Palestine Founda-
tion Fund, was presented in November 1935 at the Astor
Theatre, New York, where it drew audiences for many
weeks. Beginning in March 1936, the Federal Theatre
Project produced in New York City, several plays in
Yiddish, and began a series of productions in the Anglo-
Jewish Theatre with "The Idle Inn," translated from the
Yiddish of Peretz Hirshbein.
The world premiere of the English operatic version of
"The Dybbuk," based on the famous play by S. Ansky
(Rappaport), was met with an ovation at the Detroit Civic
Opera on May 6, 1936. The opera, which was composed by
Ludovico Rocca, with Renato Simoni as librettist, had been
translated into English by Archie Coates. It was produced .
by the Detroit Symphony Orchestra, conducted by Franco
Ghione of La Scala of Milan. On May 14, the production
was brought to New York where it was greeted unenthus-
iastically by music critics.
Again, with the exception of the "Artef" (Arbeiter
Theater Verband), in New York City, most of the 40
Yiddish plays produced in New York City, during the
1935-1936 seasons, were of little artistic significance.
Although the Yiddish theatre seasons during the period
under review were more successful than during the previous
year, the Yiddish stage was not able to recover its former
standard of successes. Plays in Yiddish were produced in
Boston, Philadelphia and Cleveland, as well as in eight
New York theatres.
Besides those referred to in the foregoing sections of the
Review, the following distinguished Jews from overseas
countries visited the United States during the period under
review: Professor Franz Oppenheimer, sociologist, econ-
omist, father of German agrarian reform and of cooperative
colonization in Palestine; Professor Max Reinhardt, famed
theatrical and motion picture producer; Matias Stoliar,
editor and publisher of Gazetta Israelita, Argentine Yiddish

daily; Dr. Bruno Weil, noted international lawyer and
German Jewish communal leader; Franz Werfel, distin-
guished Austrian author; and Dr. Michael Wilensky,
Hebrew scholar formerly of Berlin, to catalogue the manu-
script collection of the Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati. 1
II
OTHER COUNTRIES
LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES
Argentine.—In January, 1936, Dr. Perez Virasoro, the

Governor of the Province of La Pampa, expressed his
admiration for the colonization efforts of the Jewish Coloni-
zation Association (lea) in Argentina. His praise was
considered highly significant by the Jewish press, which
pointed out that "at a time when the anti-Semitic campaign
is gaining ground, this visit of the Governor should show to
the Government the great usefulness of the Jews in the
economic life of the nation." Mass meetings in protest
against anti-Jewish excesses in Poland were held on April
19, 1936 in Buenos Aires and other cities. Fifty Jewish
organizations participated in the Buenos Aires meeting.
On May 4, a 300,000 peso campaign for the Palestine
Foundation Fund was announced at an extraordinary con-
vention of the Argentine Zionist Organization, held in
Buenos Aires.
Brazil.—On July 11, 1935, the government of Sao Paulo,
Brazil, issued a decree to facilitate a larger immigration
into this state, and guaranteeing racial and religious free-
dom to all immigrants. On July 15, the Integralists (Brazil
Nazis) held their Congress in Rio de Janeiro. No official
action was taken, although the speeches were violently
anti-Jewish. Yet, the same week, the government closed
1
For other items of a personal nature, the reader is referred to the appendices which
comprise lists of appointments, nonors and elections, special bequests and gifts, and
necrology.
down the anti-Nazi Allianca Nacional Libertadore (Nation-
al Liberation Alliance). In April 1936, leading newspapers
throughout Brazil started an intensive campaign against
racial hatred. Many articles favorable to Jewish citizens
and to increased Jewish immigration appeared in the press.
On April 28, police closed the offices of the Fascist and
anti-Jewish Integralist Organization in the State of Parana
following a decision of the State Tribunal that its activities
were harmful to the welfare of the country. The anti-
Jewish movement received another setback at the same
time when Asischaute Briand, president of the Diarios
Association, organization of newspaper publishers, pub-
lished an article sharply attacking Jew-baiting and praising
the Jewish people.
Cuba.—On March 30, 1936, the publisher and the man-
ager of Cuba's only Yiddish publication, the weekly
Havaner Lebn, wejre arrested on a charge of having printed
proclamations by leftist Cuban students and workers calling
for a general strike against the civil and military author-
ities; they were cleared of the charge and released by the
Emergency Tribunal on April 26. In the same month,
Colonel Fulgencio Batista, chief of staff of the Cuban
Army, in an interview with the Jewish leader, Ben Segnior,
promised that all Jew-baiting manifestations in Cuba would
be crushed. His assurances served to calm fears of the
Jewish community, which had been aroused by a violent
anti-Jewish campaign conducted over the radio by a group
known as the Anti-Judea Society of Cuba.
Ecuador.—On July 18, 1935, the Daily Herald, London,
reported that 500,000 hectares (approximately 1,250,000
acres) had been offered by the Government of Ecuador for
the settlement of Jewish refugees. The offer, which would
cover 50,000 refugee families, was in the form of an agree-
ment, signed by the President and ratified by Parliament,
with the Committee for the Study of Agriculture, Industry
and Immigration in the Republic of Ecuador. On October
14, the Hilfsverein der Juden in Deutschland, leading
Jewish emigration society in Germany, issued a warning
against premature mass emigration of German Jews to
Ecuador. It asked that intending Jewish emigrants await
the official report of the agreement. At the turn of the year,
however, the Comite International de Immigracion, which

h a d been set u p in Ecuador, announced t h a t it h a d com-
pleted its plans for the settlement of refugees on more than
1,000,000 acres ceded b y the Ecuador Government, and
t h a t it was about to begin actual construction of roads,
building of homes and clearing of land. T h e contract ceding
the land in Ecuador and Galapagos guarantees settlers all
social and political rights as well as Government aid in the
form of free transportation within Ecuador to the point of
destination, exemption from taxes and from import duties
on machinery and personal necessities. T h e Committee
proposed to establish a cooperative b a n k as a central
purchasing and export agency. In making the announce-
ment, the Committee emphasized t h a t anti-Jewish feeling
in Ecuador is "virtually non-existent." Shortly after this
announcement was made, the Hias-Ica Emigration Associa-
tion (Hicem) issued a warning against " t h e dangerous
illusions which might rise among the Jewish population
in the countries of emigration, owing to misleading reports
a b o u t the possibilities of immigration and colonization in
E c u a d o r . " " A t the present m o m e n t , " declared the state-
ment, " t h e possibilities in Ecuador are practically nil."
This warning elicited a reply from the International Com-
mittee of Immigration in Ecuador, which declared t h a t
five of the seven objections brought forward by the Hicem,
namely, economic poverty of the country, low wages,
incapacity of absorption of a large number of artisans, lack
of openings for professional people, and general political
instability, are equally applicable to the rest of the South
American countries; the s t a t e m e n t further denied t h a t the
territories ceded for immigrants are of inferior quality a n d
u n a d a p t e d to colonization, or t h a t they are far from roads
a n d waterways.
^Mexico.—In J a n u a r y 1936, in compliance with the demands
of labor organizations, President Lazaro Cardenas acted to
withhold Mexico's participation in the Berlin Olympics;
all preparations for the Games were stopped. In March,
the anti-Jewish Golden Shirts and similar Fascist organiza-
tions were banned by President Cardenas, who ordered
heads of all Government departments to use every legal means

within their power to curb their "destructive activities."
Paraguay.—In January 1936, official announcement was
made that the government had relaxed its immigration
regulations to permit Jews who are not farmers to enter
the country, provided they possess 50 gold pesos; previously,
only farmers had been permitted to enter.
CANADA
In August 1935, the Canadian Jewish Congress asked

Premier Taschereau, of Quebec, to take action against
perpetrators of anti-Jewish outrages at Val David, a summer
resort. The Congress charged that swastikas were painted
on synagogue walls and that a Sefer Torah had been stolen
and destroyed. Montreal Jewish leaders accused a local
priest of inciting the French-Canadian population against
Jewish visitors. At about the same time, the Congress
issued a book on "Jew-baiting in Canada," outlining the
activities of the 12 major anti-Jewish organizations in
Canada.
In order to avoid the virtual disenfranchisement of Jewish
voters, the Canadian Government postponed the general
elections from October 7, 1935, which was the Day of Atone-
ment, to October 14. Anti-Jewish candidates for the
parliament were overwhelmingly defeated. Jean Tissot,
French-Canadian private detective, on trial for criminally
libelling A. J. Freiman, president of the Canadian Zionist
Organization, polled only 3,890 votes as against 16,000 for
his liberal opponent. On October 16, Tissot was sentenced
to a fine of $50.00. It was charged that Tissot had approached
a number of department store owners with a demand for
financial assistance in his campaign against Jewish mer-
chants, and that these activities had particularly harmed
Mr. Freiman's department store business.
In December, an anti-Olympic demonstration took place
in Toronto when Werner Haag, a well-known figure in local
Nazi groups, opened an office for the promotion of the
Berlin Olympics. Speaking before the Toronto Ministerial
Association, in March 1936, Rabbi Maurice Eisendrath
pointed to the wide-spread distribution of anti-Jewish litera-

ture in Toronto and other parts of Canada as "foreboding
and ominous." Protestant ministers replied that their faith
was deeply interested in preventing the spread of anti-
Jewish sentiment, and attributed Canadian hatred of Jews
to ignorance and lack of personal contact. In May, Mayor
Houde of Montreal protested against the forthcoming visit
of the German cruiser Emden, on the ground that it might
lead to breach of the peace. On April 29, in reply to a ques-
tion from Samuel W. Jacobs, in the House of Commons,
Premier McKenzie King had indicated that his Government
would take no action. On May 3, the Canadian League
Against War and Fascism sent a radiogram to the com-
mander of the Emden, declaring: "The people of Canada
will deeply resent a visit from the representatives of the
most brutal Government in all history, the oppressors of
the great German people and the main instigators of war
in the world today."
On April 2, 1936, the King George V Jubilee Forest Com-
mittee announced that $20,000 had been raised by Canadian
Jews for planting a section of the Jubilee Forest Memorial
Park in their name. On April 20, in an address before the
National Council of the Zionist Organization of Canada,
Lord Tweedsmuir, Governor General of Canada, stressed
the importance of Palestine as a place of refuge for persecuted
Jews and as a key to the British position in the Near East.
He declared that Zionism was a solemn obligation of the
British people, accepted by every party.
GREAT BRITAIN
The important general events of Jewish interest in Great

Britain may be conveniently classified in the following
groups: 1) reaction to events in Germany or to Nazi policies
in general; 2) reaction to events in Palestine; and 3) activi-
ties of anti-Jewish factions in Great Britain itself. Outside
of its normal activities, important events within the Jewish
community centered about 1) relief measures on behalf of
German Jews; 2) events in Poland, and, 3) events in
Palestine.
REACTION TO NAZI POLICIES

Protest Demonstrations.—In July 1935, a public inquiry
into "certain killings and kidnappings of refugees from
Germany which have occurred in Europe during the last
few years" was conducted in London under the auspices
of the Bishop of Birmingham, Lord Rhayader, Eleanor
Lessing, M.P., James Maxton, M.P., Vyvyan Adams, M.P.,
Lady Bonham Carter and Professor J. B. S. Haldane. The
widow of the murdered Professor Theodor Lessing and the
wife of the kidnapped journalist Berthold Jacob were among
the witnesses.
On the same month, however, members of the British
Legion, headed by Major Fetherston-Godby, chairman,
returning from a visit to Germany during anti-Jewish riots
in Berlin, had only words of praise for the Nazis. They
described Hitler as a "practical idealist" and declared they
had found the concentration camps comfortable and health-
ful. The British press ridiculed their statements, and pro-
tested against the political aspects of the trip.
On August 22, the Executive Committee of the Society
of Friends (Quakers) made public in London a memorandum
which had been sent to the foreign office of every country
in the world, declaring that "the Society of Friends is con-
vinced that the present situation, with regard to political
and religious refugees, ought not any longer be tolerated
by nations that call themselves Christian."
In October, anti-Nazi groups organized a campaign in
opposition to the holding of a match in London, on Decem-
ber 4, between English and German football teams. In
Germany, the press warned the Jews of London to refrain
from such opposition and called on the London police to
intervene before "hell breaks loose." British trade union
groups also protested to the Government against the holding
of the match. The British Home Office informed the General
Council of the Trade Union Congress that the Government
would not interfere with plans for the game; it maintained
that the match "has no political significance whatever, and
does not imply any view of either Government as to the
policy or institutions of the other."
On October 27, over 18,000 people took part in a non-

sectarian, anti-Nazi demonstration in Hyde Park, London.
A resolution was adopted protesting against the continued
persecution of Germany Jewry, and pledging an intensified
boycott of German goods "until complete civil and religious
liberty have been restored in Germany." Speakers included
many British leaders, Jewish and non-Jewish.
In an article in the November, 1935, issue of the Strand-
Magazine, Winston Churchill, former member of the British
Cabinet and Chancellor of the Exchequer, attacked the
anti-Jewish doctrines of the Nazi Government, declaring:
"The twentieth century has witnessed with surprise, not
merely the promulgation of these ferocious doctrines, but
their being enforced with brutal vigor by the government
and by the populace . . . Can we believe that by such
powers the world may regain 'the joy, the peace and glory
of mankind?' " In reply to a protest, the German Ambas-
sador was informed that Mr. Churchill was an independent
personality and that the Foreign Office did not exercise
any power over him.
On November 20, the National Assembly of the Church of
England took the unprecedented step of condemning Jewish
persecution in Germany in a unanimously adopted resolu-
tion, in which the Assembly expressed its sympathy with
the sufferings of the German Jews and requested Christians
in England and elsewhere to make it plain to the Nazi
Government that continuance of its policy would arouse
widespread indignation. In a separate message, the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury also voiced his protest against the
economic and social discrimination against Jews. He declared
that "a continuation of this situation will seriously affect
the good will with which, the people of this country desire
to regard Germany." On April 19, 1936, a resolution appeal-
ing to the world to intensify the boycott of German goods
and services was adopted at the annual general meeting
of the World Non-Sectarian anti-Nazi Council. The resolu-
tion, introduced by Walter Citrine, general secretary of the
British Trade Union Congress, condemned increasing per-
secution of minorities in Germany and charged the Reich
with ceasimr to rt.-peci treaties and with creating a gigantic
war machine.
The Olympic Games.—In December 1935, The National

Workers' Sports Association urged that the Amateur Athletic
Association of Great Britain withdraw from the 1936
Olympics. In January, an editorial article in I sis, Oxford
undergraduates' weekly, also advised against British par-
ticipation in the Games.
In a letter published in the London Times on March 7,
1936 the British Olympic Council declared its members
"are convinced that in sending a team to Berlin they are
acting in the best interests of sport"; that "Great Britain's
team will be chosen without any regard whatever to the
origin, religious belief or political creed of the competitors";
and that "the Council have the full assurances of those
responsible for organizing the games that there will be no
demonstrations or discriminations against any competitors."
On March 21, the British Amateur Athletic Association,
at its annual general meeting in London, decided to convene
a special meeting to consider a resolution urging withdrawal
from the Games, submitted on behalf of the National
Workers' Sports Association, an organization of 3,000,000
members. At the special meeting held on May 24, the
Amateur Athletic Association rejected the resolution by a
vote of 200 to 8. While all speakers deplored racial persecu-
tion in Germany, the majority opinion held that non-
participation would not help the victims of persecution.
International Penal Congress.—In August 1935, Miss
Cicely M. Craven, honorary secretary of the Howard
League for Penal Reform, announced in London that the
League would not be represented at the International Penal
Congress in Berlin in September. She asserted that the
League would not participate in a Congress where freedom
in choice of delegates, of discussion, and of reporting the
proceedings outside the congress, was not guaranteed.
The Heidelberg Festival.—A plea of the Bishop of Durham
that British universities should refuse to take part in the
550th anniversary celebration at Heidelberg University
was supported in February 1936, by the Academic Freedom
Committee in London. On February 18, the Senate of the
University of Birmingham announced that it had unan-

imously decided not to accept its invitation to be represented.
Oxford University followed suit, and many noted British
scientists including Sir Frederick Gowland Hopkins, profes-
sor of Bio-Chemistry at Cambridge, and Sir William H.
Beveridge, director of the London School of Economics,
urged that all British universities and learned societies
refuse to send representatives. Sir Ernest Graham-Little,
Conservative M.P. for London University, declared that
"it is unthinkable that London University will accept the
invitation." On February 28, Cambridge University also
refused the Heidelberg invitation. On March 3, the Heidel-
berg University authorities withdrew all invitations to
British universities. Its announcement declared the Univer-
sity's unwillingness to involve British students and professors
in a political controversy, since "by such action it appears
that public opinion has been influenced in such a manner
as to make it difficult for an Englishman to accept an invita-
tion which has been sent in a friendly spirit." The move-
ment against the participation of British institutions had
been supported by the press with virtual unanimity.
Congress of Municipal Officials.—On April 7, the London

County Council refused to send a delegation to the con-
ference of the International Union of Local Authorities, to
be held in Munich and Berlin in June, 1936. The Council
cited the harsh treatment of the Jews by the Nazis and the
suppression of local self-government as the reasons for its
refusal. On May 22, the City of London Corporation took
similar action.
Refugees.—In February 1936, a Society for the Protection
of Science and Learning, to assist scholars and scientists
displaced by the Nazi and other oppressive regimes, was
formed in London by the Academic Assistance Council.
Several weeks later, Lord Rutherford, world-famous English
scientist, appealed for funds to help the Society in its work
of reestablishing the displaced scholars; he declared that
the Society would also build up an Academic Assistance
Fund to award research fellowships for distinguished refugee
scholars.
In a foreword to "The Refugees from Germany," by

Professor Norman Bentwich, published in London, March
10, Viscount Robert Cecil condemned the''criminal insanity''
of Nazi persecution of the Jews, branded the anti-Jewish
policy of Hitler Germany as "one of the greatest national
crimes that has ever been committed," and appealed to the
British Government to open its doors unreservedly to all
"non-Aryan" Germans. This, he declared, "would not only
be a fine action in itself, but in the end would increase our
national prosperity."
On March 19, 1936, Geoffrey Lloyd, Under-Secretary to
the Home Department declared in the House of Commons
that refugees from Germany had founded more than 200
industrial enterprises in England, providing employment
for about 7,000 British workers.
In March 1936, an inquiry into the number of German
Jewish physicians settling in England was publicly demanded
by Dr. A. Welply, general secretary of the Medical Practi-
tioners' Union, who declared that "they are competing
strongly against out own doctors." The British Medical
Association, however, took the attitude that the problem
was not acute enough to warrant action, since it was estimated
that only about 200 foreign physicians were practicing in
the country.
In a letter published in the London Times on April 25,
the Archbishop of Canterbury described the plight of
refugees from Germany as desperate, and urged support of
the campaign for $250,000 to be used for relief of "non-
Aryan" Christians forced to flee the country. He appealed
for aid of people "who, through no fault of their own, have
been cast adrift into a world bereft of home and hope."
ANTI-JEWISH MANIFESTATIONS
During the period under review, London was the scene of
street meetings and gatherings of other kinds sponsored by
organizations calling themselves Fascist, chiefly the British
Union of Fascists, popularly called "Blackshirts," whose
leader is Sir Oswald Mosley. Anti-Jewish agitation formed
an important part of the propaganda of these organizations
and led to sporadic acts of petty terrorism, such as intimida-
tion of Jewish shopkeepers, marking the property of Jews

with the swastika, etc. These activities aroused considerable
discussion in the press and in Parliament.
On February 13, 1936 an assurance that intimidation of
Jewish shopkeepers in the East End of London by Fascists
would not be tolerated by the police was given by Sir John
Simon, Home Secretary, in the House of Commons. He
denied that police looked on indulgently when Fascist
organizations smashed windows and threatened merchants.
A few days later, Ernest Thurtle, Labor M.P., for Shore-
ditch, handed Sir John a petition signed by 1,000 Shoreditch
tradesmen, seeking protection against Fascists attempting
to destroy their trade.
On February 28, as a result of Sir John Simon's assurances
in the House of Commons, London police were instructed
by the London Police Commissioner to arrest anyone indulg-
ing in anti-Jewish talk. Announcement of this fact was
made during the trial of Richard A. Houston, a propaganda
officer for the British Union of Fascists, who was charged
with uttering anti-Jewish expressions while addressing an
outdoor meeting. On March 5, Sir John Simon repeated
the Government's views in a lengthy statement in the House
of Commons. He declared that "there was no doubt a man
was breaking the law in regard to sections of the community
if he used the language of insult, abuse and provocation to
such an extent that he was in fact encouraging people to be
violent or to behave without respect to the rights of those
whom he attacked." The British press voiced strong
approval of this stand. But Sir Oswald Mosley, leader of
the British Union of Fascists, declared in a letter to the
Home Secretary that "we have as much right to attack
Jews as Mr. Lloyd George had the right to attack landlords
when Chancellor of the Exchequer in the pre-War Liberal
Government, of which you were Home Secretary." He
admitted "that anyone guilty of an act of violence should
be prosecuted." In line with the government policy, London
judges dealt sternly with Fascist agitators. On March 18
Magistrate Herbert Metcalfe warned that "I shall have
no hesitation in sending straight off to prison the first man
brought before me for interfering with Jews, Gentiles, or
anyone else." Several days later Magistrate Metcalfe fined
two Fascists for sticking labels bearing the word "Jew" on

automobiles. In imposing sentence, he said to one of the
defendants: "It must be a horrible movement if it has a man
of your character hanging on to its fringe."
On March 22, six persons were arrested for creating dis-
turbances at Albert Hall when Sir Oswald Mosley, leader
of the British Fascists, appealed for support and delivered
one of the bitterest anti-Jewish tirades of his career. At a
meeting several days later, Lord Melchett characterized
Mosley as "a hobbledehoy Hitler who spends his time
attacking Jews, of whom he should know a great deal since
his wife was a Jewess and his children have Jewish blood
in their veins."
On March 25, members of the House of Commons again
charged that, in making arrests at the mass meeting at
Albert Hall, police had discriminated against anti-Fascists
and had used excessive force. Sir John Simon, Home Secre-
tary, denied these charges and pledged the Government not
to draw distinctions between political groups. Again, on
June 16, James Hall, Laborite, charged in the House of
Commons that Fascists were deliberately attempting to
create racial strife in England and were using methods
calculated to provoke violence and bloodshed. Sir Percy
Harris, Liberal, pointed out that violence against the Jews
was not confined to the Stepney district of London, but
was going on all over the East End in the most offensive
and provocative manner. Geoffrey Lloyd, Under Secretary
of the Home Office, replied that the police commissioner
was taking special steps to deal with any attempt to insult
or molest Jews. In reply to questions in the House of Com-
mons June 22, Sir John Simon, Home Secretary, declared
it impossible to ban such organizations as Sir Oswald
Mosley's Blackshirts without new legislation, because the
present laws do not prohibit the wearing of uniforms.
In May, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland
in Edinburgh, adopted a unanimous resolution urging
Christian people of Scotland to "rid their minds of all nar-
row anti-Jew prejudice." Regret was also expressed at the
religious intolerance on which "anti-Semitic hatreds" are
based. A day of special intercession throughout the Church
for the Jews was appointed.
REACTION TO PALESTINE RIOTS

The Arab riots in Palestine naturally evoked considerable
discussion in Great Britain. In the debates on the subject
in the House of Commons, a total absence of sympathy for
the Arabs was noteworthy. There was, both in Parliament
and in the press, a disposition to ascribe the outbreaks to
the incitation of an outside influence, either German anti-
Jewish or Italian anti-British propaganda, especially the
latter. The government consistently set its face against
permitting itself to be intimidated by the outbreaks into
making any concessions to Arab demands for a reduction
of Jewish immigration.
On April 21, 1936, in answer to a question in the House
of Commons, J. H. Thomas, Colonial Secretary, denied
that there was any danger of Nazi propaganda in Palestine.
He said there was no indication that such propaganda was
spreading outside the German community there. Two days
later Mr. Thomas told the House of Commons that "His
Majesty's Government is determined to maintain law and
order and will do so." In an official statement on the
developments, the Colonial Office stated that the High
Commissioner for Palestine had not found it necessary to
use troops against the mobs, although certain troop move-
ments had been ordered as a precautionary measure.
On May 6, Mr. J. H. Thomas told the House of Commons
that the British Government would not be deflected from
its policy on Palestine "by riots or by threats of any kind
and there is no question of the Government stopping Jewish
immigration in consequence of the strike." Mr. Thomas
said that the government had ho knowledge of Italian,
German or other foreign propaganda among the Arabs, and
emphasized that, despite all threats, the High Commissioner
intended to maintain law and order. On May 18, Mr.
Thomas announced in the House of Commons that the
cabinet would advise King Edward to appoint a Royal
Commission to investigate the Palestine disturbances. He
also disclosed that the Government had decided that the
proposed Arab delegation to London would no longer meet
the conditions which had arisen and that, in its place, it
was desirable that an inquiry be undertaken on the spot.
The announcement was received with general scepticism by
t
the London press, and the London Times advised the Gov-
ernment to make a plain statement of its policy and stick
to it. The New Zionist (Revisionist) Organization declared,
on May 19, that the decision was "a further surrender to
violence on the part of the Colonial Office and of the Pales-
tine Administration, and a further defeat of the Jewish
Agency."
In Jerusalem on May 20, the Arab Supreme Council
issued a proclamation rejecting the proposal to send a Royal
Commission to Palestine, and announcing the continuation
of the strike against Jewish immigration and sale of land
to Jews. When questioned on this development in the House
of Commons, Dominions Secretary Malcolm MacDonald
replied for the Colonial Office with the declaration that the
projected Royal Commission being a decision of the Govern-
ment, and not an offer, the question of Arab acceptance did
not arise. Mr. MacDonald also disclosed that the Govern-
ment's decision to send a commission to Palestine after
order shall have been restored had been communicated to
the Arabs, on May 14, by High Commissioner Wauchope
and to Dr. Chaim Weizmann, president of the Jewish
Agency for Palestine, by former Colonial Secretary J. H.
Thomas, on May 18, and that Arab and Jewish leaders had
alike expressed opposition to the plan. On May 21, Prime
Minister Stanley Baldwin was cheered in the House of Com-
mons when he declared that the "Government, responsible
for the administration and protection of Palestine, intends
to discharge its responsibilities to the full." Four days later,
Captain Anthony Eden, Foreign Secretary, declared in the
House of Commons that representations had been made in
Rome against the spreading of anti-English propaganda in
Palestine in Arabic broadcasts from the Italian radio station
at Bari as well as elsewhere. He added that the dissemina-
tion of anti-British propaganda among the inhabitants of
Palestine was being carefully watched. On June 9, in his
first statement to the House of Commons as Colonial
Secretary, William Ormsby-Gore announced that the Gov-
ernment had no intention of appointing a Royal Commission
until "the British administration is once more master of the
country and until law and order are definitely established."
He voiced confidence that "ultimately, upon the basis of
recommendations by the Royal Commission which His

Majesty's Government has been advised to appoint . . . a
means will be found within the framework of the Mandate
to establish a more lasting peace and contentment among
the various peoples in Palestine."
Outside of Parliament, press and public urged the gov-
ernment to maintain a firm stand. In an editorial on May 3,
the Manchester Guardian branded the development of the
Arab general strike and the refusal of an Arab delegation
to come to London for a conference on the proposed Legisla-
tive Council as "no more than organized blackmail of the
British Government," and declared that "it would be a
great mistake for the Government to make any concession
to demands which such methods are used to support." On
May 13, the British press openly charged Italy with foment-
ing Arab unrest in Palestine, in order to embarrass the
British Government during the Ethiopian crisis. On the
same day, both Italy and Germany were mentioned in the
House of Commons by Emanuel Shinwell, Laborite, who
asked whether emissaries of these countries had provoked
the Arab general strike. J. H. Thomas, Colonial Secretary,
replied that it was difficult to state who was responsible,
and that he believed it unwise to place responsibility unless
there was absolute proof. On May 21, at the refugee con-
ference of the League of Nations Union in London, Sir
Herbert Samuel, noted British statesman and the first
High Commissioner for Palestine, declared that, regardless
of the disturbances in Palestine, it would be impossible to
believe that the Balfour Declaration can be withdrawn.
"At the moment, Palestine is seriously disturbed," Sir
Herbert said, "but no one can imagine that the Balfour
Declaration, favoring establishment of a Jewish National
Home there and promising facilities for its establishment,
can be withdrawn. That declaration has been endorsed
by all the chief nations of the world and the League of
Nations. On the faith of it, 300,000 Jews went to Palestine
and have thrown in their fortunes with the country. On
the faith of it, some ten million pounds of capital has been
invested there and it is certain that, whatever means may
be necessary to restore tranquillity, stoppage of immigration
into Palestine and repeal of that part of the Mandate cannot
be among them."
On June 8, the Daily Telegraph of London published an
authorized statement by Emir Abdullah, ruler of the Trans-
jordan, that the Palestine Arabs have the support of all
Arab nations. He was quoted as expressing the belief that
the Palestine Arabs would immediately call off the general
strike if Jewish immigration were stopped, and declared
that they had no objection to the present Jewish population
in Palestine but objected to excessive immigration. On
June 17, an unofficial delegation of Palestine Arabs, com-
posed of Jamaal al Husseini, president of the Palestine
Arab Party, Shibley Jamal, secretary of the 1922 Arab
delegation, and Dr. Izzat Tannous, a member of the
Husseini Party, arrived in London to place the Arab case
concerning the disturbances in Palestine before the British
people. The delegation was received June 23 by Sir John
Maffey, Permanent Under-Secretary for the Colonies.
JEWISH COMMUNAL LIFE

Territorialist Conference.—The preliminary conference of
the Freeland Movement for Jewish Territorial Coloniza-
tion took place in London in July 1935, with the Haham
Dr. Moses Gaster as Chairman. The conference considered
a number of Jewish settlement projects in South America,
Africa and elsewhere, and a report on activities in Biro-
Bidjan, and resolved to transfer further consideration of
these projects to special commissions. The conference
formally constituted the Freeland League for Territorial
Colonization, and Dr. Gaster was elected honorary president.
British Plan for German Jewry.—On January 15, 1936,
Sir Herbert Samuel, Lord Bearsted, and Simon Marks, sailed
for the United States with a plan to promote the mass
emigration of Jews from Germany and to assist the refugees
in starting enterprises and finding occupations in their new
homes. On March 12, a detailed and comprehensive pro-
gram for aiding the emigration of Jews from Germany was
outlined by the Delegation on behalf of the British Section
of the newly-formed Council for German Jewry. The
2S6 AMERICAN JEWISH YEAR BOOK
Council proposed 1) to aid between 20,000 and 25,000

German Jews, chiefly youths and children, to leave Germany
each year; 2) to provide moderate loans to help refugees
establish enterprises in the countries in which they settle;
3) to undertake special retraining projects; 4) to carry on
further specialized training for youths going to Palestine;
5) to continue temporary help to refugees; 6) to undertake
some of the functions previously carried on by the League
of Nations High Commission for Refugees; 7) to continue
the work of the Central British Fund; and 8) to help
coordinate activities and suggest fresh plans for the raising
of supplementary funds.
A campaign for $15,000,000 to carry out this long-range
project was launched in March, and it was announced that
two-thirds of the sum would be raised in the United States,
while the remainder would be gathered in the British Empire
and in other European countries. A special conference to
launch the drive, was held in London on March 15, was
addressed by Anthony de Rothschild, Sir Herbert Samuel,
Simon Marks, Viscount Bearsted and Dr. Chaim Weizmann,
president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine. Several days
later, a delegation, representing the Jewish Agency, headed
by Dr. Weizmann, presented to the Council a project for
the emigration to Palestine of from 12,000 to 15,000 Jews
from Germany during 1936 and 1937. The proposal em-
braced settlement of German Jews having means of liveli-
hood, and from 7,000 to 8,000 refugees whose settlement
would require subsidies. In the latter group would be
included persons under 35 years of age, the majority of
whom would be placed on farms.
On April 7, the first Day of Passover, anniversary of the
exodus from Egypt, the Council for German Jewry and
Dr. Joseph H. Hertz, Chief Rabbi of the British Empire,
issued an appeal to Jewish communities and rabbinates
throughout the world to come to the aid of the new British
plan for aiding the emigration of German Jews. On May 14
the Council reported that approximately $2,800,000 had
already been raised in Great Britain and other European
countries.
Palestine Disorders.—The disorders in Palestine brought

forth many protests from Jewish bodies in Britain. On
April 26, a mass-meeting of East London Jewry, under the
joint auspices of the Agudath Israel and the Pro-Palestine
Fund, adopted a resolution expressing its deepest sorrow
and indignation at the riots in Palestine. A mass-meeting
of the New Zionist (Revisionist) Organization, the next day,
heard Vladimir Jabotinsky, president, and Colonel John
Henry Patterson, Irish commander of the Jewish Legion
during the World War, blame the Palestine Government's
pro-Arab policy for the outbreaks. The meeting unanimously
adopted a resolution demanding the creation of a Jewish
defense force in Palestine and the reestablishment of the
Jewish regiment.
The 36th annual convention of the English Zionist Federa-
tion, held in London on June 1, 1936, adopted a resolution
protesting against the proposed Royal Commission to
investigate the Palestine disorders, declaring that such a
Commission could not serve any useful purpose. Other
resolutions adopted denounced the proposed Legislative
Council, welcomed Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin's declara-
tion in the House of Commons that Great Britain would
fully discharge its responsibilities to Palestine, urged the
British Government to permit increased immigration into
Palestine and demanded extension of colonization into
Transjordania, supported the campaign to redeem Palestine
land, and voted confidence in Dr. Chaim Weizmann, president
of the World Zionist Organization and of the Jewish Agency
for Palestine.
David Ben-Gurion, chairman of the Palestine Executive
of the Jewish Agency, told the convention that the Arab
terror was aimed primarily at intimidating the British
Government. Dr. Weizmann characterized the disorders as
"the murder in cold blood of a peaceful people," and de-
clared: "We have no quarrel with the Arab people. We
have not come to Palestine as conquerors or exploiters, but
as common workers who, through the labor of our hands,
are creating a home and a livelihood for a people who wish
to live in peace." He expressed the fear that the projected
Royal Commission would "create tension and endless dis-

cussions, suspend a good many activities and hold back
development of the country."
On April 24, announcement was made that the issue of
300,000 non-voting shares of stock in the Anglo-Palestine
Bank in London was heavily oversubscribed in a day. The
issue, offered by Robert Benson and Sons, Ltd., was author-
ized by a shareholders' meeting of the Jewish Colonial Trust,
founded by Dr. Theodor Herzl to finance Jewish settlement
in Palestine, which controls the bank.
The death, in London on May 17, of Dr. Nahum Sokolow,
honorary president of the World Zionist Organization and
long one of the most outstanding of Zionist leaders, shocked
Jewish circles throughout the world, especially in Palestine.
Shehitah in Poland.—The establishment of a United Com-
mittee for the Defence of Shehitah in Poland was announced
at a conference in London on February 27. The conference
was convened by the Association of Rabbis (Agudath
Harabbonim), the Federation of Jewish Relief Organiza-
tions, the Agudath Israel of the United Kingdom, and the
Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations. It was revealed
at the conference that, at the request of Chief Rabbi J. H.
Hertz, the British Foreign Office had, through the British
Ambassador at Warsaw, made representations against the
proposed anti-Shehitah law. A few days later, another
conference, called by the Federation of Polish Jews and the
Rabbinical Association of Great Britain and Ireland, adopted
a resolution protesting against the proposed prohibition of
Shehitah and appealing to the Polish Government to oppose
the measure.
Anti-Jewish Excesses in Poland.—A resolution protesting

against attacks on Jews in Poland was adopted on April 19,
by a mass meeting at which Nahum Sokolow, honorary
president of the World Zionist Organization, presided. The
resolution voiced the conviction that the Polish Govern-
ment was well able to suppress the excesses, and called for a
halt in economic discrimination against the Jews.
Death of King George V.—Jews throughout the British

Empire learned with deep grief of the death on January
21, 1936, of King George V. In public statements, Neville
Laski, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews,
and Leonard G. Montefiore, president of the Anglo-Jewish
Association, paid tribute to the dead monarch, in the name
of his Jewish subjects.
On April 2, 1936, a deputation representing the Jews of
Great Britain waited upon King Edward VIII at Bucking-
ham Palace to present him with an address expressing the
sympathy of the Jews of the British Empire on the death
of King George V, and congratulating him on his accession
to the throne. The deputation, which was led by Neville
Laski, president of the Board of Deputies, included Leonard
Montefiore, president of the Anglo-Jewish Association, Sir
Osmond E. d'Avigdor Goldsmid, Lady Spielman, Sir Isidore
Salmon, and Lionel de Rothschild. An address of sympathy
was also forwarded to Queen Mary.
Death of Lord Reading.—The death on December 30,
1935, of Rufus Daniel Isaacs, Marquess of Reading, shocked
British and world Jewry. He had been the first Jew to be
Attorney General, Lord Chief Justice of England, Ambas-
sador to the United States, Viceroy of India, and, only as
recently as 1931, British Foreign Secretary.
UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA

During the period under review, the attention of the
Jewish community of the Union of South Africa was largely
focussed upon the anti-Jewish agitation carried on by
several organizations which had come into being after the
triumph of Hitlerism in Germany. The leaders of these
organizations were Weichardt, head of the South African
National Party, and Terblanche, head of "The People's
Movement." They addressed many meetings throughout
the Union, delivering violently anti-Jewish speeches. Leaflets
and pamphlets against the Jews were distributed in whole-
sale quantities throughout the country. It was also reported
that the various anti-Jewish bodies were planning to
nominate candidates for the approaching Provincial Council
Elections, and that persons with avowed anti-Jewish ten-

dencies would run as independent candidates.
In September 1935, documents seized by police who
raided offices of Nazi organizations in South Africa, revealed
that the German Nazis were aiding the anti-Jewish Grey
Shirt movement there. In the same month, evidence sub-
mitted to the South West Africa Commission at Windhoek,
revealed that Nazi agitation had made itself felt in the
former German colony. Local Jewish businessmen declared
several long-established Jewish firms had been forced to
close down because of the anti-Jewish boycott. Speaking
on behalf of the Jewish Community of Luderitz, Hyman
Wasserstein asserted that conditions in the local German
school were so bad that Jewish children were no longer able
to attend it.
Despite these movements, however, the Johannesburg
City Council turned down, early in 1936, the application
of the South African Olympic and Empire Games Associa-
tion for financial assistance to send a team to the Berlin
Olympics. The action was taken without a vote, after
members of the General Purposes Committee, which passes
on such applications, had vigorously opposed financing a
team if the Games were held in Nazi Germany.
Within the Jewish community, two important decisions
were taken during the year. Toward the end of 1935, the
Inter-Provincial Conference of the South African Jewish
Board of Deputies, held at Cape Town, decided that, in view
of the many demands for funds from overseas, the Board
would in future regulate and control all collections for over-
seas Jewish purposes, without undertaking any such col-
lections. Beginning July 1, 1936, the Board asked that no
campaign be begun without its consent, except for the
Keren Hayesod and Keren Kayemeth, which are regulated
by the South African Zionist Federation. In February,
South African Zionists organized a South African Economic
Committee for Palestine, as an affiliate of the American
Economic Committee for Palestine. The new group planned
to furnish economic information to South African Jews
planning to establish themselves in Palestine.
IRISH FREE STATE
In July 1935, an attempt to inject Jew-baiting into

political affairs in Ireland came to naught when the Aontas
Gaedheal Weekly Post ceased publication after five weeks
existence. The paper had advocated the creation of an
anti-Jewish party in the Irish Free State, and the elimina-
tion of Jews from public life. Press and public ignored
the weekly.
FRANCE
Olympic Games.—In a letter, written in November 1935,
to the President of the French Bobsleigh and Tobogganing
Federation, Philippe de Rothschild and Jean Rheims,
French bobsleigh champions chosen to represent France at
the Olympics, announced their refusal to take part in the
Games. They declared: "We do not choose to run on the
territory of a nation which draws a distinction between
ourselves and our compatriots." In December, opponents
of French participation in the Berlin Olympics organized
a "Fair Play" committee in Paris. The group was headed
by the well-known lawyer, Cesar Campinchi. Les Amis
des Sports, French sports organization, headed by President
Albert Lebrun and the writer, Tristan Bernard, issued a
manifesto in January protesting against the elimination of
Jewish athletes by Germany from the Olympic Games and
demanding that the German Sports Association be eliminated
from the Olympics. In March 1936, formation of a Com-
mittee for Fair Play in Sports, with the slogan, "Not one
man and not one penny for the Berlin Olympics," was
announced. Jean Bernhard-Levy, president of the Paris
Racing Club, demanded that the Games be moved from
Berlin, as did M. Jacob, president of the Paris Athletic
League. In the same month, a protest meeting of noted
French sportsmen and political leaders, with Senator Justin
Godart presiding, adopted a resolution demanding removal
of the Games from Berlin. On May 22, the Marquis de
Polignac, French member of the International Olympic
Committee, issued a statement bitterly attacking the Com-
mittee for Fair Play, accusing it of bad faith and affirming
that Germany was keeping its pledge to admit Jews to its
Olympic team. He pointed to the invitation to Helene

Mayer and demanded that France unreservedly participate
in the Games.
On June 7, a "fair play" conference, convened in Paris
by the International Committee for Preserving the Olympic
Ideal, decided to continue the fight against Nazi sports
ideals after the Olympic Games in Berlin, to propagate
knowledge of the true aspects of Nazi sports, to send a com-
mittee of inquiry to Germany to study sports conditions
there, and to support the July Peoples Olympiade in
Barcelona, Spain. On June 22, the International Conference
on the Right of Asylum concluded its sessions in Paris, with
the adoption of resolutions urging protection of political
refugees from deportation unless other countries were ready
to give them shelter; demanding legislation to bar extradi-
tion to countries from which refugees have fled, to give
them passports and permission to work; appealing for pro-
tection for refugees against criminal attempts and a general
amnesty for political refugees in transgressions because of
uncertainty as to their status; and supporting the establish-
ment of an international office to safeguard the right of
asylum to political refugees.
Stateless Persons.—The position of stateless persons in
France was alleviated, in January 1936, by the French
Government, which issued a circular stipulating that a
stateless person should not be deported in the future on a
simple administrative order but that every case must be
referred to the Ministry of the Interior.
Pariser Tageblatt.—On June 11, 1936, a sensation was
created in Paris German emigre circles by the charge of
the editorial staff of the Pariser Tageblatt that its proprietor,
Vladimir Poliakov, had agreed with the Nazi propaganda
office to change the spirit of the paper and had consequently
dismissed Dr. Georg Bernhard, who was in the United States
at the time, as its editor. The charge was made in a front
page statement in the Pariser Tageblatt itself, signed by
the entire editorial staff who announced they were starting
a new emigre paper, the Pariser Tageszeitung, with Dr.
Bernhard as editor. It was reported in Paris, however, that
REVIEW OF THE YEAR 5696 26.5
M. Poliakov had not gone over to the Nazis, as had been

asserted, but had dismissed Dr. Bernhard, because of dis-
satisfaction with his sensational editorial policies. On June
15, Richard Lewinsohn, the new editor of the Pariser
lageblatt, was beaten and stabbed by unknown persons, as
he was leaving the paper's printing plant. The Tageblatt
failed to appear on the 16th, as a result of a strike by printers,
in sympathy with the former staff. On June 24, M. Poliakov
announced that he had started legal proceedings against
former members of his staff. He also brought charges of
theft and defamation before a court of honor which planned
to deal with the moral aspects of the case.
Anti-Jewish Manifestations.—Minor manifestations of
anti-Jewish feeling in France occurred during the Fall of
1935, when several of the ultra-nationalist political groups
demonstrated in the Jewish quarter. Jewish groups pro-
tested, and the police promised to prevent the recurrence
of such disturbances. In March 1936, the French Council
of State declared null and void the attempt to interfere
with Shehitah by the Mayor of Valenciennes, a northern
industrial city of France. In April, Michel Pares, who
presented himself in the fourth arrondissement of Paris as
a candidate for Parliament on an anti-Jewish platform
received a rude shock, at an election meeting convoked by
him, when his listeners, by 3,000 votes to 12, condemned
his candidacy; the arrondissement embraces the Jewish
quarter.
The elevation of Leon Blum, a Jew, to the post of Prime
Minister, as a result of the general elections, early in June,
caused a flurry of anti-Jewish agitation, led by extreme
conservative groups. Under the heading "France Under a
Jew," the Action Francaise, Royalist daily, attacked Blum
violently. On June 5, the anti-Jewish councillor, D'Arquier
de Pellepoix, submitted to the general council of the Seine
Department a motion professedly aimed at Jews who had
entered France since August 1918, to cancel all naturaliza-
tions granted since the end of the World War. On June 6,
an attack on Premier Blum on the ground of his Jewish
origin, was made in the Chamber of Deputies by Xavier
Vallat, -member of the extreme Right. Vallat objected
bitterly that "this Gallic-Roman country is now going to

be governed by a Jew" and demanded to know how a Jew
could govern "a peasant nation like France." The Left
deputies protested strongly, and Edouard Herriot, president
of the Chamber, rebuked the speaker, declaring, "I know
neither Jews, Protestants, nor Catholics—only Frenchmen."
The attack created a furore and led to a brief suspension of
the sitting. On June 16, the Union of Israelite Frenchmen,
a patriotic organization, issued a statement warning against
the development of an anti-Jewish movement under the
pretext of opposition to Premier Blum.
Jewish Communal Events.—-On April 26, 1936, a large

protest meeting against Arab attacks on Jews in Palestine
was held in Paris under the auspices of the Palestine Labor
Federation; on the same day, the New Zionist (Revisionist)
Organization held a memorial meeting for Jewish victims
of the disorders.
Following the death of Professor Sylvain Levi, on October
31, 1935, Dr. Arnold Netter, vice-president of the Alliance
Israelite Universelle and member of the Administrative
Council of the Jewish Colonization Association, was elected
president of the Alliance. On March 1, the 84-year-old
physician died suddenly while addressing a meeting of the
Medical Association in Paris. On May 8, Professor William
Oualid was elected vice-president of the Alliance.
On June 29, 1936, a conference on Jewish emigration
opened in Paris under the auspices of the Hicem Emigration
Association, which includes several Jewish immigrant aid
and colonization bodies in various countries.
ALGERIA
Constantine Outbreaks.—On July 10, 1935, a number of

Moslems, found guilty of having taken part in the serious
anti-Jewish outbreak that occurred in Constantine and
elsewhere in Algeria in August 1934, were sentenced to
terms of imprisonment varying from 4 to 15 years. At the
time the sentence was handed down, further outbreaks
occurred at Tiaret, in the district of Oran. In February
1936, the criminal court at Orleansville sentenced 2 more
Moslems to life imprisonment for their part in the outbreak.
Three others received milder sentences.
Anti-Jewish Manifestations.—In October 1935, the Alge-

rian Court of Correction sentenced 8 Europeans and one
native to brief terms of imprisonment for plastering Sidi-
Bel-Abbes with scurrilous anti-Jewish posters and for
having caused anti-Jewish disorders during the previous
summer. In December, M. Bricaut, president of the Croix
de Feu, French fascistic organization, in Algeria, denounced
Jew-baiting in a speech before 4,000 members, .and declared
that no distinction whatever ought to be made between
those who fought for France during the War, whether
Christian, Jew or Mohammedan. During February 1936,
Bernard Lecache, president of the International League for
Combating Anti-Semitism, addressed a number of meetings
in Algeria with a view to organizing propaganda committees
to fight the anti-Jewish agitators in the region. On April 16,
after a protest from Jewish war veterans against the violently
anti-Jewish campaign conducted by M. Coston, of Paris,
a candidate in the general elections, the Mayor of Algiers
took a hand in checking anti-Jewish propaganda by per-
sonally tearing down Jew-baiting placards during the night
and placing Jewish pickets to prevent display of others.
On June 16, following clashes between police and a proces-
sion of members of the People's Front, in Sidi-Bel-Abbes,
Jewish shops were demolished. Troops intervened and
restored order; no serious casualties were reported. On
June 30, Arabs demonstrated against Jews and lynched one
in the course of disorders in Oran, accompanying tension
between Rightists and Leftists in Algeria.
SYRIA
Arab Strike in Damascus.—The anti-French disturbances

in Syria, in February 1936, during which more than 10
people were killed and more than 300 arrested, seriously
affected the Jews of Damascus, who were forced to close
their shops and join the general strike under the threat that
their shops would be burned if they refused. A special com-
mittee, formed by local Jews to provide relief for many
Jewish families facing starvation, could do little because of
lack of funds, and issued an appeal to Jews in other lands
for aid. Despite the Arab threats, Jewish businessmen were
forced to open their shops by French gendarmes, seeking
to end the stoppage of commercial life resulting from the
Arab Nationalist disorders.
BELGIUM
Anti-Nazi Boycott by Catholics.-—On July 7, 1935, La Libre
Beige, leading Catholic daily newspaper of Belgium, assert-
ing that the position of Catholics in Germany is worse than
that of the Jews, urged that Catholics all over the world
begin a boycott of German-made goods.
Heidelberg Festival.—In April 1936, the State University

of Liege and the Free Universities of Louvain and Brussels
announced that they would not take part in the celebration
in June of the 550th anniversary of the establishment of the
University of Heidelberg, Germany. The commercial,
technical and civil high schools in Antwerp, Charleroi, Mons
and Vervier also decided not to send any delegations to
Heidelberg.
Anti-Jewish Manifestations.—In December 1935, "The

Jewish Peril," a new organization established to "defend the
'Aryan* race," was registered in Brussels. In March 1936,
the Jewish question was debated for the first time in the
Belgian Lower Chamber when a Catholic deputy criticized
the appointment of Dr. Henri Buch, a Jew, as judge. A
sharp rejoinder was made by Deputy Henri Jasper, a
Liberal, who declared: "We cannot allow the existence of
first and second class citizens." Eugene Soudan, Minister of
Justice, Paul Hymans, and other members of the Govern-
ment defended the appointment and assailed the raising
of the Jewish issue.
SWITZERLAND
Kidnapping of Berthold Jacob.—On July 2, 1935, as a
result of the tension existing between Switzerland and
Germany, following the kidnapping of Berthold Jacob in
March 1935, the government banned the sale of three Nazi
papers, viz., Julius Streicher's Stuermer, the Allemane, and
the Reichsdeutsche, organ of Germans living in Switzerland.
On July 27, 1935, the German and Swiss Governments
agreed on the appointment of arbitrators to examine the
case of Berthold Jakob, German Jewish journalist kidnapped
on Swiss soil by Nazi agents in March and held for seven
months in a Berlin prison. Contending that the kidnapping
was in violation of Swiss sovereignty, the Swiss Govern-
ment demanded his release under the German-Swiss Treaty
of Arbitration of 1921, and threatened to bring the issue
before the World Court at The Hague. After months of
negotiation, Jakob was released by the Nazis on September
18, and, on his return to Swiss soil, was deported by the
Swiss Government. On May 4, 1936, the trial of Hans
Wesemann, Nazi agent accused of kidnapping Jakob,
opened in Basle. Wesemann immediately pleaded guilty
to the charge, declaring that he was an accredited agent of
the German Gestapo (Geheime Staatspolizei) and had
arranged the kidnapping under instructions from his supe-
riors. On May 6, Wesemann was sentenced to three years
penal servitude and payment of 1,500 Swiss francs as
damages to Jakob. The verdict was appealed by Wesemann's
counsel.
Assassination of Wilhelm Gustloff.—On February 4, 1936,
Dr. Wilhelm Gustloff, chief Nazi agent in Switzerland, was
shot dead at Davos-Platz by David Frankfurter, a 27-year-
old Yugoslavian Jew. Frankfurter immediately gave himself
up to the police, stating that he had committed the murder
as a protest against the Nazi regime in Germany, that he
had no political affiliations, that he had acted of his own
free will because of ideological reasons, wishing to strike at
Hitler through Gustloff, against whom he bore no personal
grudge but whom he considered to have poisoned the atmos-
phere in Switzerland. The German Ambassador at Berne
made representations to the Swiss Government in an attempt
to make it censor the attacks on the Hitler regime in the

left-wing Swiss press, which, it was claimed, had led to the
assassination. This attempt of the German Government
was condemned by the majority of the Swiss newspapers*
including organs of the Right.
On February 18, the Swiss Government decided against
permitting the continuation of propaganda activities by the
German Nazi Party in Switzerland, such as had been con-
ducted by Dr. Gustloff. It deported a suspected German
student believed to be a representative of the Gestapo,
German secret police, and all activities of German students
in Swiss universities were closely watched.
Later, it was officially announced in Geneva that the trial
of David Frankfurter would take place at the September
1936 session of the Grison Cantonal Court. Frankfurter's,
family retained Eugen Curti, well-known Zurich advocate
as chief defense counsel. On March 20, Jerome de Vries,
noted Dutch advocate, joined the defense counsel.
On May 31, it was learned that the prosecutor of Grison
Canton had, four months previously, requested the editors
of the Judenkenner of Berlin and the Weltdienst, an anti-
Jewish news service with headquarters at Erfurt, Germany,
which had published sensational and fantastic allegations
concerning the motives behind the Gustloff murder, to come
forward with proofs of their charges. Although four months
had passed, no information had been received from either
of the Nazi publications. On June 8, the entire Swiss press
attacked a Nazi pamphlet on "The Gustloff Case," by
Wolfgang Dierwege. Advertised as "indispensable when the
trial opens against the Jew Frankfurter, because dark powers
are attempting to help with all their forces a murderer,"
the pamphlet was filled with undisguised accusations that
the Swiss Government was in the pay of German refugees.
The Basler National Zeitung stigmatized the pamphlet as
a "dastardly attack against Switzerland" and an attempt
to interfere with Swiss justice.
Heidelberg Festival.—In June 1936, by a majority vote,

the Council of the Canton of Basle decided that the Univer-
sity of Basle would not send a delegation to the 550th jubilee
of Heidelberg University.
Protocols Trials.—On June 22, 1936, the Swiss Supreme

Court at Berne rejected a plea by Colonel Fleischauer, who
gave "expert" testimony in the famous Berne "Protocols"
trial in 1935, for payment of 80,000 francs in witness fees.
The court allowed him 8,000 francs, but ordered payment
suspended pending the outcome of the libel and perjury
actions which had been brought against Fleischauer.
On June 9, 1936, the libel action against Dr. A. Zander,
former editor of the Iron Broom, organ of the anti-Jewish
National Front, was settled. The action, pending since June
21, 1933, had been brought by three well-known Jewish
leaders, Dreyfus-Brodsky, president of the Basle Jewish
Community, Dr. Marcus Cohn, president of the Swiss
Zionist Federation, and Dr. Marcus Ehrenpreis, chief rabbi
of Stockholm. Dr. Zander agreed to withdraw the assertions
published in his paper alleging that Dr. Ehrenpreis had
called the "Protocols" genuine. He admitted that, contrary
to an allegation made by him in his paper, the "Protocols"
had no connection with the first World Zionist Congress
held in Basle in 1897. Dr. Zander paid the costs of the
action, and promised to destroy some 780 copies of a spurious
document imported from Germany by the Basle National
Front.
International Conferences.—In August 1935, the Inter-
national Women's League for Peace and Freedom, with
headquarters in Geneva, issued a manifesto "to the non-
Jews of Europe" condemning the silence of civilized Europe
vis-a-vis the persecution of Jews in Germany. In September,
the Congress of European National Minorities in Geneva
adopted a resolution stating that oppression of national
minorities in Europe proceeds unhindered and warning the
League against the dangers which beset not only the states
with mixed nationalities, but all other states and peoples of
Europe.
NETHERLANDS
Effect of Nuremberg Laws.—The German law, promulgated
at Nuremberg on September 15, 1935, forbidding marriage
between Jews and "persons of German or racially related
blood," gave rise to a great deal of discussion in the Nether-
lands, because of the existence of a convention with Germany,

providing for the observance in each country of the marriage
laws of the other. Shortly after the Nuremberg law was
announced, the Dutch Government was reported to be
considering the advisability of denouncing this convention
of 1902, when it was found that the agreement had been so
interpreted by some Dutch officials as to forbid marriages
between German Jews and "Aryans" in Holland. It was
stated in Berlin that the law making illegal, marriages of
Jews and German citizens, including those residing abroad,
was also enforceable in Poland, Italy, Hungary, Sweden,
Danzig, and Luxemburg, which had signed similar pacts.
The question of the agreement's effect on Holland gave
rise to much concern in Dutch parliamentary circles and
was discussed, in November, in the Dutch Chamber. The
agreement was denounced by Dr. G. A. Boon, Liberal mem-
ber. The Minister of Justice declared that a German Jew
could marry any Dutch subject in Holland in spite of the
Nuremberg laws. Because of the treaty, however, marriage
could not take place between a German "Aryan" woman
and a Dutch Jew.
This statement however, was not accepted by the Dutch
Courts. On June 20, 1936, the Civil Court of Rotterdam
ruled that a Dutch Jew could marry a German "Aryan"
woman, despite the fact that German authorities refused
to give a marriage certificate to the woman. The Court
declared that, "according to Dutch law, a Dutch Jew is a
Dutchman who belongs to the Israelite community." The
decision went on to say: "Apart from belonging to this com-
munity no distinction at all exists which would designate a
certain group of Dutchmen as 'Jews,' and a certain other
group of Dutchmen as 'non-Jews.' The distinction which
the German law has created between Jews and non-Jews
can be applied only to Germans. The German law has no
application to Dutchmen."
Olympic Games.—Dutch participation in the Berlin
Olympics was opposed in October by the Committee for
the protection of the idea of the Olympic Games. The new
Committee was sponsored by Bernard van Dam and Dr.
J. C. Bruyn, director of the Amsterdam municipal athletic
REVIEW OF THE YEAR 5696 2 71
grounds. A protest meeting w a s staged in A m s t e r d a m in
November. Later in that month, the Netherland Athletics
Association voted overwhelmingly against participation in
the Olympics.
Heidelberg Festival.—In March 1936, the Senate of the
famous University of Leyden announced that it would not
send a representative to the Heidelberg celebration because
it sends delegations only to centenary celebrations. The
press criticized the statement, declaring that Leyden should
have followed the example of British universities by denounc-
ing the persecution of Jewish professors and students. Later,
the State University of Groningen also refused its invitation
as did the Amsterdam Municipal University.
Anti-Jewish Manifestation.—On March 4, the court at
The Hague sentenced Dr. P. Molenbroek, the well-known
75-year-old anti-Jewish propagandist, to 100 days' imprison-
ment or 300 'guldens' fine for publishing anti-Jewish pam-
phlets and articles.
World Jewish Congress.—In October, at the annual con-
ference of the Amsterdam branch of the Alliance Israelite
Universelle, the proposal to participate in a world Jewish
congress was defeated.
SPAIN
Anti-Jewish Manifestations.—During the February elec-
tion campaign, one of the right-wing parties put out violently
anti-Jewish posters. As Jew-baiting had not previously
been an issue in Spain, the Jewish community was shocked,
and its leaders protested to the Civil Governor of Madrid
as well as to the Prime Minister.
Olympic Games.—On May 4, 1936, a delegation represent-
ing workers' organizations presented a petition to Premier
Manuel Azana, praying for the withdrawal of a government
subvention of 400,000 pesetas for the Spanish Olympic
team. The Premier replied that he was personally opposed
to Spain's participation in the Games, b u t t h a t the Govern-

ment was obliged to keep its international obligations and
follow the example of other democratic governments.
Stateless Jews.—On J u n e 5, 1936, the Spanish authorities

granted Spanish citizenship to 144 stateless Sephardic Jewish
families under a measure recently announced by Premier
Manuel Azana for the facilitation of the repatriation of old
Spanish-Jewish families.
Spanish Morocco.—In April, Jewish public education was

reorganized in Spanish Morocco. T h e special Jewish schools
were converted into ordinary schools, with schoolmasters
engaged without regard to their religion. T h e rabbis, how-
ever, remained in charge of religious instruction.
SWEDEN
Shehitah.—The practice of Shehitah in Sweden, an acute

problem for years, was again menaced by the new slaughter-
ing law, drafted in J u l y by the Ministry of Justice. I t
required compulsory stunning before slaughtering of all
animals except poultry and rabbits. In November 1935, a
conference of Scandinavian Rabbis appealed to the Swedish
Government to alter the proposed law. T h e conference also
adopted a resolution to create a p e r m a n e n t Federation of
Scandinavian Rabbis to meet from time to time, to consider
ways and means for strengthening Jewry in the Scandinavian
countries.
In M a r c h 1936, the proposed law for the compulsory
stunning of animals before slaughter was discussed in the
Riksdag. T h e Minister of Justice announced t h a t the draft
of the proposed law was almost completed and t h a t it would
be introduced into the Riksdag in 1937.
Immigration.—In March, in a m e m o r a n d u m to the Riks-

dag committee studying proposals for the tightening of
immigration control, the Royal Social Office declared t h a t
Sweden should assume certain moral responsibilities by
assisting international humanitarian work in behalf of
refugees from Germany. T h e m e m o r a n d u m rejected the
proposal to establish restrictions on racial bases, and declared

that existing regulations were sufficient for the control of
immigration. In June, several proposals for tightening the
alien legislation in Sweden, which would have prevented
the entry of some German refugees, were rejected by the
Swedish Parliament, which decided, instead, to instruct the
Government to examine the possibilities of improving the
technical control of the admission of foreigners, in accordance
with the suggestions of the Parliamentary Legal Commis-
sion, which had recommended the rejection of any proposal
aiming at introducing further restrictions.
Community Elections.—In November 1935, for the first
time in the history of the Jewish community of Stockholm,
the elections to the Board of the Community were contested
by four different parties. The results of the elections gave
the Liberal Jewish Party seven mandates, the Zionists two
mandates, the Orthodox group two mandates, and the
Workers' Party one mandate.
AUSTRIA
During the period under review, the attitude of the
Austrian government toward the Jewish population of the
country continued to be a wavering one because of the
government's indecision in respect of its foreign policy,—
an indecision growing out of its effort, because of Italy's
opposition to an Austro-German entente, to resist tremen-
dous pressure to bring about Nazification. Since the close
of the period, however, this situation has been changed by
the conclusion of the agreement of July 11, 1936, with the
tacit approval of Italy. A change for the worse in the situa-
tion of the Jews of Austria may, therefore, be looked for
during the forthcoming twelve-month. The events of the
preceding period, however, were characterized by evasive-
ness and straddling on the part of the Government.
Jews in the Bar Association.—In July 1935, the Union of
Bar Associations for the whole of Austria adopted a resolu-
tion rejecting the numerus clausus for Jews in the legal
profession and calling for the preservation of the status
quo in admissions to bar associations. The action was a
result of reports that the government was contemplating

division of the bar association into separate "Aryan" and
"non-Aryan" sections. In November, the Government
abolished the policy of electing officers of the Vienna Bar
Association and assumed the responsibility of filling the
posts by appointment. Dr. Siegfried Kantor, Jewish
president of the Association, was removed from his office,
and his place was taken by Dr'. Emil Krasser, brother of
the president of the Christian Socialist Party. When it was
revealed in December that none of the current Jewish
members of the Bar Association Board would be renominated,
and that non-Jews would take their places, the associations
of Jewish lawyers throughout Austria protested to the
Chancellor, the Minister of Justice, and the General Secretary
of the Fatherland Front. They pointed out that the Austrian
Constitution of 1934 prohibits discrimination as against
Jewish citizens.
Jewish Physicians.—In July 1935, a social insurance

reform was adopted, which barred Jewish physicians from
representation on the Medical Committees. Protests from
the Union of Jewish Physicians were of no avail. In Novem-
ber, the Union again protested to the Minister of Social
Welfare against discrimination in appointments to positions
in the state hospitals. A deputation which visited him was
assured that he was not an anti-Semite. He made no promise,
however, to remove the discrimination.
Nazification of Sports.—In September 1935, the Austrian

Skiing Union adopted a resolution introducing the "Aryan
paragraph" into its statutes by providing that "all members
must be persons of Aryan origin and all members of the
administration of the societies in Austria must belong to the
Germanic nation." In connection with sports, it is interest-
ing to note that, on June 30, 1936, the Hakoah Sports Club
of Vienna was faced by conflicting orders concerning par-
ticipation in the Olympic Games. The Austrian Maccabi
Union, Jewish sports organization, issued an order forbid-
ding athletes of the Hakoah club to go to Berlin. The Austrian
sports authorities, however, threatened the club with two

years' disqualification if it refused to participate in the
Games.
Dissolution of an Inter-Marriage.—In March 1935, the
verdict of a Vienna court dissolving the marriage between
a Jew and a Catholic woman, on the ground of "racial"
incompatibility, was appealed to the Vienna High Court,
on the ground that Austrian law does not recognize any
"racial" differences. A State official pointed out that since
the Austrian Government has repeatedly declared that
Austrian laws do not recognize any racial discrimination, the
dissolution of the marriage was illegal, and that there was
danger that the racial differences stressed in the Nuremberg
laws in Germany might find their way into Austrian mar-
riage laws.
Refugees From Germany.—On May 26, 1936, the Austrian
Government announced that it did not intend to participate
in the inter-governmental conference on German refugees
scheduled to open at Geneva on July 2. The conference had
been called by Sir Neill Malcolm, League of Nations High
Commissioner for German Refugees, to set up a system of
legal protection for refugees and adopt other methods to
alleviate their plight. Austria's abstention was based on
the ground that questions of the legal status of the refugees
did not affect Austrian interests, owing to the small number
of German refugees in Austria. It was emphasized, however,
that the Government was eager to treat German refugees
in accordance with the principles of humanity, and would
follow the deliberations of the conference with interest.
Anti-Jewish Agitation.—In November, Professor Em-
merich Czermak, a leader of the reactionary Christian Social
Party, demanded the reorganization of the economic life
of Austrian Jews and restriction of their participation in
Government affairs, by a numerus clausus. In December,
the semi-official Reichspost, published in Vienna and generally
regarded as the mouthpiece of the Vatican in Central Europe,
discussed "threatened rights in Palestine," and demanded
a guarantee from the League of Nations for the protection
of Catholic privileges in Palestine.
On January 16, 1936, a mass meeting of the Vienna

Catholics was addressed by speakers who attacked the
Jews and Zionism. With the exception of a moderate speech
by Dr. Theodor Innitzer, Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna,
all of the addresses were outspokenly hostile to the Palestine
Jews, and were generally anti-Jewish in tone. Several days
later, in a public statement, Chief Rabbi Feuchtwang replied
that it was against the spirit of religious Jewry to attempt
any action against other religious communities in Palestine.
In February 1936, Jewish circles were alarmed over the
publication by the Catholic journal, Neue Ordnung, of the
draft of a bill for the regulation of the Jewish question, said
to have been approved by the late Dr. Ignaz Seipel, leader
of the Christian Socialist Party and onetime Prime Minister.
The draft provided that the Jews be regarded as a national
minority, and that their position be regulated on the basis
of a numerus clausus.
The Catholic clergy in Austria made repeated demands
for social and economic ostracism of Jews and the introduc-
tion of a numerus clausus against converted Jews. On
March 18, 1936, the Jesuit Father Bichlmaier, Austrian
Catholic leader, made such a demand. At the same time,
Bishop Hudal, rector of the Institute for the Promotion of
Christian Science in Rome, delivered a similar address, but
on more moderate lines. Vice-Mayor Kresse of Vienna
expressed approval of Father Bichlmaier's attack on the
Jews. At about the same time, State Councillor Leopold
Kunschak, editor of the Catholic Neue Ordnung and President
of the Christian Workers' and Employes' Union, voiced a
threat of widespread pogroms in Austria if the Jewish
"question" were not solved in accordance with Nazi pre-
cepts. He demanded the ousting of Jewish influence in the
economic and spiritual life of the German people.
Kunschak's proposal was supported by the influential
Catholic monthly, Schoenere Zukunft, in an editorial urging
that Jewish influence be removed from public life. Advising
gradual introduction of the anti-Jewish program, in order
to obviate the danger of a world boycott, the periodical
demanded an ordinance recognizing the Jews as a national
minority, introducing the numerus clausus in the civil
service and educational and legal fields, and establishing

separate electoral colleges for Jews.
In the meantime, on February 24, 1936, Jewish tradesmen
in Vienna were alarmed when Jew-baiters spread leaflets
bearing the admonition, "Jews, buy only from your co-re-
ligionists!" throughout the city. The Board of the Vienna
Jewish Community demanded a police investigation. On
March 3, police arrested a well-known anti-Jewish printer
of Vienna for printing the circular. He was also the printer
of the Wegweiser, the Christian-German organ. Agitation
of this kind caused the Union of Jewish War Veterans, on
March 26, to lodge an official protest with the Government
demanding justice for Jews and cessation of illegal anti-
Jewish activities. But protests were of no avail, for in May,
the press service of the Ostmaerkischer Sturmscharen,
Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg's own troops, began to dis-
seminate anti-Jewish articles concerning the Palestine dis-
orders. They stated that not every Jew-baiter is a Nazi, and
listed as anti-Semites former Premier Ignaz Seipel, the late
Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss, and Cardinal Theodor
Innitzer. On May 12, following the demand of the Jewish
community board, the anti-Jewish leaflets which were being
distributed were ordered confiscated.
On May 10, although 250,000 violently anti-Jewish hand-
bills had been distributed throughout Vienna, few people
attended an anti-Jewish demonstration of the Freiheitsbund,
convened by Dr. Leopold Kunschak, Christian Social leader,
with the purpose of demanding elimination of Jews from
the economic and social life of Austria. The speakers refrained
from raising the Jewish issue beyond an occasional reference,
at the urgent appeal, it was said, of Chancellor Kurt
Schuschnigg. At the same time, a thousand members of
the Heimwehr, a rival faction, held a counter-demonstration
nearby, with speakers attacking the Freiheitsbund.
Austrian Jews were relieved when, early in June, the
Government prohibited political meetings and street demon-
strations from June 20 to September 30, in order to prevent
any interference with, or hampering of, tourist traffic.
Insurance Company Scandal.-—In March 1936, the expo-

sure of irregularities in the management of the Austrian
Phoenix Insurance Company, one of the most important
organizations of its kind on the continent, created con-
sternation in Austrian Jewish circles, because the authorities
and Jew-baiters attempted to place the responsibility for the
mismanagement entirely on Jewish shoulders. In February
the company's director, Dr. Wilhelm Berliner, a Jew, had
committed suicide because the organization was unable to
meet its obligations, and his post was filled by an "Aryan."
On March 25, the Government announced that the com-
pany's reserves were insufficient, and it assumed full respon-
sibility. Several banks with large claims against Phoenix
were forced to suspend payments. The Government pub-
lished lists of public and political bodies and individuals to
whom "commissions" had been paid by the Company.
Among those listed was the Jewish National Fund, which
received 500,000 schillings as agent's commission on insur-
ance sold to Zionists. This and the fact that several high
officials of the company had been Jews caused Jew-baiters
and Nazis to intensify their anti-Jewish campaign. The
official Nazi press made much of the money received by the
Jewish National Fund, overlooking the 494,000 schillings
paid to the Austrian Nazi organization, besides payments
made to many of the Nazi leaders. Phoenix had also made
payments to the Heimwehr, the monarchists, the Christian
Socialists, the Fatherland Front, and other groups. Never-
theless, the entirely innocent Jewish aspect was exploited
by anti-Jewish agitators, and, on March 30, Burgomaster
Schmitz of Vienna used the Phoenix crash as a spring-board
for a bitter anti-Jewish tirade. The large financial aid given
by the Phoenix Company to the Fatherland Front did not
hinder its General Secretary, Colonel Adam, from accusing
the Jews, in a radio address, of being responsible for the
collapse of the company. On April 29, resentment in Jewish
circles was stirred anew when the Jewish National Fund was
included in a list of allegedly "irregular" recipients of sums
from Phoenix. The next day, the Jewish National Fund
issued a statement denying that it had been one of the
recipients of money gifts from the company, and pointing
out that its agreement with the Phoenix Company was
similar to an agreement with the Prudential Assurance
Company, and contained no secret clauses of any kind.
Communal Items.—In February 1936, the Vienna Pales-
tine Office announced that more than 1,000 Jews had left
Austria for Palestine in 1935. Of these, 889 entered Palestine
on labor certificates.
In the same month, the Board of Directors of the Vienna
Jewish Community was faced with a crisis, following the
resignation of the eleven members who represented the
Union of Austrian Jews. Following the abortive Socialist
revolution in February 1935, all Labor Zionist members
of the organization had been forced to leave, so that a dead-
lock existed between Zionist and non-Zionist factions repre-
sented. The members of the Union of Austrian Jews left
because they felt that the Zionist majority did not con-
stitute the necessary quorum to elect their candidate, former
vice-president Dr. Josef Loewenherz. Later, Dr. Loewenherz
was named acting president of the Board for one year.
On April 28, a mass meeting of all Zionist parties was
held in Vienna to protest against the Palestine disorders.
The New Zionist (Revisionist) Organization held a separate
protest meeting which was also well attended.
HUNGARY
Governmental Policy.—The attitude of the government
toward Jewish questions continued, during the past year,
to be marked by a sort of half-hearted benevolence, as in
the preceding period. No positive steps prejudicial to the
status of Jews were taken. At the same time, the govern-
ment did little if anything to suppress anti-Jewish agitation
which, however, did not reach alarming proportions during
the period. Whether a change is to take place because of
the recent agreement between Germany and Austria,
remains to be seen.
In a statement to the press on July 7, 1935, Geza Bor-
nemissza, Hungarian Minister of Trade, promised to relax
the Hungarian Sunday Law to enable Sabbath-observing
Jews to keep their establishments open on Sunday. Later,
however, when a delegation of Orthodox Jews called on

him, he declared that, while respecting the Orthodox desire
to observe the Sabbath, he could not violate the wish of
the Christian population for complete Sunday rest.
In September 1935, a conference of the Hungarian Bar
Associations adopted a resolution protesting against a clause
in the new Government bill regulating admission to the
Hungarian bar on the basis of religious and racial affiliations.
The Budapest Bar Association acted similarly. Dr. Emil
Nagy, former Minister of Justice, declared that the bill
violated Hungarian traditions. "When we demand justice
for Hungary, then Hungary must deal justly with every
race, religion and nationality within her borders," he said.
Later in the month, the Ministry of Justice, which was
sponsoring the bill, announced that the bill would be
redrafted.
In February, Prime Minister Julius Goemboes, in a state-
ment to the Lower House of Parliament, denied that his
Government intended to introduce a numerus clausus for
Jews in industry. He admitted, however, that a survey was
being made of those industries in which Jews were alleged
to predominate. He said: "The Government does not
intend . . . to take any legal steps in this matter, and I am
convinced that the enterprises where Jewish employees are
at present predominating and which, to a certain extent, are
also moved by higher national interests, would alter this
proportion in favor of the Christian youth, and, for this
reason, I hope that the Government will not find it neces-
sary to apply any measures."
On July 15, 1935, an important decision upholding the
autonomy of the Jewish Community of Budapest was handed
down by the Supreme Court. A medical officer in the Jewish
Hospital had refused to retire on reaching retirement age,
nd applied to the Court for an injunction to stop the Com-
munity from forcing him to do so. The Community argued
that the matter was wholly within its own jurisdiction,
whereas the physician contended it was a matter for the
civil courts. The court upheld the contention of the Jewish
Community.
Anti-Jewish Manifestations.—In July 1935, the Pfeil-

kreuzler, Hungarian Nazi organization, admitted its failure
to gain ground in Hungary, and announced its intention
to reorganize and select new leaders.
On November 21, 1935, anti-Jewish students at the
Budapest University demonstrated and 32 of them were
arrested and fined. The Ministers of Education and of the
Interior issued statements deploring the incident. The
president of the Turul Academic Union, whose members
were reported to have taken part in the outbreak, declared
that irresponsible elements had made use of the group's
name to incite the students. He declared the Turul Union
was against illegal measures. Emericana, the Catholic
University Union, issued a strong protest against the dis-
turbances and forbade its members to take part in such
activities.
In January 1936, the activities of a new anti-Jewish
organization, calling itself the "Party of the Nation's Will,"
or "Life Union," were exposed in the Hungarian press. It
was reported that the group was flooding provincial centers
with thousands of leaflets demanding a ruthless solution of
the Jewish question and the establishment of a dictatorship.
During March, the anti-Jewish campaign of the Hungarian
National Socialists increased in intensity, with the posting
on walls and boardings of violent Jew-baiting slogans and
caricatures. The Nazi press launched an economic campaign
against Jewish tradesmen, doctors and lawyers. In May,
the Pfeilkreuzler became active onc^ more, distributing
anti-Jewish material freely in the city of Debreczin. A
Budapest newspaper reported that the Pfeilkreuzler main
office at Debreczin maintained 17 local branches, spending
many hundreds of thousands of pengoes to foster a boycott
against Jewish business men.
At a meeting of the Union of the Hungarian Future, on
May 25, a "fundamental purge" of Jewish influence from
public life was demanded by speakers, among whom were
the parliamentary deputies from Debreczin, Dr. Franz
Rajniss, Stephen Miltay and Dr. Makkai.
Communal Item.—In J u l y 1935, the District Conference

of Jewish communities, held a t M a k o , unanimously adopted
a resolution to take the pro-Palestine movement in H u n g a r y
out of the hands of the Zionists. T h e resolution stated t h a t
most Hungarian Jews are hostile to Zionism, and, therefore,
it was advisable not to have Zionists directing the movement.
CZECHOSLOVAKIA
Czechoslovakia continued, during the period under review,

to be a sort of oasis in a Central Europe bare of democracy
and equality of rights. T h e government consistently showed
a broad-minded and liberal a t t i t u d e toward all problems
involving the Jewish population, and did not leave in doubt
its abhorrence of racial prejudice and agitation based upon
such prejudice.
In December 1935, the Jews of the country were gratified
at the election of Dr. E d u a r d Benes to the Presidency of the
Republic. This election was everywhere regarded as assur-
ing a continuation of the democratic course in the internal
policy of the country which had been all along pursued b y
T h o m a s G. Masaryk, former President. On April 22, 1936,
President Benes received a Jewish deputation, to whom he
promised support for the establishment of a Czechoslovakian
pro-Palestine Committee. H e also promised to help the
promotion of Hebrew studies in the schools of C a r p a t h o -
Russia, and the introduction of democratic institutions for
Jewish communities.
In October 1935, the High Court of Maehrisch-Ostrau
overruled the objection of defendant's counsel, in an action
brought against an editor for publishing an incendiary anti-
Jewish article, to having the case tried before a judge who
happened to be a Jew. When the lawyer asserted t h a t the
Jewish judge would be prej udiced, the latter a t once suspended
the hearing and submitted the objection to the High C o u r t
which decided t h a t removal of a judge, because of his religious
faith, was illegal in Czechoslovakia.
Shehitak.—In November, the threat to Shehitah, in

Czechoslovakia, contained in a bill for the prevention of
cruelty to animals, which the Government had submitted
to the Senate, was removed by the addition of an exemption
for "slaughtering animals in accordance with religious
precepts."
Refugees and Aliens.—In October, 1935, in response to a
complaint by Deputies Angelo Goldstein and Marie Schmolka
against the deportation of Jewish refugees in Bohemia and
Moravia, Josef Cerny, the Minister of the Interior, promised
to remedy all cases of injustice and to instruct the authorities
that Jewish aliens in Czechoslovakia must be treated the
same as other aliens.
Anti-Jewish Manifestations.—During December 1935,
anti-Jewish sentiment became widespread in the strong
German minority districts of Czechoslovakia. Terroristic
methods were used to force non-Jews to boycott Jewish
shops. The social boycott of Jews was intensified with some
schools segregating Jewish children from other pupils. The
press placed the responsibility for this development upon
Konrad Henlein, leader of the Sudetendeutsche Party,
although Henlein was not outwardly anti-Jewish. When a
deputation of representatives of the Czechoslovakian Jewish
Party called his attention to the situation, Prime Minister
Milan Hodza declared that "the Czechoslovakian Govern-
ment rejects race anti-Semitism and adheres to the principle
of equality of rights for all citizens." On April 27, 1936,
serious anti-Jewish excesses broke out at the University
of Bratislava (Pressburg), following a demonstration by
Slovak anti-Jewish students, in connection with the exhibi-
tion of the film, "The Golem." Lectures at the medical
and philosophical faculties of the university were suspended,
as a result of the disorders.
Jewish Communal Items.—On September 13, 1935, the
World Maccabi Congress opened in Brno. Dr. Hermann
Lelewer, president, reported that the organization had
200,000 members in 37 countries. The Congress passed a
resolution requesting the Olympic Games Committees and
other sports bodies in various countries to permit Jewish
athletes not to participate in the Berlin Olympics. The
German delegates voted against the resolution. The Con-
gress also adopted a resolution declaring that "membership
of the New Zionist (Revisionists) Organization is incom-

patible with the membership of the Maccabi." The Revision-
ists soon after issued orders to its affiliated groups to strengthen
opposition to this decision among the Revisionist members
of the Maccabi, threatening to sever connections with the
Maccabi World Union if the protests did not avail. Professor
Selig Brodetsky, member of the Zionist Executive, was
elected president of the World Maccabi Union, and Dr.
Lelewer was elected honorary president.
On February 17, 1936, the second Winter Maccabiade
opened at Banska Bystrica, in Czechoslovakia, with 250
Jewish athletes taking part in the games.
ITALY
Ethiopian War.—A large number of Jews were among the
Italian volunteer regiments, marching into Ethiopia during
the military campaign. In December 1935, the Union of
Jewish Communities of Italy appealed to Italian Jews to
make offers of gold, silver and other metals for the war
needs of the Italian State. Dr. Aldo Lattes, Chief Rabbi
of Rome and president of the Rome Jewish Community,
together with other members of the Rabbinical Council,
delivered the golden key of the Ark of the Covenant and a
large silver candlestick from the Roman Synagogue to the
Secretary of the Fascist Party, as an expression of loyalty
on the part of Italian Jews. So great was the number of
Jews in the Italian armies invading Ethiopia that in March
1936, the Governor of Eritrea assigned a sum of 150,000
liras for the building of a synagogue in Asmara to serve
their religious needs, as well as those of the local Jewish
inhabitants. On June 22, 1936, the Union of Jewish Com-
munities in Italy announced that with the approval of the
Colonial Ministry, it would send a delegation to Ethiopia
to investigate Jewish religious conditions, to organize the
first Jewish communities in Addis Ababa and elsewhere,
and to establish contact with the Falashas (Ethiopian Jews).
The Rabbinate.—In September 1935, Professor S. Arton,

the Chief Rabbi of Florence, resigned his position to join
the faculty of the Italian Rabbinical Seminary in Rome.
This event again brought home to Italian Jewry the fact

that so many large Italian cities were without Chief Rabbis.
In November, the Jewish community of Milan unanimously
decided to invite Dr. Gustavo Castelbolognesi to become
Chief Rabbi of Milan. He had been removed from his
previous post as Chief Rabbi of Tripoli when he became
involved in a religious controversy with Italian authorities
there.
Arab Outbreaks in Palestine.—On May 19, 1936 official
circles denied the charges published abroad of Italian com-
plicity in instigating the Arab disorders in Palestine. London
newspapers had carried reports that Italian agents were
fomenting disorders to embarrass Great Britain in the Italo-
Ethiopian crisis.
LITHUANIA
Governmental Policies.—In October 1935, following upon
the dissolution of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party,
the Government outlawed the Zionist Socialist and the
Zionist People's Parties. In December, it was learned that,
for the first time, the budget estimates of the Kovno Munic-
ipality for 1936 did not contain any allocations for Jewish
social and cultural institutions. It was reported that similar
"Jew-free" budgets were being drawn up by many provincial
municipalities. On March 2, 1936, the Government refused
permission for the holding of a conference of Jewish town
councillors to establish a Lithuanian organization of Jewry
as well as an organization coordinating the activities of
Jewish councillors in various Lithuanian towns.
On April 28, the Government declared that it would not
recognize the Rabbinical Association as a confessional
representative body but merely as a professional rabbis'
union, and proposed that a representative Jewish body be
formed, to be headed by a chief rabbi. On April 22, the
Ministry of Education announced the closing of all Jewish
teachers' institutes. The new regulation stated that only
Lithuanian schools for the training of teachers will be per-
mitted to operate, but made no provision for the study of
Jewish subjects in these schools.
In June, the Government enacted a law permitting Jewish

children to attend only Hebrew and Yiddish schools, and
the Ministry of Education and Public Worship announced
that, during the preceding nine years, the 214 rabbis in
Lithuania had received about 943,990 lits (approximately
SI60,000), in salaries and that Jewish religious teachers
had received subsidies to the amount of 83,887 lits (about
$15,000).
On May 6, 1936, in a statement to a representative of the
Jewish Telegraphic Agency, reports in the British press
to the effect that the Lithuanian Government had "declared
war on the Jews" were denied by General Julius Caplikas,
Minister of the Interior. Pointing out that anti-Jewish
disturbances had been energetically put down by the Gov-
ernment, he declared that "in Lithuania all citizens, irrespec-
tive of nationality or creed, enjoy full equality of rights,
and the Government is determined to combat with the
utmost energy all attempts at sowing racial hatred among
the population." General Caplikas continued: "The fear
entertained abroad that the compulsory examinations for
artisans might gravely affect the position of the Jewish
artisans in the country is without any cause, for the Govern-
ment has changed its attitude toward this question and the
law is no longer of any actual importance . . . I can assure
you that the livelihoods of the old Jewish artisans will not
be endangered by the new law." "It is further unjust," he
added, "to say that Jews do not enjoy the right to receive
higher education or to join the civil service. The percentage
of Jews in the liberal professions is a very high one, and so
far as the civil service is concerned, the Jews themselves
do not appear to be very much interested in joining it."
General Caplikas went on to say: "So far as the economic
position in the country is concerned, it must be emphasized
that the Government does not interfere with the principle
of free competition, and it is, therefore, not true to speak
of any persecutions and restrictions so far as the Jews are
concerned. So far as the general political life in the country
is concerned, the Jewish interests will be carefully considered
in the new Parliament which will soon be convoked. Jewish
representation in this new Parliament will consist of no
less than two seats among fifty." The interview was reprinted
by the entire Lithuanian press and caused great relief

among the Jewish population. On May 26, the Government
nominated two Jews for membership in Parliament. They
were the editor, Rubinstein, and the war veteran, Goldberg.
When the election returns were made public on June 17,
however, it was found that neither of the two Jewish can-
didates had been elected.
Jews in the Legal Profession.—The statement of General
Caplikas that all was well with the Jews of Lithuania
evidently did not apply to Jews in the legal profession. In
June 1936, a Jewish delegation, headed by Rabbi Shapiro,
Dr. Gregory Wolf, and Leon Ashinsky, vainly attempted
to call upon M. S. Silingas, the Minister of Justice, to discuss
the difficult position of the Jewish lawyers in the country.
It was pointed out that, according to the law promulgated
in 1933, a total of 66 lawyers had been excluded from the
legal profession, of whom 58 were Jews, and that the eight
non-Jews were later either readmitted or given government
positions, whereas only three of the Jews were readmitted.
Applications by 37 Jews for permission to obtain the neces-
sary training for law had been refused, and not a single Jew
had been admitted to the courts as a candidate for the bar.
It was further emphasized that there was not a single Jewish
judge or public prosecutor in the country.
Artisanship Law.—In December 1935, Jewish artisans
were gravely concerned over the proposed law requiring
every artisan to undergo an examination for a diploma.
It was generally considered that the provisions of the law
were aimed chiefly at ousting Jewish artisans from their
positions. The Government consulted with the anti-Jewish
Verslininki Organization in drafting the law, but it did
not take steps to learn the views of Jewish workers. On
April 23, 1936, the Government issued a law obliging all
artisans, shop assistants and business men to possess cer-
tificates attesting their general and professional knowledge
and proficiency in the Lithuanian language. The law caused
grave concern among Jewish artisans and business men,
thousands of whom feared the loss of their livelihoods.
In April, a sensation was caused by the proposal of the

artisans' section of the Lithuanian anti-Jewish Verslininki
Organization to make peace with the Jewish Artisans' Union,
in order to carry out coordinated schemes in favor of
Lithuanian artisans. A special delegation of the Verslininki
visited the Executive Committee of the Jewish group to
confer on the establishment of a joint committee to represent
all Lithuanian artisans, irrespective of race or creed. The
committee consisted of 3 Jews and 4 Lithuanians. This
unusual step of the anti-Jewish organization was explained
by the fact that a number of Government officials had
recently joined the Verslininki, and were influencing the
group to modify its anti-Jewish attitude.
Anti-Jewish Manifestations.—In July 1935, a delegation
from the Union of Rabbis in Lithuania visited President
Antanas Smetona and drew his attention to the growing
anti-Jewish agitation in the country. They informed him
of the steady process of pushing Jews out of all branches
of economic life. In October, following a series of incidents
between individual Jews and Lithuanians, grave anti-Jewish
disturbances took place in Telshy. The famous Telshy
Yeshivah was stoned by a mob, which also attacked houses
of Jews and beat individuals. The police arrested more than
20 Jew-baiters, and the situation in the town became less
tense. A delegation visited General Julius Caplikas, Minister
of the Interior, to call attention to the dangerous situation
of the Jews of Telshy as a result of the riots. The Minister
assured the delegation that the Government would not
tolerate any further anti-Jewish excesses. Meanwhile, the
Military Commandant of Telshy sentenced 18 rioters to
prison. In response to the appeal of the Jewish Community,
Bishop Staugaitis agreed to appeal to church-goers to stop
anti-Jewish agitation. In November, a conference of Telshy
social workers adopted a resolution condemning the excesses,
in the name of Lithuanian intellectuals. On November 8,
the Lithuanian Government ordered an investigation into
the riots, although the demonstrators chiefly responsible
had already been sentenced to imprisonment.
In November, the Verslininki, anti-Jewish organization,
at a conference at Ponieviej, demanded that the Govern-
ment "rescue the Lithuanian people from the hands of the

aliens," and that Jews be excluded from Lithuanian trade,
industry and artisanship by means of special examinations.
Despite its promise to prohibit the broadcast of the proceed-
ings, the Ministry of the Interior allowed all the anti-Jewish
speeches and resolutions to go on the air. In December, the
secretary of the Lithuanian National Front, the Govern-
ment Party, announced that "anti-Semitism in Lithuania
must be exterminated." He declared that the National
Front would launch a campaign against all illegal elements
in the country, and especially against the anti-Jewish
organizations.
On December 23, in a joint statement, the Minister of
the Interior, the Minister of Finance and the Mayor of
Kovno, condemned the continued anti-Jewish agitation
conducted by the notorious Verslininki Organization, and
declared that the policy of the Lithuanian Government must
be tolerance and equality of rights for all citizens.
In January 1936, new anti-Jewish outbreaks were organ-
ized by peasants in the vicinity of Telshy and 33 Jews were
injured. The police made a number of arrests and order
was restored. In March, the Jewish population in the
Ponieviej district was thrown into panic when the disap-
pearance of a Lithuanian boy and a girl gave rise to ritual
murder agitation among the populace, who began attacking
Jews in the streets. It was later learned that the girl had
been abducted by a white slave trafficker. On March 21,
the Lithuanian Government published a sharp condemna-
tion of anti-Jewish ritual murder accusations, which had
been creating much trouble in the provincial centers. Sinister
forces are conducting agitation against the Jews, the Gov-
ernment statement pointed out, citing many instances of
anti-Jewish incitement in previous weeks. The Government
called on the population to deliver the slanderers over to the
police, and threatened imprisonment as punishment for
such incitement. On March.30, the commandant of the
Ponieviej district sentenced seven persons to two months'
imprisonment for spreading ritual murder libels. Again,
on May 4, four more persons were sent to prison for spread-
ing ritual murder libels in Telshy. In May, the Congress
of State Cooperatives meeting in Kovno adopted a resolu-
tion demanding that the Government perfect the existing

state monopoly in flax by excluding the few private Jewish
traders who were still allowed to continue business. In
June, the opening of the Lithuanian Fair in Kovno was used
by Jew-baiters as an occasion for launching a campaign for
a boycott of Jews.
Anti-Nazi Boycott.—On July 23, 1935, the Commandant

of Kovno suppressed the Jewish anti-Nazi Boycott Com-
mittee. Nevertheless, the boycott continued to be effective,
causing the German Government, during the negotiations
for a new trade agreement, in April 1936, to request the
Lithuanian Government to combat the movement. The
German delegation demanded the abolition of the existing
boycott committee and the imposition of severe penalties
on persons spreading boycott propaganda.
Lithuanian-Palestine Transfer Agreement.—On April 20,

1936, a transfer agreement between Lithuania and Palestine,
permitting export of currency, was signed in Kovno by Dr.
Alfred Werner, representative of the Anglo-Palestine Bank.
Under the terms of the agreement, the Palestine Founda-
tion Fund and the Jewish National Fund are permitted
to send to Palestine from Lithuania a total of $32,500
annually. In addition, Lithuanian emigrants to Palestine
are allowed to take with them a total of $37,500 annually,
to be covered by exports from Lithuania to Palestine.
OTHER BALTIC COUNTRIES

Latvia.—In September 1935, the only remaining anti-
Jewish paper in Latvia, Volkswaffen, which had advocated
a "scientific" anti-Semitism, was prohibited by the authori-
ties. On March 23, 1936, a Latvia-Palestine transfer agree-
ment to facilitate transfer of funds to Palestine was con-
cluded in Riga. According to its terms, the Anglo-Palestine
Bank guaranteed to clear Latvian exports to Palestine to
the value of $500,000 and Palestine exports to Latvia valued
at $50,000. The agreement would help Latvian emigrants
to Palestine to withdraw currency from the country, which
had previously been forbidden.
Esthonia.—Jewish national cultural autonomy practically

ceased to exist during 1935. The political upheavals there
had put an end to every expression of independent public
life, and no meetings of the Board of the Jewish community
took place. Nevertheless, in June 1936, Government officials
took place. Nevertheless in June 1936, Government officials
and representatives of all Jewish societies and political
parties participated in a celebration of the 10th anniversary
of Jewish cultural autonomy in Esthonia. Speaking at
Tallinn for President Paets, Colonel Alexander Jaakson,
Minister of Education, paid tribute to Jewish autonomy as
an equitable solution of the Jewish problem.
ROUMANIA
Events of Jewish interest, reported in the press during

the twelve months under review, constitute a dreary recital
of attacks upon Jews or threats to their citizenship rights.
In the face of these, government officials made high-sound-
ing declarations, but took only half-hearted action. In
recognition of the menace to their status, the various organ-
izations united, in February 1936, in joining a Central
Council, under the leadership of Dr. William Filderman.
On November 2, 1935, the Ministry of the Interior issued
orders authorizing stern measures against anti-Jewish
agitators, forbidding the wearing of uniforms by political
groups, and the displaying of badges.
In the same month, Ion Inculet, the Minister of the
Interior, received a joint deputation of the Union of Rouma-
nian Jews and the Jewish Party, whom he promised, to take
nian Jews and the Jewish Party, whom he promised to take
every possible measure against the extremist anti-Jewish
agitators. When, however, Chief Rabbi Niemirower was
publicly insulted by a Cuzist deputy who prevented him
from attending a banquet in honor of the new Archbishop
in Czernowitz, the Government censored the Jewish news-
papers which criticized the police for not protecting the
Rabbi.
In the same month, a conference of followers of Dr. Cuza,
anti-Jewish leader, to be held in Czernowitz, was prohibited
by the Minister of the Interior after a Jewish delegation,
headed by Dr. Mayer Ebner and Ex-Deputy Fischer, pro-

tested against it. In their anger at the order, a band of
Cuzists attacked and injured Jews in Czernowitz. The
conference was, however, held October 20. It adopted a
resolution demanding that the Jews be ousted from their
economic positions, and that Jewish houses and property
be confiscated.
Apparently the government fears to antagonize the anti-
Jewish elements, for, in November, when the anti-Jewish
press furiously attacked the action of the government in
granting a permit to the ICA (Jewish Colonization Associa-
tion) to establish a branch in Bessarabia, to promote Jewish
agriculture in the province and provide vocational training
for the impoverished Jewish residents, the government with-
drew the authorization. The anti-Jewish papers had accused
the Jews of wishing to buy up Roumanian soil and settle
foreign Jews there. Following this victory, the anti-Jewish
press began a campaign against the Jewish People's Banks,
accusing them of wishing to buy up the land of Roumanian
peasants.
In December 1935, a United Parliamentary Party was
formed by Professor A. C. Cuza, head of the Roumanian
anti-Jewish Party; Octavian Goga, leader of the National
Christian Party; and former Minister Alexandru Vaida-
Voyvod, founder of the "Roumanian Front." The new
party, third largest in the Parliament, is not overtly anti-
Jewish in its program, but the aims it announced would
bring about the total elimination of Roumanian Jews from
trade and politics. The by-election in Bukowina in January,
which had attracted wide attention because of the brutal
anti-Jewish outbreaks caused by it, resulted in the election
to the Senate of Professor A. C. Cuza, who received 6,271
votes out of a total of 12,000. In December, an anti-Jewish
demonstration took place in Bucharest, in connection with
the elections to the Board of the Bucharest Bar Association.
The outbreak was condemned in Parliament where Ion
Inculet, Minister of the Interior, declared that energetic
measures would be taken to prevent the repetition of similar
incidents.
On January 11, 1936, Chief Rabbi Jacob Isaac Niemirower
of Bucharest narrowly escaped death when five revolver
shots, fired at him while he was walking to the synagogue,

passed through his clothing and inflicted a slight flesh wound
on his arm. One of his assailants was arrested but several
others were able to escape. A semi-official statement described
the prisoner as a religious fanatic and tried to give the
impression that the attempted murder was "without political
character." In March, the attacker was sent to a lunatic
asylum. Nicolas Titulescu, Roumanian foreign minister,
addressed a message to Rabbi Niemirower, condemning
the "criminal attempt" on his life, and other government
officials also expressed their regret. The Jewish community
demanded that the government take action to end anti-
Jewish excesses. At the same time an anti-Jewish mob, near
Czernowitz, stoned a synagogue and Jewish houses.
In February, democratic and progressive elements among
the students of the University of Bucharest decided to
create a Democratic Students' Front, with defense troops
to preserve order and prevent terroristic outbreaks, such
as had been frequent until then.
In the same month, the newly-formed Central Council
of Jews in Roumania issued a manifesto urging Jews to
rally against the danger of the introduction of a "racial"
regime in Roumania. The Council also protested to Govern-
ment authorities when it was learned that the five Jews,
permitted to study in the Medical Faculty of Bucharest
University, under the numerus valachicus, were forcibly
refused entrance to the classrooms. In March, as the highest
political representative organ of Roumanian Jewry, the
Council appealed to the conscience of the Roumanian people
to stop anti-Jewish agitation. Addressed to "Roumanian
fellow-citizens," the declaration concluded: "We appeal
to your conscience in these difficult times in which we are
being treated with more injustice than ever before. We
appeal to the sense of justice and the tradition of harmonious
collaboration of all the inhabitants of the country. We
appeal to your intelligence to repudiate the falsehoods
spread about us and to denounce those who are attempting
to sow discord among our people. Let us live in brotherly
cooperation and let us work together for the common welfare
of our country, so that we can serve the interests of Roumania
and protect the security of her frontiers." Dr. Wilhelm
Filderman, president of the Central Council, announced

that the Council's task would be to enlighten public opinion
in Roumania about the growing dangers of the anti-Jewish
movement, and to maintain a constant watch over the rights
of the Jews in the country. He declared in a statement to
the press: "Anti-Semitism in Roumania is by no means a
movement of youth only, but a big political organization
which aims at forming its own Cabinet and which has a
budget of hundreds of million lei. We, as Jews, fulfil our
duties, and we demand that our rights as citizens should be
safeguarded. We live in this country and we shall remain
here. Roumania is our mother country, and we demand
that the Government guarantee us our rights." Several days
later, in another statement, Dr. Filderman refuted the
charges of Jew-baiters that Jews occupy too prominent a
position in Roumanian economic life. He pointed out that
Roumanian Jews are, in fact, the poorest section of the
population, and declared that 6 5 % of the Jews in Bucharest
live in such misery that they cannot afford one bed per
person in their homes.
In a statement to the press in March, Julius Maniu,
leader of the Roumanian National Peasant Party and former
Prime Minister, condemned anti-Jewish agitation in Rou-
mania, declaring the "Roumanian people will not tolerate
a serious anti-Semitic movement of a general character."
In the same month, seven Jews were seriously injured in
the town of Cudin, Bukovina, when a crowd of 600 Cuzists
climaxed a party meeting with an attack on Jewish pedes-
trians, homes and synagogues. Two of the leaders were
arrested.
In statements issued on May 11, by Dr. Filderman and
former deputy Mischu Weissmann, grave anxiety concern-
ing the Jewish position in Roumania was expressed. They
accused the Roumanian Government of failing to carry out
promises to safeguard the economic and political position
of the Jews, and of tacitly condoning the anti-Jewish
excesses of the extremist Right parties. "The position of
the Jews in Roumania," Dr. Filderman declared, "is grow-
ing worse from day to day. All statements issued by the
Government are insincere and are made for the purpose of
calming public opinion until new disorders occur, when new
statements are issued. This game is repeated again and

again."
On April 30, the Galatz Court ordered the arrest of
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, the leader of the extreme Right
Iron Guard Organization and Ion Stelescu, his lieutenant,
on charges of organizing disturbances during the parlia-
mentary elections. On May 11, however, the Court acquitted
the pair. On June 21, one person was killed and two seriously
wounded in anti-Jewish disorders in Bucharest; eight others
required treatment. The disturbances broke out when
students demonstrated against the Jews, marking trolley
cars with swastikas and anti-Jewish slogans. In the same
month, anti-Jewish disorders, arising partly from animosity
between liberal and right-wing newspapers, spread through-
out the country, resulting in injuries to a large number of
Jews, including Dr. William Filderman, who was slightly
hurt when Cuzist students attacked him and other Jewish
lawyers at the Supreme Court Building in Bucharest. Other
disorders occurred at Kishinev, Beltz, and elsewhere. As
the uniformed Cuzists converged on Bucharest for a con-
vention to be held on June 28, one Jew was gravely wounded
and many were beaten. The Cuzists announced their deter-
mination to hold their convention despite a ban issued on
assemblages until July 12. The Roumanian Federation of
Labor issued a statement accusing the Government of
inactivity and warning that unless the authorities halt the
wave of terror, the Federation would be compelled to take
action itself. Hopes that King Carol would influence the
Government to take action disappeared when he left on a
hunting trip. Meanwhile, Dr. Filderman charged that the
Government was encouraging anti-Jewish actions by tolerat-
ing violation of law. The entire democratic press denounced
the attack on him as "a desecration of the emblem of justice."
Despite expectations, however, the threatened anti-Jewish
disorders in connection with the Cuzist convention did not
take place, as Jews remained in their homes and special
gendarmes, brought from the provincial cities, patrolled
the streets of Bucharest. The French Government registered
an official protest against the use of the name of Premier
Leon Blum, a Jew, in Roumanian anti-Jewish propaganda,
and demanded a clarification of the Roumanian Govern-
merit's attitude toward France, in view of the continued

anti-French demonstrations.
On June 30, Dr. Alexander Cuza, leader of the National
Christian Party, told a rally of 40,000 peasants in northern
Roumania that his party's principal aim was to solve the
Jewish problem in Roumania exactly as Hitler had done it
in Germany. He urged his followers to discard their European
dress because it was worn by Jews, and to return to the
peasant costumes of their ancestors. He attacked the
Franco-Roumanian alliance, and advocated reapproachment
with Germany and Italy.
In January 1936, it was reported that some 50,000 Bes-
sarabian Jews were suffering from famine and that whole
communities had been reduced to starvation. The Jewish
sufferers were in a worse position than the non-Jewish
villagers who had managed to keep some reserves from
previous years, whereas the Jews had been ruined by a com-
bination of the general depression and the anti-Jewish
boycott. Jew-baiters were inciting the peasants against the
Jews, attempting to make them believe that the Jews were
responsible for their sufferings. As a result, the Jews of
Bessarabia were living in a state of unmitigated terror. A
special fund for these victims was set up in London by the
Executive Committee of the Federation of Jewish Relief
Organizations.
In March, the Ministry of Education cancelled the
subsidy for Jewish religious institutions, which had amounted
to 6,000,000 lei in 1935. The subsidies for other sects were
continued without any reduction; in some cases they were
increased. The Central Council of Jews of Roumania sub-
mitted a memorandum to King Carol protesting against
this action. Later in the month, the Government announced
that 2,000,000 lei would be alloted for Jewish religious
education.
In April, the Congress of"the Union of Secondary School
Teachers of Roumania, held at Jassy, voted in favor of
maintaining amicable relations between Roumanian and
minority teachers and of adopting an educational policy of
friendliness and understanding with the minorities, espe-
cially the Jews.
In July, 1935, Chief Rabbi Senator Dr. Niemirower
opened a new wing of the Bucharest great Synagogue,

endowed by Micu S. Zentler, the Jewish philanthropist,
housing the Jewish public library, Jewish museum and
historic archives of Roumanian Jewry.
OTHER BALKAN COUNTRIES

Bulgaria.—In July 1935, the government promulgated a
new law regulating the administration of religious com-
munities, which recognized only religious minorities. The
Jewish Community, which had previously been considered
a national-cultural group, was now considered exclusively
religious in character, with a purely religious representation.
The Jewish school system was removed from its jurisdiction,
and the state secured the right of intervention in Jewish
communal affairs, including control of the budget. The
Jews took steps to register opposition to the new law. At
about the same time, the Minister of the Interior, General
Athanasoff, decided to permit the Rodna Saschtita (Home
Guard) and National Legion, anti-Jewish groups which had
formerly been outlawed, to resume their activities. Other
political organizations continued under the ban. The
General later clarified the ruling, declaring that the groups
were permitted "to continue their activities only as national
and educational bodies," and were forbidden "to preach
intolerance against the religious and national minorities."
Meanwhile, General Sokoinoff, the leader of the Rodna
Saschtita, denied that his organization was anti-Jewish,
insisting that it was only fighting Jewish as well as Christian
speculators. In August, a delegation representing the Jewish
Consistory, called on Andreja Toscheff, the Prime Minister,
to appeal for retention of the status quo of the Jewish Com-
munities. The Prime Minister said that, in principle, he
agreed with the delegation's views and would take the mat-
ter under advisement. Concerning the anti-Jewish groups,
he promised that they would not be permitted to carry on
Jew-baiting tactics.
On August 25, 1935, the Government decided to enter
into a transfer agreement with Palestine, according to which
Jewish emigrants from Bulgaria are able to take capital out
of the country in the form of Bulgarian goods.
Greece.—In July 1935, the growing movement for a Greek

Monarchy was welcomed in Jewish circles, which feared
continued anti-Jewish agitation under the Republic. During
the campaign preceding the plebiscite on the proposed
restoration, leaders of the Venizelist Republican Party
attempted to revive anti-Jewish sentiment in Greece. The
proclamation of a monarchist regime in Greece, in October,
did not affect the Jewish situation there. General Kondylis,
the new Premier, was known to have expressed himself as
a friend of the Jews. King George II of Greece cabled to
Chief Rabbi Sevy Koretz of Salonica a message of apprecia-
tion for the greetings and expressions of loyalty sent him
in London on behalf of the Greek-Jewish population. In
December, upon his arrival in Athens, the King received a
deputation of Jews from Salonica, whom he assured of his
fullest sympathy.
In January, former Premier Panayoti Tsaldaris warned
Greek Jews against setting up a separate Jewish electoral
list in the approaching elections. He declared that such a
list "sets them apart in political life, robs them of their
rights, and creates a 'political Ghetto'." No such separate
Jewish electoral list was put up, although eleven Jews were
among the candidates on various tickets running for Par-
liament in Salonica, and one was elected.
In December 1935, the Jewish Community of Salonica
was greatly shocked to learn that the Ministry for Public
Works had ratified the decision of the Salonica Municipality
to convert the Jewish cemetery in the center of the city
into a university sports ground. A delegation protested to
the Governor of Macedonia. On April 1, 1936, Governor
Rail of Salonica suspended the decree prohibiting the teach-
ing of Hebrew, and promised to repeal it. The Greek Min-
ister of Education, who received the former Jewish Senator
Sciaky at his home to discuss the threat to Hebrew teach-
ing, promised to reach a settlement of this question.
On June 20, 1936, the Parliamentary Commission for
Constitutional Reform unanimously decided to include in
the new Greek Constitution a clause prohibiting conversion
of persons under 21 years of age. The clause provides also
that persons over that age must present written permission
from their religious authorities before conversion to another

faith is allowed, enabling such authorities to make a final
effort to prevent apostasy. The step was widely hailed in
Jewish communities throughout Greece, which had been
alarmed by numerous conversions to Christianity of Jewish
boys and girls.
There were but few and mild anti-Jewish manifestations
during the period under review. In July 1935, Nea Alithuci,
organ of the Venizelist faction in Salonica, which had pre-
viously been friendly to the Jews, published several bitterly
anti-Jewish editorials. In September, local Jewish com-
munities lodged a protest with the Greek authorities
against a violently anti-Jewish speech by Commander
Telemahos Papadopoulos who declared that the Jews
wanted to destroy Christianity. The Commander's speech
was disowned by the authorities. General A. Papagos,
Commander-in-Chief of the military forces in Macedonia
and Thrace, instituted an inquiry, as a result of which,
Papadopoulos was relieved of his post. In October, the
appointment of Peppo Mallah, the Jewish Deputy, as one
of the two Greek representatives to the Parliamentary
Economic Conference at London, provoked futile criticism
in the anti-Jewish press. In November, a new law was
promulgated by the Government, prohibiting "incitement
of citizens, directly or indirectly, to mutual contempt and
hate, to dissension and to exaltation of religious and political
passions in every respect." Within a month, however, this
was replaced by another statute, declaring the defamation
of any community, in the press, to be criminal offense.
In March, the Executive of the Central Federation of
Jewish Small Traders of Salonica issued an official denial
that the Greek Government was pursuing a policy of
"economic anti-Semitism." The statement declared that
"the new taxes imposed by the Municipalities and by the
Government have no anti-Jewish character, as they apply
to Jewish and non-Jewish traders alike."
On October 21, 1935, the Rector of Salonica University
issued, through the Chief Rabbi, an invitation to Jewish
students to attend the University. The Rector declared:
"The number of Jewish students in our University is very
limited and does not correspond either with the Jewish

population of the country or with the number of Jewish
students in every other university in Greece. We are inter-
ested in changing this state of affairs and we are prepared
to facilitate the entry of Jewish students to the University."
Yugoslavia.—In December 1935, the police closed down

the Swabian-German Cultural Society in Velika Kikinda,
which was one of the most important centers of Nazi pro-
paganda. Revelations that this society had been in close
touch with the German Propaganda Ministry and had taken
an oath not to have any social relations with Yugoslavs,
Magyars and Jews, had caused a wave of indignation
throughout the country.
In April 1936, the sixth Congress of the Union of Jewish
Communities, held in Belgrade, adopted a resolution
demanding that the authorities fully respect equality of
Jewish rights, declaring that the latest anti-Jewish attacks
in the press had provoked consternation among Yugoslav
Jews, and charging that the attacks and the rising tide of
anti-Jewish propaganda were inspired from Nazi sources.
Later in the same month, Dr. Vlatko Macek, Croatian
leader, voiced opposition to attempts to introduce anti-
Semitism into the Croatian National movement. Calling
attention to anti-Jewish leaflets distributed in the name of
the Croatian Peasant Party, he declared that the Party did
not judge people by religion or descent, but by humaneness
and honor.
SOVIET RUSSIA
Press reports of Jewish interest which came from Russia
during the period under review, were mainly concerned
with the efforts of the Soviet government to settle Jews in
the Biro-Bidjan region in the Far Eastern territory. The
few remaining items dealt with the punishment of persons
convicted of Jew-baiting, and with the rather quiescent
attitude toward Jewish religious observance, on the part
of the Tewish Communist press.
Biro-Bidjan.—In July 1935, the government decided to

allot 60,000,000 roubles ($30,000,000) for the industrial
development of the Jewish Autonomous Region of Biro-
Bidjan during the ensuing six months. A report stated that
2,529 persons arrived in Biro-Bidjan during the first half
of 1935, and that the number of schools had increased from
89 to 107. In the same month, the chairman of the State
Planning Committee for Biro-Bidjan announced that the
number of Jewish settlers in 1935 would be reduced from
12,000 to 6,500. The Moscow Yiddish daily, Stern, pub-
lished a severe criticism of the settlement work, declaring
that many more colonists should have been settled in the
region.
In September, the Commissariat of Agriculture decided
to put 150,000 hectares of fallow land under cultivation
in Biro-Bidjan and to settle some 200,000 people on it
within a few years. It was also proposed to transform the
region into the largest center for light industries in the
Far East.
In January 1936, speaking at a meeting of the Central
Executive Committee of the U. S. S. R., S. Dimantstein,
president of Ozet, the Society for the Settlement of Jews
in the Soviet Union, declared that many Jews had been
settled in Jewish agricultural regions: Kalinindorf, Stalin-
dorf, the New Zlatapol Region in the Ukraine, and the
Freidorf and Larindorf Regions in the Crimea, and that
plans had been made for the settlement of 10,000 new Jewish
settlers in Biro-Bidjan during 1936.
In March, the Central Statistical Department in State
Planning of the Soviet Union presented a budget estimate
for Biro-Bidjan to the Central Government, calling for an
appropriation of 51,636,000 roubles in 1936, an increase of
241% over the budget of 1935. This sum was to be spent on
agriculture, industries, new buildings, education and health
work.
In April, sharp criticism of the methods employed in select-
ing immigrants for Biro-Bidjan was voiced by the Biro-
Bidjan representative of the Comzet, who declared that
many families had been sent to the region although the
trades in which they were proficient were unnecessary
there. He pointed out that people who were totally unfit
for hard work had been sent as "unskilled laborers." In the

same month, the Plenary Committee of the Executive of
the Jewish Autonomous Region, was informed at its meet-
ing that there were 9,000 illiterates in the region, and that
steps were being taken to eliminate this illiteracy immedi-
ately. On April 27, at a conference in Minsk, the secretary
of Ozet declared that it was not intended that Biro-Bidjan
become a second Palestine. He pointed out that the ter-
ritory's functions were not to save the Jewish masses in
foreign countries, but only to recruit Jewish workers in
certain occupations which at the present time are not suf-
ficiently represented in Biro-Bidjan.
In May, Sergej Chutzkayev, president of the Comzet,
announced that a total of 6,000 Jewish settlers would be
selected to leave the Ukraine for Biro-Bidjan during 1936.
These new settlers, he declared, would be composed chiefly
of tailors for the new clothing factory, lumbermen, members
of collective farms, railwaymen and builders. In the same
month, in connection with the celebration of the second
anniversary of the proclamation of Biro-Bidjan as a Jewish
Autonomous Region, the Moscow Ernes, Yiddish Com-
munist daily, reported that a plan was being worked out
to settle 100,000 Jews in Biro-Bidjan within two years.
It was also announced that a metallurgical institute with
152 students had been opened in Biro-Bidjan. In the same
month, the Soviet Peoples Commissariat officially confirmed
plans for Biro-Bidjan involving a total expenditure, in 1936,
of 76,036,000 roubles for capital investments, long term
credits and .migration activities.
In June, the Comzet reported that less than one-third of
the 10,000 quota for immigration into Biro-Bidjan had been
filled, with only 2,913 settlers arriving in the autonomous
region.
Jew-Baiting.—In September, the Kharkov Court ruled

that anti-Semitism is a penal offense in Soviet Russia, and
imposed a two year sentence upon a local landlady who had
made insulting anti-Jewish remarks to a tenant. In February,
the Soviet Court in Novozybkov, in the Ukraine, sentenced
three members of the local artisans' group to imprisonment
for anti-Jewish activities. Two of them were accused of

having driven a Jewish member of the group, named Kabal-
kin, to suicide by their anti-Jewish attacks.
In May, a great impression was created throughout
Russia by an official visit by a group of Jewish collective
farmers from the Zlatopol Jewish Region to the collective
farms of the Don Cossacks in the village of Zimlianskaya,
in the Black Sea region. The Cossacks, who had been the
spearhead of Jew-baiting under the Czars, greeted the
Jewish delegation with great cordiality, and elected one
of the Jews an Honorary Cossack.
Religious Observance.—-For the first time in many years,
the Jewish Communist press refrained from an anti-religious
campaign prior to the Passover holidays. Baking of matzoth
was unrestricted.
GERMANY
The events of Jewish interest in Germany constitute a
chronicle of persecution, whose darkness is unrelieved by a
single ray of hope. With characteristic German thorough-
ness, the Nazis proceeded, during the period being reviewed,
upon the path of self-degrading oppression of the Jews upon
which they entered with the rise of their leader to supreme
rulership.
The past year, however, has the distinction of witnessing
the enactment of the so-called Nuremberg laws, which turn
the hands of the clock of civilization back at least a century.
But the pages of the recorded history contain no precedent
for the purposeful and ruthless campaign of a state to
render an entire section of its population contemptible in
the eyes of the rest of its own population and, at the same
time, by a world-wide propaganda, despicable in the eyes
of the peoples of all other lands.
Anti-Jewish Excesses.—Almost at the beginning of the
period, incidents of physical maltreatment of Jews were
reported. Despite the efforts of conservative elements in
the Nazi Cabinet to check the mounting tide of Jew-baiting
out of fear of the effects of such publicity on the international
negotiations in which Germany was engaged, the local

leaders of the Nazi party continued their anti-Jewish
agitation. In many instances acts of hooliganism were
officially sanctioned, and in some cases the Ministry of the
Interior even rebuked Nazis for relenting somewhat in their
hatred of Jews. On July 4, 1935, Mayor Graebner von
Schellert, of Neustadt, was dismissed from his post for this
reason. Farmers in Thuringia had to be threatened with
ostracism from the society of "true Aryans" if they con-
tinued to trade with Jews.
In the middle of July, anti-Jewish outrages as vicious
as any that had yet occurred in Nazi Germany took place
in Berlin. The rioting began after the Voelkischer Beobachter
reported that Jews had booed a Swedish anti-Jewish film
in a threatre in the Kurfuerstendamm. Jews in the cafes
and terraces were seized by an angry mob, and were beaten.
While the police stood by, rowdies attacked all Jewish-
appearing passersby. Foreign correspondents asserted that
the riots were well-organized and were led by uniformed
Storm Troopers. Fears aroused by the outbreak were
heightened when it was announced that Count Wolf von
Helldorf, Nazi Storm Troop leader for Berlin, had been
appointed Chief of Police. The Count had won notoriety
as the instigator of the anti-Jewish excesses in Berlin on
Rosh Hashanah in 1931. On July 22, the Juedische Rund-
schau, official organ of the German Zionist Federation, was
suspended for three months for reporting the excesses.
Meanwhile anti-Jewish disturbances continued in Berlin
and spread throughout Germany. On July 27, Count Hell-
dorf issued an order forbidding individual anti-Jewish action,
and stating that the State and Party would conduct the
fight against the Jews in a different way.
The actual rioting gradually came to a stop toward the
end of July, but the Nazi Government continued its sys-
tematic anti-Jewish policy. On July 31, the Berlin City
Council announced that no more Jews would be permitted
to come into Berlin from the provinces. German health
resorts everywhere refused admission to Jews. On August
4, a new period of tension began after inflammatory anti-
Jewish speeches by Dr. Goebbels, Dr. Frick and Dr. Rust
at a celebration in Essen. Uniformed Storm Troopers again
demonstrated in the Kurfuerstendamm, shouting anti-

Jewish slogans. The Voelkischer Beobachter interpreted Dr.
Goebbels' speech as the proclamation of a more vigorous
warfare against Jews and Catholics. On August 6, mass
arrests of Jews, accompanied by terror, suicides and the
closing down of Jewish enterprises, took place throughout
Germany. In Mecklenburg, Breslau and elsewhere, Storm
Troopers swooped down on Jewish families, stoning houses
and even attacking homes for children and the aged. In
Parchim, Mecklenburg, the entire Jewish population of 34
was suddenly arrested. On August 9, the entire Jewish
population of Riedersdorf near Berlin was ordered to leave
town, after a raid by Storm Troopers. Similar tactics were
followed in other German cities. The intensified campaign
was accompanied by a movement, started in the provinces,
to refuse to sell food to Jews. Count Helldorf, Berlin Police
President, conferred with Nazi officials on the best means
to prevent the further influx of Jews and to introduce food
restrictions for Jews in Berlin.
In September, the Kosener Students' Corporation defied
the Hitler regime by announcing that it would not adhere
to the Aryan principle and would not expel its Jewish
members. As a result, Storm Troop headquarters issued
an order forbidding Storm Troopers to be members of the
Corporation which was one of the oldest and best-known
student bodies in Germany and had many Nazi officials
among its members. Shortly afterward the Organization
was dissolved by the authorities.
On October 1, the Ministry of Public Enlightenment
and Propaganda ordered the German press to describe
Nazism as anti-Jewish rather than anti-Semitic. The order
declared: "We have nothing against the Arabs and other
Semitic peoples, not even against the Jews in. Palestine.
But we are opposed to the international Jewish influence
in Germany and we do wish to restrict the part played by
the Jews as guests in our country."
In the same month, the Reich Institute for History of
New Germany announced that "scientific anti-Semitism"
would be made a compulsory subject in all German schools.
The Institute announced that it would "bring scientific
clarity to bear on the racial basis of the solution of such a

tremendous problem as the Jewish question."
In October, Dr. Otto Hirsch, president of the Executive
of the Reichsvertretung der Juden in Deutschland, and Chief
Rabbi Baeck, president of the Reichsvertretung, were
arrested by the Gestapo. Rabbi Baeck, who was released
after twenty-four hours, was arrested for issuing a Yom
Kippur message to German Jewry which, although of a
purely religious nature, contained passages referring to the
Nazi oppression of the Jews. The secret political police
prohibited the reading of the message. Dr. Hirsch was
released a week after his arrest. No charges had been pre-
ferred against him at any time, but it was intimated that
his arrest had been an attempt on the part of Nazi authori-
ties to force the Reichsvertretung to declare its complete
satisfaction with the Nuremberg decrees.
On October 9, the Nazis also arrested Fraulein Edith
Taglicht, daughter of Rabbi Israel Taglicht of Vienna, who
had been visiting Berlin. She was accused of having written
an anti-Nazi article, but this accusation was denied when-
it was pointed out that she had never been interested in
political matters. She was released March 19, 1936. On
December 13th, the political police arrested Dr. Ignatz
Maibaum, rabbi of Frankfort-on-the-Oder, after he had
addressed a Jewish gathering; he was held until January
21, 1936.
In December, the highest bail ever demanded in Germany
was supplied by the Jewish banker, Sigmund Wasserman,
for his release from prison, where he had been held a week
on charges of alleged currency law violations; bail was set
at 1,200,000 marks.
On December 20th, the Gestapo held Rabbi Emil Cohn,
eminent German Jewish writer and scholar. He was accused
of ridiculing the provisions of the Nuremberg laws prohibit-
ing the employment of German servant girls in Jewish
homes. On January 8th, Rabbi Cohn was released from
prison, pending trial.
Segregation of Jewish School Children.—The long-expected

definition of the legal status of the Jews, at the 7th Congress
of the National Socialist Party at Nuremberg in September.
was preceded by a decree issued by Dr. Bernhard Rust,

Minister of Education, which foreshadowed the return of
ghetto conditions in Germany. Dr. Rust ordered com-
pulsory segregation of all non-Aryan pupils in special public
elementary schools, beginning in 1936. All Jewish children
as well as children of non-Jews of Jewish descent were
included in the decree. The text of the decree read in part:
"The establishment of a National Socialist School com-
munity, based on the foundation of the educational ideas
derived from the conception of German nationhood, is only
possible if a clear cut division in accordance with the racial
possible if a clearcut division in accordance with the racial
origin of the children is brought about. I, therefore, intend
to carry out this complete division in accordance with the
racial origin of the children for all pupils in all types of
schools in Germany. The so-called 'quarter-Jews,' whose
one grandparent only is a Jew, I do not intend to include in
the separate schools. A separate Jewish elementary school
is to be established wherever a sufficient number of Jewish
children are to be found in one community or within the
area of one educational district (urban or rural). It will be
necessary, in this case, to put children of different school
ages in one class-room, because, for the establishment of
these separate Jewish schools, 20 school children are to be
considered as a sufficient number."
The Reischsvertretung der Juden in Deutschland, the
all-German Jewish representative body, immediately began
negotiations with the Minister of Education with regard
to the law for the segregation of Jewish children. The
organization demanded that the separate Jewish schools
be maintained by the Government on the basis of national
minority rights. The Judenstaat Zionisten, Revisionist
group led by Dr. Georg Kareski, and the Juedisches Volks-
bund, Berlin Zionists led by Dr. Alfred Klee, repudiated
the negotiations. The Volksbund demanded that the Gov-
ernment assist Jewish emigration, that it assist the develop-
ment of Jewish cultural autonomy in Germany, that it
support Jewish social and religious institutions, and that
it subsidize the Jewish school system.
The practical effect of the decree was to force the Jewish
community to hasten the creation of facilities for the educa-
tion of Jewish children under its own auspices and at its

own cost. Great difficulties were experienced in this process.
By the middle of April 1935, it had been found possible to
arrange for school facilities for only 20,000 of the 44,000
Jewish children of elementary school age. Difficulties were
encountered in obtaining buildings suitable for conversion
into schools, and in training the teachers necessary for a
Jewish school system. The requirement of a minimum of
20 children to open a new school rendered it difficult to
provide for Jewish children in towns where the Jewish
population was small. In recognition of these difficulties,
the authorities agreed to a program of gradual elimination
of Jewish pupils, as rapidly as Jewish schools could be
established.
Nuremberg Laws.—The so-called Nuremberg Laws were
promulgated on September 15, at a special session of the,
Reichstag in Nuremberg during the seventh annual Nazi
Party Congress. Under these laws the Jews of Germany
are deprived of citizenship and of political rights, forbidden
to display the German flag or to employ women of "German
or racially related blood" under forty-five, as servants in
their households, or to marry persons of "German or racially
related blood;" while extra-marital sexual intercourse be-
tween Jews and such persons was declared a crime.
The laws went into effect immediately, with the exception
of the servant law, which went into effect January 15, 1936.
Severe punishment, ranging from one year's imprisonment
upwards, was provided for violators. Marriages prohibited
under the law, which are performed abroad, were declared
invalid. In introducing these measures, Reichsminister
Hermann Goering emphasized that they were "basic and
fundamental." He extolled racial purity, declaring: "It
was God who created racial differences. We can reach
internal freedom only by purity of race. Our women and
girls must be protected by law from the Jewish race."
The new legislation was presented to the Reichstag after
Hitler had delivered a bitter attack on "insolent Jewish
provocations" and a warning that worse would befall the
Jews if their opposition to the Hitler regime continued.
Characteristically attacking the supposed link between
Jews and Marxists, he made it clear that those hoping for

moderation in his anti-Jewish policy would be disappointed.
On September 20, an official interpretation of the Nurem-
berg laws was issued by the Nazi Party. "The Jew in
Germany," the declaration pointed out, "is merely a guest
like any other non-Jewish alien. He is, however, a guest
in a special sense, because he has no territory of his own.
He is, thus, numerically a member of a minority, but not
a minority in the national sense of the word, because while
other national minorities enjoy equal rights, Jews are
excluded from the enjoyment of such rights and are subject,
at the same time, to the laws regulating the status of
aliens."
Following the Nuremberg decrees, the Reichsvertretung
der Juden formulated a program for German Jews in an
attempt to create the "tolerable" relations between Ger-
mans and Jews to which Hitler had referred. The demands
were (1) that the defamation of Jews be stopped, (2) that
the boycott of Jewish enterprises be discontinued, (3) that
the Government recognize the autonomy of Jewish cultural
and religious rights within Germany, (4) that the Reich-
svertretung be recognized by the Government as a Jewish
autonomous organ. In turn, the organization took upon
itself the obligation (1) to supervise education of Jewish
youth with a view to eventual emigration to Palestine, (2)
to plan and organize such emigration, (3) to maintain and
support Jewish social and religious institutions, (4) to render
assistance to needy Jews. The program was supported by
Herr Heinrich Stahl, president of the Berlin Jewish com-
munity, but the Zionist Federation of Germany demanded
"an equal share in the leadership of the Jewish people in
Germany, which alone will make it possible for the con-
structive work contained in the program of the Reichsver-
tretung to be carried out satisfactorily." In March, the
Reichsvertretung and the Union of Independent Orthodox
Jews in Germany reached an agreement whereunder the
Reichsvertretung would act on behalf of the Union in all
official business, while the Union retained its independence
of action in religious and cultural affairs.
The new law against intermarriage precipitated a series
of arrests of Jews married to "Aryans." Stiff sentences
were given defendants accused of "Rassenschande" (race

defilement), and many cases were reported of Jews receiving
long terms of imprisonment for kissing "Aryan" girls, even
though the girls themselves consented. In March, however,
the German Federal Court ruled that marriages between
Jews and non-Jews contracted before the promulgation of
the Nuremberg laws were still valid.
The passage of the Nuremberg Laws resulted in the
cancellation of all exemptions from the "Aryan paragraph"
in previous laws, which had applied to Jews who were front-
fighters in the World War or were the children of front-
fighters who had been killed in the War. As a result Jews
who, under these exemptions, had remained in public office,
were automatically dropped. In March, Deutsche Justiz,
official organ of the Ministry of Justice, announced that
763 Jewish notaries, who had not been barred under the
"Aryan paragraph," had lost their posts as a result of the
Nuremberg laws. On October 22, Professor Issai Schur,
the last Jewish professor holding an appointment at a
German university, resigned from the faculty of the Univer-
sity of Berlin. It was reported that the "purging" of the
German school system of Jewish professors and their
assistants had resulted in an actual shortage of teachers at
German universities and colleges.
On November 15, decrees giving detailed regulations for
the execution of the Nuremberg laws were published. Fur-
ther details of the Reich Citizenship Law, were announced
on December 3, by State Secretary Otto Stuckardt. Jews
were no longer to be considered citizens of Germany, and
were forbidden to hold such public offices as judge, notary,
public auctioneer or juror; the practice of medicine and that
of law were not placed in the category of public office. In
the meantime, however, the Labor Court at Magdeburg
had ruled on July 5, 1935, that permission for Jewish lawyers
to defend Jewish clients had been a temporary expedient
and was not to be continued. And, in September, the Nazi
Party Legal Department had forbidden Nazi lawyers from
representing Jewish clients against Germans, explaining
that "it is not honorable to defend those who have brought
misfortune to the German people." This action was sup-
ported by the German Federal Chamber of Jurists, which

issued a similar order.
In December, it was reported that the executory decrees
for the Nuremberg laws, concerning maids in Jewish house-
holds had worked such great hardship on some 50,000
"Aryan" servant girls, that many of them had appealed
to the authorities for persmission to retain their positions,
and the law was modified to allow them to remain in Jewish
households where there were no males over sixteen years
of age. Most of the girls were forced to join the unemployed,
and several special Labor Camps were created for those in
dire need. On December 31, the Government issued a sup-
plementary order prohibiting "Aryan" girls from working
as typists or secretaries for Jewish employers.
Other Anti-Jewish Edicts.—In December, the Government
prohibited the importation of kosher meat by German Jews
from neighboring countries. Since the slaughtering of
animals in accordance with Jewish religious practice had
long been prohibited by the Nazis, Orthodox Jews found
themselves forced to go on a meatless diet.
On December 13, the German Cabinet adopted a new
series of anti-Jewish laws introducing further restrictions for
Jews in medical, legal and other professions. Jewish lawyers
were forbidden to act in any professional capacity. No
Jews may be graduated as doctors from German universities.
On December 26, the Ministry of the Interior issued an
administrative order to the police authorities, not to renew
the permits of the 30,000 Jewish commercial travellers in
the Reich, on the ground that "Jews are no longer politically
reliable."
On January 21, 1936, an order eliminating Jewish account-
ants from German business life was issued by the Ministry
of Finance. About 500 licensed Jewish accountants lost their
positions on the ground that only "reliable elements" of
the population may act as comptrollers in matters con-
cerning taxes. In February, the Nuremberg laws were
extended, by interpretation, to forbid German physicians
from consulting, and German lawyers from sharing offices
with, their Jewish colleagues.
On F e b r u a r y 14, a judgment of the Higher Labor C o u r t

in Berlin extended the Nuremberg laws to t h e field of
private enterprises. In ruling t h a t the fact t h a t an employe
was a Jew was sufficient cause for his dismissal from an
" A r y a n " firm, the Court declared t h a t the " N u r e m b e r g
law which prohibits 'Aryan' girls from serving in Jewish
homes, as well as the recent order prohibiting 'Aryan' law-
yers from sharing offices with Jewish lawyers, definitely
show t h a t the political developments tend to prevent Jews
and non-Jews from working together even in commercial
enterprises." T h e ruling was expected to lead to the dismis-
sal of Jewish employes in private enterprises regardless of
their length of employment or their competence, and with-
out exception being made for wounded war veterans.
On March 29, a Government order revealed t h a t although
Jews are not admitted into the German A r m y in time of
peace, they would be drafted in time of war. T h e y were
classified under existing military regulations as belonging
to "Military Reserve Unit No. 2 . " T w o d a y s later, the
Government issued an order prohibiting Jews of military
age from emigrating without obtaining special emigration
permits from both the military and the civil authorities.
At the same time, permission was given Jewish World War
veterans to leave the country, after the Jewish W a r Veterans'
Association had notified the Government t h a t t h e Jewish
Ex-servicemen's League of England had offered to aid
German Jewish veterans in leaving the Reich.
On March 31, new anti-Jewish measures were announced,
prohibiting Jews from leasing drug stores, ousting Jewish
pharmacists from the druggists' associations and providing
t h a t when a Jewish druggist with a p e r m a n e n t license dies,
his widow must lease his license to an " A r y a n . "
On April 8, an order issued b y the Ministry of t h e Interior
provided t h a t the results of the Reichstag elections be used
as a racial census to establish the racial purity of German
citizens in the future. T h u s , all Germans unable to prove
t h a t they voted on March 29, 1936, were t o be considered
Jews. This simplified the complicated Nazi machinery for
investigating racial descent, and rendered family records
dating back to 1800 unnecessary.
Economic Persecution.—Spurred on by the Nuremberg

Laws, the campaign to deprive Jews of food spread from
the provincial cities to Berlin itself during the month of
September. Jewish grocery stores met with refusals by the
wholesale dealers and cooperative organizations when they
attempted to replenish their stock of foodstuffs such as
butter and eggs, of which there was an acute shortage. It
was established that such a starvation campaign was being
carried on in more than 70 German cities and towns. In
some places hotels and barber shops refused to give Jews
any service whatever. In many cities the Mayors ordered
the names of "Aryans" dealing with Jews to be struck off
the public relief rolls, and forbade Jews to buy real estate
or sell food from carts. In September, the gas and electric
association of the city of Mayence cut off service to all
Jewish homes and shops "in accordance with the spirit of
the Reichstag citizenship law." This action was imitated
by many other German cities.
In the same month, drafts of a new law, prohibiting Jews
from acquiring real estate and regulating the status of
Jewish landlords, were completed by the Association of
National Socialist Jurists together with the Legal Depart-
ment of the Nazi Party. On October 2, the National Socialist
economic organ, Wirtschaftsdienst, issued an order to the
effect that "Aryan" firms may accept credit from Jewish
banks, but that German banks must refuse credit to Jews.
In October, the mayors of many cities announced that
"Aryans" maintaining commercial or social relations with
Jews would be deprived of their "municipal citizenship
rights." In the same month, Dr. Wilhelm Frick, Minister
of the Interior, announced that the Government was plan-
ning economic measures against the Jews. Many Jewish
firms immediately began negotiations for selling out their
interests to "Aryans," before the new laws could be put
into force, in order to prevent further drastic depreciation
of their holdings.
In October, also, agents of the Gestapo (Geheime Staata-
polizei) began a house to house canvass in the course of
which they demanded accounts from individual Jews of
money received by them for the transfer of their properties
and businesses to "Aryans." These "sudden visits" of the
secret police agents were part of a new Nazi policy to force

Jews to sell their businesses and property to "Aryans" and
to compel them to keep the proceeds within Germany. The
rapid liquidation of Jewish property in Germany assumed
such large proportions that it began to affect the Berlin
Stock Exchange. Not only were the Jews forced to dispose
of their real estate, but also of securities they had held for
many years. This sudden flood of sales caused a marked
decline in the values of many industrial stocks. This new
development caused increasing concern in German business
circles, and foreign diplomats in Berlin were reported as
expressing the opinion that the anti-Jewish economic policy
in Germany was not one of liquidation of the Jews,* but
rather of liquidation of Jewish property. In several cases,
Jews who refused to sell out to "Aryans" were arrested
several times until they were forced to agree to the sale of
their property. German shares in almost every branch of
industry dropped markedly on the Berlin Stock Exchange
in November, as a result of the flood of shares offered by
Jews seeking to realize on their investments before the
promulgation of decrees for the execution of the Nuremberg
laws, which they feared would mean the practical confisca-
tion of their capital. The situation became so grave that the
Executive Board of the Berlin Stock Exchange was forced,
on November 13, to appeal to members not to encourage
further sales of stocks.
In the same month, the drive against Jewish bakeries,
grocery stores and butcher shops, based on alleged non-
compliance with the sanitary regulations, resulted in
numerous arrests throughout the country and the closing
of many Jewish enterprises. On November 21, Jewish
"sworn brokers" were forbidden to retain their seats and
membership in the Berlin Stock Exchange. About 80 Jews
were expelled from the Bourses throughout the country.
Dr. Friedrich Sahm, chief burgomaster of Berlin, was
removed from office because he and his wife had patronized
Jewish stores.
In December, the police were officially informed that
they were at liberty to arrest, without warrant, any Jews
and "Aryan" women seen together, and also "Aryans"
selling real estate to Jews. Every policeman was permitted
REVIEW OF THE YEAR S696 315
to act according to his own discretion, "in the spirit of
the Nazi will."
Attempts made by Minister of Economics Hjalmar
Schacht to mitigate the anti-Jewish campaign in the Reich
were unsuccessful. On January 31, 1936, Julius Streicher
gave members of the Nazi Party in Franconia instructions
to ignore Dr. Schacht's orders not to molest Jews in com-
merce. The process of forcing Jews to sell their enterprises
to "Aryans" continued unabated, and almost every day the
press reported the transfer of large firms from Jewish to
non-Jewish hands.
In February, Der Stuermer reported that Jewish passengers
on German liners are kept under close surveillance and their
mail traced thoroughly. On February 16, it was announced
that the N. S. Hago (National Socialist Trading and Indus-
trial Organization), which had been very active in conduct-
ing the anti-Jewish boycott in the early days of the Hitler
regime, was to be revived. The silent economic drive against
the Jews seemed, in fact, to take on new life during February.
This was influenced in large part by the Gustloff assassina-
tion in Switzerland and also by the fact that the winter
Olympic Games, which opened in Garmisch-Partenkirchen
on February 6, ended on February 16, and there was no
longer so much need to impress foreign visitors with the
alleged falsity of Jew-baiting reports in the foreign press.
The Labor Front ordered its members to stop all dealings
with Jewish enterprises, making the boycott against Jews
inclusive of all Germans. On March 25, German writers who
had voluntarily exiled themselves, were deprived of their
nationality and their property confiscated.
On the eve of the Reichstag elections of March 29, Der
Stuermer displays in Germany, which had been erected two
years previously, carrying anti-Jewish propaganda into
every corner of the country, were suddenly removed and
replaced by large sign-boards inscribed: "Our Desire is
Peace." At the time of the Winter Olympic Games, Hitler
had rejected the proposal that these displays be removed.
While there was little anti-Jewish propaganda during the
election campaign, many posters accusing Jews of prevent-
ing Germany from making peace with the world were dis-
played. The German Jews were, under the Nuremberg
laws, forbidden to vote in the elections. The press campaign

against the Jews was renewed shortly after the elections
ended, and Nazi organs once more carried on their daily-
attacks.
In April, Jewish owners of large stores, whose business
had already been crippled by the anti-Jewish boycott, were
notified by local Nazi authorities that they could not
liquidate their enterprises, since such action would adversely
affect "Aryan" employes and increase unemployment. An
indication of the serious position in which Jewish business
men found themselves was contained in an official report
showing that, during the month of March 1936, an average
of 170 Jews, most of them merchants, daily applied to
Jewish emigration societies for advice. At the same time,
the Reichs Union of German Trade Associations issued an
order instructing members not to sever commercial relations
with Jews and not to expel them from the organization,
declaring that such action would "adversely affect German
economic interest, and is against the wishes of the Reich
Government." And yet, a few days later, officers and
privates of the Reichswehr were instructed not to patronize
Jewish enterprises, and the celebration of Adolf Hitler's
forty-seventh birthday, on April 20, was accompanied by
the renewal of the anti-Jewish boycott campaign under a
nation-wide slogan: "German money for the German
trader." This campaign was now directed specifically against
Jewish retailers in all branches of commerce. The provincial
press called on Germans "to prevent the further activities
of profit-making Jews," and to remember that the aim of
the Nazi Party is to eliminate Jews entirely from Germany's
commercial life.
As a result of continued pressure on Jewish businessmen
in the provinces, aimed at forcing them to turn their con-
cerns over to "Aryans," the Berlin Central Bureau for
Jewish Economic Relief was compelled, in April, to organize
a bureau of economic advisers to cover the country, assisting
Jews forced to sell their holdings against their will. The two
agencies chiefly responsible for the drive to force Jews out
of commerce have been the German Labor Front and the
Reichsnaehrstand, the Government department regulating
food distribution. These two organizations, together with
Nazi district leaders, acted in complete disregard of the

fact that neither the "Aryan paragraph" nor the Nuremberg
anti-Jewish laws had yet been extended to apply to Jews
in commerce. The new bureau took upon itself the difficult
duty of sending representatives to challenge illegal actions
of provincial Nazi leaders against business enterprises of
Jews.
The Olympic Games.—Despite official promises that there
would be no discrimination against German Jewish athletes
eligible for the Olympic Games in 1936, a series of actions
succeeded in squeezing out many Jewish athletes. On July
27, 1935, a large Jewish sports club in Berlin was closed
down by the authorities, and Jewish athletes were barred
from training elsewhere. On August 5, Greta Bergmann,
high-jump champion, was barred from taking part in the
try-outs for the 1936 Olympiade.
Reports from America and elsewhere that demands would
be made for the shifting of the Games from Berlin created
perturbation in official Nazi circles. On August 11, a Gov-
ernment statement was given out, insisting that the pledge
against Jewish discrimination would be kept. On September
30, in order to allay foreign public opinion, Hans von
Tschammer und Osten, the Reichs Commissar for Sports,
announced that he had invited Helene Mayer and Greta
Bergmann, Jewesses, to represent Germany in the Olympics.
On the other hand an official order, issued October 4,
forbade participants in the approaching Olympics, as well
as foreign guests, from lodging in the houses of Jews. Pros-
pective hostesses were required to attend courses of instruc-
tion on methods of carrying on Nazi propaganda among
their guests.
In October, reports began to appear in the European
press to the effect that a Jewish youth named Edmund
Baumgartner, who had attended a football game in spite
of the prohibition of Jews, had been set upon and killed.
According to some reports the scene of the alleged outrage
had been Ratibor in Upper Silesia; other reports placed it
at Breslau. The Nazi News Service issued a strong denial
of the story. Investigators expressed the opinion that the
report had been invented by the Nazi Propaganda Depart-

ment, so that if it were used in connection with foreign
agitation against the Berlin Olympics, it would be truthfully
refuted and cited as an instance of the spreading of foreign
"atrocity" propaganda.
The Winter Olympics opened at Garmisch-Partenkirchen
on February 16. It was revealed that Rudi Ball, German
Jewish hockey star, would play on the German team, but
the press reported that he was participating against his will.
The anti-Jewish campaign abated during the Winter
Olympics, because the Nazi regime desired to create a
favorable impression upon the thousands of foreign visitors.
Even the assassination of Dr. Wilhelm Gustloff in Switzer-
land by a Jew was not exploited, in the interests of the
Games' success. On February 6, secret instructions were
issued to the entire German press not to print any reports
concerning anti-Jewish disturbances and not to publish
any court decisions in cases of anti-Jewish attacks. Many
of the villages in the vicinity of Garmisch-Partenkirchen,
however, failed to remove signs bearing anti-Jewish slogans,
and some foreign visitors were shocked at the crudities
of many such signs.
In preparation for the summer 1936 games, the last of
the red-painted signs announcing that "Jews Are Our Mis-
fortune—Whoever Buys From Jews is a Traitor" were
removed April 8, from all public places in Berlin. In the
same month, in order to counteract charges of discrimination
against Jewish sportsmen, Nazi authorities issued an order
declaring that expulsion of Jews from German sports organ-
izations contravenes existing law; the order granted sports
leaders the right to "reject application for membership on
the ground of unfitness, but lack of 'Aryan' qualifications
is not to be given as ground for rejection." The order, how-
ever, was seen as mere window-dressing for the approaching
Olympics, since practically all Jews had long since been
expelled from German sports groups, and the order did not
state that they should be readmitted. At the beginning of
June, the Judenkenner, notorious anti-Jewish sheet, sus-
pended publication until the conclusion of the Olympic
Games in August.
Jews in the Saar Region.—Although the provisions of the

Franco-German agreement of January 13, 1935, required
that minority rights be respected by the German Govern-
ment for a period of one year, Joseph Buerckel, Nazi Com-
missar for the Saar region, announced on December 15, that
"not a single Jew will be left in the Saar by next March."
In violation of the agreement, the Nazi anti-Jewish restric-
tions had been completely applied to the Jews in the Saar
long before the year of grace ended. More than 2,000 Jews
residing in the Saar made last-minute preparations to leave
the district before the expiration of the one-year period in
which they were permitted to take their capital out of the
Reich. Herr Josef Buerckel, Nazi Commissar for the Saar,
announced that the Nuremberg and other anti-Jewish laws
which, under the Franco-German agreement, had not been
applicable to the Jews in the district, would be introduced
in the Saarland on March 1, 1936. By the end of February,
the exodus of Jews from the Saar was completed. Of the
4,800 Jews who resided there before the region was returned
to Germany, only about 500 remained after March 1. These
people were forced to remain because the French authorities
refused to give them residential and labor permits allowing
them to settle on French soil. In April, Dr. Oscar Schloss,
a Jewish lawyer, was appointed State Commissar for Jewish
religious affairs in the Saar. Dr. Schloss, who was unknown
in Berlin Jewish circles, was given control of synagogues
and Jewish religious communities in the district, under
instructions of the Nazi authorities and with direct respon-
sibility to the Section for Religious and Educational Affairs
of the Reich Commissariat for the Saar.
Maltreatment of Foreign Jews.—In October 1935, the case

of Rudolf Selz, British subject of German-Jewish origin,
arrested by the Nazis under the law "for the protection of
German blood and honor," became an international incident
when the British Government decided to test the measure
of protection afforded foreign citizens under the new anti-
Jewish Nuremberg laws. It was feared that the German
Government would use the case as a precedent for separat-f
ing foreigners into two classes—"Aryan" and "non-Aryan.'
Released after several days under arrest for alleged "Ras-

senschande," only to be rearrested pending inquiry, Selz
was again freed in Munich on October 29, and deported
as an "undesirable alien." The charge of violating the
Nuremberg laws was not pressed against him.
On November 1, the Government announced that the
Nuremberg laws are applicable to foreign as well as to
German Jews. An Altona court prepared to try a Polish
Jew on charge of violating the law "for the protection of
German blood and German honor." The Polish Embassy
announced that it would not interfere "because the case
is not a political matter." It was later revealed that the
defendant was not a Polish citizen but was "staatenlose."
In sentencing the defendant to nine months' imprisonment,
the Court declared that the Nuremberg laws "are intended
not only for German Jews, but also for Jews of foreign
citizenship."
In Warsaw a delegation, consisting of the Presidium of the
United Jewish Committee for German Refugees, presented
a memorandum on the discriminatory treatment of Polish
Jews in Germany, in connection with the Nuremberg laws,
to Dr. Adamkiewicz, Polish representative of the High
Commissariat for German Refugees and Head of the Legal
Department of the Polish Foreign Office. They were told
that the Polish Government was watching the situation
and that the German Government had agreed not to apply
its laws to Polish citizens, if they were willing to leave the
country.
A few days after the German-Polish trade agreement
came into force in November, the German authorities
launched a new campaign against Polish Jews in Germany,
with the aim of driving them out of business and employ-
ment. Hundreds of Jewish citizens of Poland sought protec-
tion from the Polish Consulate. A similar campaign against
Czechoslovak Jews brought a sharp reminder from the
Czech Legation that retaliation against German businesses
in Czechoslovakia would be carried out.
On December 6, the Nazi Labor Department rejected
the intervention of the Polish Consulate on behalf of several
hundred Polish Jews whose labor permits had been revoked.
Jewish tradesmen had been deprived of their livelihood
despite their Polish citizenship, and the Nazi officials were

reported to have declared to Polish consular officials that
"in Poland Jews are treated in a similar way." On December
10, local German authorities began ordering Polish Jews
to leave the country. Polish diplomatic representatives
failed to take energetic measures and their indecisions
encouraged the Nazi authorities to continue the deportations.
On January 9, 1936, the Secret Police entered the apart-
ment of Boris Smolar, chief European correspondent of
the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, searched his papers, and
confiscated his passport. The next day the police returned
his passport with apologies. In the same month, an unnamed
Central European Government was reported to have warned
Germany that international action would be taken against
her if she continued to force Jews of foreign nationality to
liquidate their businesses in the Reich, along the same lines
as German Jews. On January 28, the German authorities
rejected the intervention of the Czechoslovak Legation in
behalf of Rudolph Saudek, well-known Jewish sculptor of
Czech citizenship. The Legation had demanded that he be
permitted to carry on his art work in Germany, and that he
be granted a permit to -engrave tombstones for Jewish
cemeteries. This the German Government refused to allow,
since Jews are not permitted to do any work associated
with art. The Czech request was rejected "because Czecho-
slovakian Jewish citizens in the Reich are not treated any
differently from the German Jews."
In February, Dr. Kurt Blumenfeld, former president of
the German Zionist Federation, who had become a Palestine
citizen, was compelled to leave Germany when the authori-
ties declined to extend his leave to remain in the country.
It was reported that instructions had been issued to German
consular authorities in Palestine not to grant any visas to
Jews holding Palestine passports who wished to visit
Germany. These instructions made it difficult for the Zionist
Organization in Germany to continue its work of training
youths for Palestine settlements and its migration activities,
which had been conducted by instructors from Palestine.
In March, the Dutch Government concluded an agree-
ment with the German Government regarding the repatria-
tion of Dutch Jews residing in Germany. More than 100
Jewish families of D u t c h nationality had applied to the

Dutch consulates to assist them to transfer their capital to
Holland. I t was reported t h a t each Jewish family would
be allowed to transfer between 15,000 and 20,000 marks,
provided they could, prove t h a t they are no longer able to
do business in Germany and t h a t they need the money to
s t a r t a new business in Holland.
In the same month, the Gestapo threatened Jews who
left Germany after Hitler's accession to power, with arrest
if they a t t e m p t e d to return for the Passover holidays of
1936. T h e Jewish C o m m u n i t y of Berlin was advised b y the
authorities to inform refugees of this decision. Another
Gestapo order directed Jewish organizations desiring to
bring Jewish leaders from abroad to advise with t h e m or
otherwise help in their work, to secure Gestapo permits
for t h e m first, lest the visitors be deported as undesirable
aliens.
In April, the Polish consulate in Berlin asked Polish
Jewish realty owners residing in Germany to register their
holdings as the first step in negotiations between Poland
and the Reich for a transfer project permitting a number
of Polish Jews to remove their capital to Poland. Consular
officials explained that, in negotiating for p a y m e n t of an
old debt to Germany, the Polish Government would a t t e m p t
to arrange p a y m e n t in a manner permitting Polish Jewish
nationals to liquidate their property in the Reich.
Reactions to Events Abroad.—In September 1935, the

German press abusively attacked Magistrate Louis B.
Brodsky of New York City for his decision in the S. S.
Bremen incident, in which he characterized the swastika
as a "pirate flag," and freed five of the six demonstrators
arrested. On September 8 a special protest meeting of
lawyers was held in Berlin, at which Dr. Hans Frank,
president of the Academy for German Law, attacked "the
Jew Brodsky" and protested against the "unheard of
vilification, in the name of German justice." Nazi anger
over the incident was appeased by the verbal expression of
regret by American Secretary of State Cordell Hull. Hitler
attacked Magistrate Brodsky's decision in his speech at
Nuremberg. General Goering also referred to the decision,
declaring: "This impertinent Jew, in his hatred towards us.
cannot insult us. I only regret that the American nation
was compelled to witness the desecration of our flag."
The immediate reaction in Germany to the assassination
of Dr. Wilhelm Gustloff by a Jew in Switzerland, resulted
in an order by Dr. Josef Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda,
prohibiting the Jewish Culture League to conduct any
activities "until further notice, in order to prevent anti-
Jewish disturbances as a result of the assassination." The
ban was lifted March 4. Since the Winter Olympic Games
were due to open on February 6, at Garmisch-Partenkirchen,
it was understood that no anti-Jewish acts could take place
in the Reich, lest such acts would antagonize the thousands
of foreign visitors. The Nazi press, however, launched a
vigorous anti-Jewish campaign, blaming all Jews for the
assassination of Dr. Gustloff. On February 6, the Central
Union of Jews in Germany issued a statement strongly con-
demning the assassination. A strong anti-Jewish tone
marked the memorial meetings for Dr. Gustloff. On February
10, as the funeral cortege passed through German cities,
fiery anti-Jewish speeches were delivered by Nazi officials
along the way, but no disturbances took place. Delivering
the funeral oration at Schwerin, Adolph Hitler openly
threatened Jews with reprisals and accused them of having
' murdered countless Nazis in Germany. On the other hand,
he declared, "on the way to National Socialism there is
not to be found the grave of a single man murdered by us."
This statement was denounced and ridiculed by the foreign
press. Meanwhile, Chancellor Hitler's overt threat threw
German Jewry into panic. Jews throughout Germany feared
drastic action after the conclusion of the Olympic Winter
Games and the departure of foreign visitors. On February
14, the Executive Board of the Berlin Jewish Community
instructed all synagogues in the Reich to include in their
Sabbath services a condemnation of the murder of Dr.
Gustloff as being "in contradiction to the teachings of the
Jewish religion and the ethics of the Jewish people."
Jewish Communal Life.—In July'1935, it was announced

that the number of shekel (certificate) holders in Germany
had reached a total of 100,863, four times as large as the
number participating in the seventeenth Zionist Congress

in 1931. The Zionist delegation was undecided as to par-
ticipation in the nineteenth Zionist Congress at Lucerne.
They considered the sending of a memorandum to the Nazi
authorities asking permission to attend the Congress, and
agreed to walk our of the convention hall in a body if the
German Government would be attacked.
In August, the conflict between the Zionists and the non-
Zionist liberal Jews in the Berlin Jewish community
administration, over leadership of the community and
control of its affairs, was settled by an agreement, under
which the Liberals retained a majority in the community
council, while the Zionists were given control of a number
of administrative departments. In November, another
agreement gave the Zionists 50% representation in the
Executive of the Berlin Jewish Community and all its
departments. This ended the long-lasting controversy
which had threatened to disrupt the Berlin Jewish Com-
munity.
On December 6, Georg Kareski, president of the State
Zionist Party in Germany and member of the Executive
of the Berlin Jewish Community, was appointed by the
German Government, Reichspresident of the Federation
of Jewish Cultural Societies, in charge of the entire cultural
life of the Jews in Germany. The appointment which w a s '
made by Special Commissioner Hans Hinkel, empowered
Herr Kareski "to decide upon the entire cultural work con-
ducted by the Kulturbund and its affiliated organizations,"
although artistic activities remained under the direction of
Dr. Singer. Herr Kareski's appointment aroused much
indignation in the Jewish community. In an interview
published in Der Angriff, official organ of the Propaganda
Ministry, on December 23, Herr Kareski attempted to
justify many of the Nazi policies towards the Jews. In
April 1936, the Jewish Culture League in Berlin was ordered
by the authorities to dismiss all Jewish artists and musicians
who were not German-born. More than 100 Jewish families
were thus ousted from employment in the theatre and
orchestras maintained by the League.
On August 25, the Ministry of Propaganda and Enlighten-
ment, in agreement with the German Secret Police, appointed
Dr. Kurt Singer as director, and Dr. Werner Levie as
Secretary General, of the League of Jewish Cultural Asso-
ciations. All Jewish artistic and cultural organizations,
except religious schools and communal bodies, were ordered
to affiliate with the League by September 15th. The organ-
izations must submit their programs to the League monthly,
and must also submit regular reports of membership. In
September, Hans Hinkel, Special Commissioner for Jewish
Cultural Affairs, announced that the League had a member-
ship of 180,000.
German Jews were excluded from the Nazi winter relief,
in violation of Hitlers' previous promise that "everybody
is to enjoy winter relief in the Reich." On October 9, the
Reichsvertretung submitted a plan to the Government
under which the Jews were to conduct their own campaign
for winter relief. The campaign was officially approved.
More than 75,000 Jews were the recipients of relief. At the
same time, Jewish firms were ordered to contribute to the
general winter relief, and forbidden to assist the special
Jewish relief campaign. Individuals were permitted to
contribute to the Jewish drive, but business firms were
refused permission "since they enjoy the benefit of being
patronized by 'Aryans'." Official data based on the records
of Jewish relief organizations, made public April 26, revealed
that one out of every five Jews in Germany was dependent
on relief. The number of relief recipients was believed to
have grown after the winter relief campaign ended.
In April, 1936, it was reported that more than 75,000
Jews throughout Germany, including 25,000 in Berlin,
received free matzoth from the Jewish communities during
the Passover holidays. This was by far the greatest number
of applicants for Passover relief in the history of Germany.
In Berlin, the police authorities set special police to guard
the synagogues during the Passover services, to prevent
anti-Jewish provocations. Gestapo agents attended all
services, and made notes on the Passover sermons. Herr
Heinrich Stahl, president of the Berlin Jewish Community,
issued a Passover proclamation appealing for unity in the
ranks of German Jewish leadership. For the first time in a
century Passover communal services were not held in a
number of small towns throughout Germany, because the
sharp decrease in the Jewish population of the small towns

had made it impossible to find the necessary minyan.
In October, the Central Union of German Citizens of
Jewish Faith (Central Verein deutscher Staatsbuerger
juedischen Glaubens) changed its name to the Central
Union of the Jews in Germany (Central Verein der Juden
in Deutschland). The organization amended its statement
of purposes to the fostering of Jewish life and the promotion
of the spiritual, legal, and economic welfare of the Jews
resident in Germany; Dr. Julius Brodnitz was elected
president.
In November, the Government dissolved the Verband
der deutschnational Juden, the Union of German National-
ist Jews which, led by Dr. Max Naumann, has been com-
posed of a small group of Jews who had insisted that, as
German nationals they did not deserve the same treatment
as other Jews.
On January 15, 1936, the Executive of the German Zionist
Federation issued a manifesto demanding national autonomy
for German Jews, so that "they should settle their own
affairs in the Reich independently as a solid national group
or as a solid national unit," and asking that the Federation
be recognized "as the only instrument to conduct exclusively
the work of nationalization of German Jewry." This
indirectly defied the appointment of Georg Kareski as
virtual dictator of German Jewry's cultural affairs. In
February, at its Twenty-fifth Annual Conference, the
Federation asserted that "the Jews in Germany, especially
the youth, see themselves completely dependent now on
emigration," and pleaded with Great Britain, as the Man-
datory Power, to keep the gates of Palestine open. Its
resolution declared that "thousands of trained Halutzim
in Germany are awaiting the opening of the Palestine gates
as well as thousands of German Jewish families who possess
sufficient capital and economic experience." Other resolu-
tions stated that "the German Zionists recognize the neces-
sity for Jewish emigration from Germany to other countries
outside Palestine"; expressed hope that the Anglo-Jewish
mission to the United States would be successful, demanded
that supervision of the transfer agreement by the Jewish
Agency be extended to countries outside Palestine, and
urged that no Zionist member accept a position in a Jewish

community or any other Jewish institution without the
consent of the Zionist administration in Berlin.
In February, the Zionist demand for recognition as
representing the whole of German Jewry was attacked by
Der Israelit, organ of the Orthodox Jews of Germany.
In February, the Jewish Familienschutz Organization,
caring for aged German Jews, carried into effect a project
to prevent the dissipation of Jewish capital tied up in
Germany and provide for the older generation of German
Jews who must remain behind in the Reich. Working under
the control of the central Jewish organizations of Germany,
the Familienschutz undertakes, in exchange for capital
transferred to it, to make regular weekly payments to
beneficiaries, based on an actuarial scale. On the death of
the beneficiary, whatever remains of the capital deposited
becomes the property of the organization, to be used for
its other work.
Since 25,000 Jewish children were to be excluded from
the German school system by Easter, 1936, Jewish leaders
laid plans in February, for raising funds for, and organiz-
ing, the new "ghetto school system." A five-month special
course was set up for training teachers in these schools,
since there was a shortage of teachers. Since Jews were not
permitted to lease State- or municipal-owned buildings, the
Jewish communities were faced with the problem of finding
school sites.
On April 5, it was announced in Berlin that the Hilfsverein
der Juden in Deutschland had completed plans for the
settlement of 12,000 Jews annually in countries other than
Palestine, and was submitting the project to the Council
for German Jewry, with headquarters in London. The cost
of transferring these refugees to new homes, and of establish-
ing them on a solid basis there, was estimated at $1,000,000.
In addition, the plan required the setting up of a revolving
fund of $500,000 for initial credits for the settlers, to be
repaid by them within a year. On May 7, at the annual
meeting of the Hilfsverein, Max Warburg, its president,
announced that the Hilfsverein's future activities would
be concentrated on emigration to overseas countries. Mr.
Warburg attacked "the wild emigration projects of the
past year," and suggested that German Jewish emigration

be regarded as part of the general Jewish migration from
Eastern and Central Europe. He announced that the
Hilfsverein was forming specialized groups of emigrants
and was carefully selecting emigrants for the colonies of
the Jewish Colonization Association in the Argentine;
advocated that allotment of funds, raised for German Jews,
be made on the basis of loans, instead of as gifts; and sug-
gested the creation of a financial organization to regulate
the issuance of such loans.
Basing its action on a law enacted on July 23, 1847, the
Berlin Jewish Community announced, on April 10, new
regulations governing the admission of "non-Aryans" to
membership in the Jewish communities of Germany, in
accordance with the Nuremberg laws defining their status.
The new regulations provided that the following may be
accepted into the community: (1) children of legally mar-
ried Jewish parents; (2) illegitimate children of unmarried
Jewesses; (3) children of Jewish fathers in mixed marriages;
(4) anyone formally adopted by a Jewish religious com-
munity.
A report presented on April 19, to the Council of the
Association of Jewish Communities in Prussia, representing
800 Jewish communities, declared that the number of Jews
in Germany had dwindled to 445,000. The report stated
that of the 800 Jewish communities which the Association
embraces, 370 were on the verge of collapse and were
depending on Jewish subsidies from Berlin, and that many
synagogues had been sold because the Jewish population
was practically compelled, by the anti-Jewish boycott and
other measures, to leave towns in which these synagogues
were located.
POLAND
The wave of anti-Jewish agitation, accompanied fre-
quently by physical attacks, was the most characteristic
aspect of reports of events of Jewish interest in Poland
during the period under review. This agitation and the
excesses pushed into the background all other phases of
Jewish life, because the Jewish community was so preoc-
cupied with resisting, and protesting against them, that it
appears to have had but little time for attention to other

matters.
In connection with the anti-Jewish excesses several points
deserve emphasis: the laxity of local authorities in prevent-
ing excesses despite warnings; their half-hearted and
perfunctory efforts to quell riots' after they broke out; the
leniency of the courts in punishing the non-Jewish offenders
and their severity in punishing Jews who had, in defending
themselves, killed or injured their assailants; the inclination
and, at the same time, lack of power of the central author-
ities to maintain order; and a growing, though still inef-
fectual, opposition to the pogrom tactics of the National
Democrats (Endeks) and their sympathizers and dupes.
In the meantime, events in Germany appear to have
inspired some Polish political leaders to espouse a policy of
encouraging the emigration of Jews from Poland, as a
short-cut to the solution of the vexatious Jewish problem.
The development of this policy will bear watching, for there
is only a short step between encouragement and compulsion,
which is likely to take the form of tacit condonation of, if
not direct participation in, persecution.
Anti-Jewish Student Excesses.—The anti-Jewish excesses,

during the year, began in Polish colleges. On November 9,
1935, Endek students at the University of Warsaw attacked
and injured Jewish students; several were arrested. The
Socialist students at the University issued an appeal against
the spreading of anti-Jewish propaganda. Rioting also
broke out in the Universities of Lemberg and Cracow. All
the higher educational institutions in Warsaw were closed
down temporarily in November. In that month, a repre-
sentative of the Ministry of Education conferred with the
rectors of Warsaw's universities. He made it clear that if
rioting recurred after the schools reopened, the Government
would order a new roll of students to be compiled, as was
done in 1933. On November 24, the Ministry granted
special powers for the preservation of order to the rectors
of schools in Lemberg, because of the brutal character of
anti-Jewish excesses there. Many Endek students were
arrested. Meanwhile, the Government prohibited the
holding of a protest meeting by the Bund, the Jewish

Socialist Party.
After an investigation into the causes of the Warsaw
student riots, the police liquidated an anti-Jewish student
organization and arrested ten of the ringleaders, Novem-
ber 27. Meanwhile, the Rector of the Warsaw University
warned students against a renewal of Jew-baiting agitation.
The Warsaw Municipal Council unanimously adopted a
resolution moved by a non-Jewish member condemning
"the barbarous and blameworthy disturbances which make
difficult the cooperation of all the citizens of the country."
Jewish students at Posen University were asked to keep
away from lecture rooms for a time, after Endek students
created new disturbances there on November 5.
The Endek argument that Jews were over-represented in
Polish educational institutions was refuted in December by
the semi-official Gazeta Polska, which pointed out that in
many of the higher schools the number of Jewish students
was less than one-half or one-third of the quota set for them
by the Endek agitators. It declared that the number of
Jews at the universities was decreasing, and that the number
of scholarships awarded Jews was constantly shrinking.
In the same month, Endek students at the University of
Posen promised "protection" to restaurant owners if they
would agree not to purchase commodities from Jews, nor
to employ Jewish help. The students also delivered an
ultimatum to the Rector of the University, demanding that
no more Jews be admitted and that the Jewish students
already there be denied privileges. In January, Jewish
students at the Lemberg Polytechnic Institute were pun-
ished when they stayed away from lectures as a protest
against the order segregating Jewish from non-Jewish stu-
dents. Meanwhile, the Endeks attempted to introduce
similar ghetto orders in all other Polish universities.
Late in January, seven members of the Board of the
Jewish Students' Society of the Lemberg Technical High
School, who had joined with 380 other students in signing
a protest against the anti-Jewish excesses in the school,
were sentenced to one year's imprisonment; the other
students were not affected. The sentence was later rescinded
by the Senate of the school, although the students were
suspended for three terms. In February, the Senate of the

Lemberg Technical High School abolished the ghetto order
forcing Jewish students to occupy separate seats in the
lecture rooms.
On March 4, scenes unprecedented even at a Polish
university took place at Warsaw University, when a mob
of Endek students ran amok and attacked Jewish students
with sticks to which razor blades had been attached. Fifty
Jewish students, including a number of girls, were injured,
several of them very seriously. A large number of the
rioters were arrested, and the University was closed for an
indefinite period.
In May, an Endek student demand that the Warsaw
Politechnicum be closed to Jews and Communists was
rejected by the rector of the institution. The Endeks
charged that "it is clear that it is only through Jewish and
Communist provocations that excesses took place."
Anti-Jewish Agitation and Excesses.—In August, the

National Democrats (Endeks) of Lodz proclaimed a week
of intensified economic boycott against the Jews. Roving
bands of Jew-baiters terrorized non-Jews patronizing Jewish
shops. The police arrested several of them and some re-
ceived small prison sentences. Upper Silesia also witnessed
anti-Jewish excesses on the part of the Endeks. The agita-
tion was intensified during succeeding months, and Catholic
anti-Jewish papers joined in the demand for an anti-Jewish
boycott.
In October, it was reported that membership of the
National Democratic Party had doubled in the course of
the previous six weeks, during which period 1500 Endek
leaders had been arrested, at least half of whom had been
sent to prison. In the same month, the Endeks of Lodz
proclaimed a new boycott week against Jewish traders.
In November, there were renewed riots in Grodno and the
province of Posen. This new wave of excesses caused high
tension in Jewish circles, and the Club of Jewish deputies
in the Sejm made representations to the Polish authorities.
The tension was further increased when two Jewish youths
died November 18, as a result of the outbreaks. Another
delegation of Jewish deputies submitted information con-

cerning these outbreaks to the Polish Minister of the
Interior, who assured them that he would tolerate no further
disorders.
In October, the trial of 22 Nara (National Radical anti-
Semites) accused of a serious anti-Jewish outbreak in
Warsaw, in which one Jew was killed and several injured,
came to court. Most of the defendants were known as
criminals, having served sentences for murder, theft and
other crimes. After a three day trial, four of the Jew-
baiters were sentenced to five and a half years hard labor,
seven others were found guilty but released, pending an
appeal, and eleven were acquitted. The public prosecutor
condemned the demonstration as a minor pogrom.
On November 9, the Grodno District Court imposed
heavy prison sentences on three Jews convicted of having
killed a Polish peasant, in self-defense, in May, 1935. The
sentence of one of the convicted men was later reduced by
a court of appeals.
Meanwhile, the trial of 17 Endek rioters accused of
having taken part in an anti-Jewish outbreak in Grodno
in June 1935, during which two Jews had been killed and
more than 30,000 zlotys' worth of Jewish property damaged,
ended on November 13 with the passing of the mildest
sentences on record for murder and pillage. The ringleader
received a prison sentence of one year, and the others
received even briefer terms of imprisonment. Six of the
accused were acquitted. The court explained the mild
sentences by declaring that the rioters had not been actu-
ated by any feeling of ilL-will.
During December, Endek agitators incited peasants in
the Radom district to attack Jews. At least one Jew was
killed in the disorders, and four rioters were slain when
police were forced to fire on an attacking mob.
On December 9, bombs were exploded in the synagogue
of Kattowice and in the homes of several Jewish tradesmen.
Twenty-one persons were tried for this outrage and, on
February 12, all but three of them were sentenced to from
one to three years hard labor.
Anti-Jewish agitation became so pronounced in Polish
Upper Silesia during December, that a delegation from the
Kattowice Jewish Community and the Silesian Union of

Rabbis requested the Polish Governor to take measures to
put it down. Shortly thereafter, the Endek Party and its
affiliated organization in Upper Silesia were dissolved by
the authorities.
On January 27, 1936, the association of small Jewish
businessmen and traders issued an appeal for aid in the
name of 600 Jewish families in Przytyk. They declared
that the whole town was being terrorized by Endeks, who
were forcing villagers to stop trading with Jews, that
boycott activities were so thorough that the 2,500 Jewish
inhabitants were faced with the entire loss of their liveli-
hood. The continued anti-Jewish agitation forced the
district Governor to close the weekly markets for a month.
This was another severe blow to Jewish trade. On March 6,
a Jewish delegation appealed to Tremarucek, the district
commissioner in Radom, for precautionary measures against
the heightened anti-Jewish agitation at Przytyk. He
replied: "What do you Jews want? Not a single Jew has
been killed so far." Three days later Endek rioters killed
two Jews, seriously injured three others, and left scores
more, hurt. Their emotions played upon for many weeks,
young anti-Jewish hooligans had gathered in the market
place of the town, shouting Jew-baiting slogans, and had
attacked all Jews. Police were unable to hold them back,
although they forced Jewish youths attempting to defend
their coreligionists to leave. On the next day, the district
commissioner arrived to investigate, and immediately
declared: "An impartial investigation has established that
the pogrom was due to Jewish provocation." The author-
ities prohibited newspapermen from photographing either
the victims of the outbreak or the pillaged Jewish shops
and homes. The entire press was forbidden to report the
details of the pogrom. Fearing further outbreaks, the
authorities ordered that the funeral of one of the victims,
Peisach Minkowski, should not take place during the day,
and he was, accordingly, buried at dawn. But his wife,
Chaya Minkowski, who died in a Radom hospital of injuries
received during the outbreak, was buried with an impressive
demonstration in which thousands of Jews took part.
On March 12, the Jews of Przytyk appealed to their
relatives in the United States and Canada to assist them to

leave the district where Jewish lives were still exposed to
danger. A central Jewish committee to furnish relief to
the victims of the Przytyk disorders, under the chairman-
ship of Chief Rabbi Schorr, was established by the Warsaw
Jewish community, and Warsaw Jewish newspapers opened
a campaign for funds. On March 23, this campaign was
prohibited by the Government. On that day the Jews in
Przytyk were again thrown into panic when the police,
supposedly investigating the outbreak, began a house-to-
house search of Jewish homes, in a vain attempt to discover
concealed arms in an effort, it was believed, to find evidence
to substantiate the assertions of the district commissioner,
Tremarucek. Several days later, Tremarucek forced a
number of local Jews to sign a statement recognizing Jews
as having been equally responsible for the disorders.
Further arrests of Jews were made, with the obvious inten-
tion of fixing the blame for the excesses on the Jews.
On March 23, the Radom Police Court sentenced Vincent
Korczak, president of the Endek Party in Przytyk, to five
months' imprisonment for "conducting an agitation which
led to the anti-Jewish riots in Przytyk." The decision was
later over-ruled by the Radom District Court and the
Court of Appeals.
The third Jewish victim of the Przytyk pogrom died in
Warsaw on March 29. Meanwhile, police arrested fourteen
Jews for participation in the riots, eleven of them accused
of having taken a part in street attacks, two of having fired
revolvers without injuring anyone, and one of having shot
a peasant. Thirty-five of the forty-two Polish defendants
were imprisoned and seven released pending trial.
On June 2, fifty-six persons went on trial in the Radom
District Court on charges growing out of the Przytyk riots.
Twenty attorneys, including well-known Nationalist lead-
ers, appeared for the forty-two Christian defendants. The
fourteen Jewish accused were represented by a committee
of five attorneys, two of them non-Jews. A total of 368
witnesses, including 80 Jews, were sworn in to testify at
the trial. On June 26, after a long trial packed with dramatic
incidents, the court handed down its verdict. Three of the
fourteen Jews who stood trial were acquitted; eleven were
REVIEW OF THE YEAR 5696 33S
sentenced to jail terms ranging from six months to eight

years. Four of the forty-three Poles charged with murder
were acquitted, three were given sentences of one year,
and the remainder, six months each. The court explained
the heavy sentences given Jews by declaring that it had
been established that the Jews had provoked the excesses.
The judge declared there had been no need for any defense
action by the Jews, and upheld the charge that they had
attacked peasants as the latter were returning from the
market. Polish Jews immediately set June 30, as a day of
nation-wide protest against the verdict. This general strike
was so effective that all Jewish shops in Warsaw were closed
for several hours, and demonstrations were staged in several
districts of the city. All Jewish organizations participated
in the strike except the Agudath Israel, extreme orthodox
group. In Lwow, Cracow, Lodz and Wilno, all large indus-
trial centers, the strike was also effective.
The pogrom at Przytyk seemed to have touched off a
new explosion of anti-Jewish terror in the middle of March.
On March 11, outrages were reported in Lodz and Wilna.
On the same day, the Jews of Pyzdry, near Konin, issued
an urgent appeal for help, declaring that the intensified
anti-Jewish boycott had reduced them to a critical position,
that business was at a standstill; that windows of houses
were continually being smashed; that no Jew was sure of
his life; and that the whole Jewish population of the town
was literally facing starvation.
On March 11, a conference of Polish Jewish leaders
decided to proclaim a "month of mourning" to draw the
Government's attention to the seriousness of the situation.
On March 23, the Jewish community of Czenstochow
issued an appeal for the relief of Jewish victims of the anti-
Jewish campaign in the district, declaring that "as a result
of the wave of terror in the Czenstochow district, hundreds
of Jews have been attacked, thousands of windows smashed,
and much Jewish property looted." It stated further that
"hundreds of Jewish families in this district are threatened
with actual starvation because of the anti-Semitic economic
blockade."
On April 1, a court in Wilno sentenced two Jewish
business men to several years' imprisonment for having
wounded anti-Jewish attackers. They were also ordered

to pay the victims 120 zlotys monthly for life. The jail
terms were lated reduced by order of the administrative
authorities. In April, a Catholic association began issuing
"Certificates of Pure 'Aryan' Descent" to prove the holder
a true "Aryan" for the preceding six generations.
On April 1, Dr. Bernhard Kahn, European director of
the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, re-
ported that 79 Jews had been killed, and more than 500
wounded, in Polish disorders during the preceding six
months. In the same month, heavy sentences were pro-
nounced by the District Court of Lodz on twenty-seven
anti-Jewish rioters accused of having bombed Jewish
businesses. The sentences ranged from one to four years,
and created a profound impression throughout the country
because of their severity.
On May 7, 120 members of the Nara Party were arrested
in Warsaw for preparing bomb attacks on a vaudeville
theatre and a restaurant owned by Jews. The police had
kept the Naras under observation, and had thus been able
to confiscate the bombs in time to prevent the outrages.
In May, Jewish homes and farms in Otwock, in the
Czenstochow district, in East Galicia, and elsewhere, were
set fire to by Jew-baiters. In the same month, the police
discovered a school, organized by the National Radical
(Nara) Organization, for the purpose of instructing school
children in anti-Jewish terrorist activities. The police
arrested twenty-one persons.
On June 5, the Vilna District Court sentenced seven
Endeks to from two to five years' imprisonment for throw-
ing bombs into Jewish shops.
Opposition to Jew-Baiting.—On November 25, 1935, a
meeting of democratic groups of the Polish, Ukrainian and
Jewish population of Lemberg adopted a resolution con-
demning the anti-Jewish excesses of the Endek students.
A joint committee to combat anti-Semitism was established..
On January 25, 1936, in response to an appeal from the
Jewish press, the official Catholic agency in Poland con-
demned acts of terrorism against the Jews of Poland. The
statement declared that Catholic clergy considered the

excesses a violation of the Christian viewpoint, but it
demanded social, economic and cultural segregation of
Jews, and the Polonization of trade and industry.
In March, the Council of Polish Bar Associations con-
demned the action of the Gdynia Union of Polish Lawyers,
which had issued an appeal to its members for a social
boycott of Jewish lawyers. The Council resolved to disci-
pline members who did not observe a correct attitude
toward Jewish colleagues and who indulged in anti-Jewish
demonstrations. On March 13, a conference of Jewish labor
groups, held in Warsaw, decided to proclaim a general
strike of Jewish workers and office employes throughout
Poland as a protest against the growing anti-Jewish agita-
tion in Poland and the "increased menace of reactionary
forces which finds expression in an anti-Jewish boycott and
the elimination of Jews from their economic positions, and
ends with pogroms." Leaders of the Jewish Socialist Party
(Bund), the Left Poale Zion, Socialist Zionist organization,
and non-political labor groups, cooperated in the organiza-
tion of the strike. The Polish labor unions in Radom joined
the strike in protest against the Prsytyk outrages and the
anti-Jewish propaganda conducted in the Radom district.
On March 15, the Executive of the all-Polish Federation of
Labor issued a proclamation expressing sympathy and
solidarity with the general strike and declaring, "The
Federation is determined to combat energetically the anti-
Semitic forces in the country." A conference representing
100,000 organized Polish textile workers in Lodz also
announced their solidarity.
On March 17, the entire commerical life of Poland came
to a standstill, when all employed Jews together with
thousands of Polish workers went on strike. Although
organized by labor unions, the strike was observed by all
classes, including rabbis, businessmen, lawyers, students
and Jewish communal institutions. All Jewish, and a large
number of non-Jewish stores, were closed. Impressive
demonstrations throughout the country revealed the Jewish
solidarity against anti-Jewish agitation. The strike passed
off peacefully, and came to an end in the afternoon.
The next day, an aged rabbi and a Jewish alderman

in Yilna and seventeen Jewish students in Lemberg were
injured during the renewed outbreaks, Cardinal Hlond
issued an appeal to all Catholics throughout the country
urging abstention from participation in anti-Jewish pog-
roms, but advising the continuance of the economic boycott
against the Jews.
In reprisal against the strike, the Governor of Czen-
stochow ordered the closing down of a number of local
Jewish sports and cultural organizations. Thirty-seven
Jews of Lodz were sentenced to short jail terms for having
led the strike. Meanwhile, violent anti-Jewish rioting
continued unabated in Warsaw, Lodz and scores of provin-
cial towns.
In April, the Polish journal Oblicze Dnia published a
letter from Romain Rolland, the famous French writer,
who appealed to the Polish nation to stop anti-Jewish
agitation which, he declared, "makes me regret that I am
not a Jew, for I am ashamed of my brethren, the Chris-
tians." In the same month, a joint meeting of the Polish
Socialist Party, the German Socialist Organization, the
Jewish Socialist Party (Bund) and the trade unions in
Lodz adopted a resolution pointing out that the anti-Jewish
agitation, by spreading lies and encouraging demagogy,
would throw the country into a state of anarchy.
On May 11, the Council of the Polish Socialist Party
concluded a two-day conference with the adoption of a
resolution condemning race hatred propaganda and calling
upon all Polish workers to combat with all their means the
anti-Jewish agitation of the Endeks.
Government Policies.—The new electoral ordinance caused

confusion in Polish-Jewish circles. The majority of Zionist
parties, and most of the Jewish political leaders, urged
Jewish voters not to participate in the Sejm elections.
The Agudah Harabonim, however, issued a manifesto on
August 12, 1935, declaring it to be the duty of every Jewish
voter to cast his ballot. On August 4, Dr. Rosmarin, Jewish
deputy from Lemberg in the Sejm, resigned his seat in
protest against the action of the Zionist Party Council for
Eastern Galicia in nominating Deputy Dr. Emil Sommer-

stein as the Zionist candidate for the Sejm under the new
electoral ordinance, which had reduced Jewish representa-
tion in the Sejm to seven deputies, and made possible the
election of only one candidate. In September, when the
elections took place, 84% of the Jews in Warsaw deliberately
abstained from voting, with the result that a non-Jew was
elected to represent a Jewish section of Warsaw. Only three
Jews were elected to the Sejm.
In October, the new Polish Government, in a declaration
on economic policy, promised to allow all sections of the
populations to take part in the reconstruction, and to
discourage the monopoly system. Jewish trade circles
welcomed the announcement. Speaking before the Sejm,
on October 24, Syndram Koscialkowski, the new Prime
Minister, guaranteed that no national or religious discrimi-
nations would be tolerated by the Government. In the
same month, the new Lodz City Council, named by the
Government, annulled the previously adopted "Aryan"
paragraph in regard to the City Prize for Literature.
The Government continued to pursue a pro-German
policy in its foreign relations. The previous visits to Poland
of German Propaganda Minister Goebbels and Air Minister
Goering were returned, in July 1935, by Colonel Josef
Beck, Polish Foreign Minister. It was revealed that one
of the German conditions in negotiations for renewal of
the German-Polish trade agreement was the suppression
of the anti-Nazi boycott movement in Poland. In any
case, following these negotiations, the Polish Government
took steps to suppress all activities of the Boycott Com-
mittee. Following announcement that it might be officially
liquidated, prominent Polish Jewish merchants organized
a Jewish League for the Protection of Polish Products.
In December 1935, over the protest of Jewish Senators,
the Polish Senate ratified the trade agreement. Senator
Jacob Trockenheim warned that the opposition of the Jews
to trading with Germany would greatly weaken the pros-
pects of German imports. In January, the Polish authorities
renewed their activity against the various boycott organiza-
tions. Police searched the premises of the anti-Hitler
Committee in Lemberg and arrested three officers. They
acted similarly in Warsaw, dissolving the anti-Hitler Com-

mittee of Jewish Youth, and arresting two Jewish students.
In September 1935, the Government brought suit against
Nahum Halberstadt, a Jewish business man, for insulting
the head of a neighboring friendly state. In a letter to a
German firm which had solicited his business, the merchant
had declared that "as long as Hitler and his mob will rule
Germany I shall not purchase any German goods." The
Warsaw District Court sentenced Halberstadt to 8 months'
imprisonment for the insult. The sentence was reduced
from the maximum of three years because of his advanced
age and the fact that he had acted while in a highly emo-
tional state. The verdict caused great excitement among
Polish Jews.
On January 23, the authorities dissolved the National
Democratic (Endek) Party in Lodz because of its unceasing
anti-Jewish attacks in the city and district. The Endek
Party in Lodz had been one of the strongest in Poland, and
had secured a majority in the City Council, which had to
dissolve in the fall of 1935 because of the refusal of the
representatives of other parties to work with the Endeks.
In February, replying to the interpellation of Dr. Som-
merstein, the Minister of the Interior declared that the
police had been given strict instructions not only to suppress
all anti-Jewish excesses but also to prevent their occurrence.
In his budget speech in the Sejm on February 17, Prime
Minister Zyndram Koscialkowski referred to the recurrent
anti-Jewish outbreaks and declared that Jew-baiting vio-
lated the authority of the Government and undermined
the foundations of the State. Drawing a parallel between
anti-Semites and Communists in Poland, the Premier said
the Government would not hesitate to suppress both groups.
He declared: "The security of all citizens without difference
of nationality and creed is the foundation on which is built
the legal authority of the State. We cannot allow that,
under the pretext of solving the complicated national and
social problems, the State should be converted into an
arena on which the fights organized by irresponsible ele-
ments, which can only lead to anarchy, should be staged."
Dr. Sommerstein declared in reply that despite these
promises the Jews of Poland continued to live in constant

fear for their lives and property.
In January, a new political party, the Polish Radical
Party, was organized under the leadership of Tytus Fili-
powicz, former Ambassador to the United States. Although
generally liberal in its tendencies, the party's program
demanded that emigration of Jews from Poland be spon-
sored by legal means and be accorded all facilities by the
Polish Government. The influence of the new party soon
became evident. Polish Jewry was greatly concerned when,
on February 20, two Senate leaders openly demanded mass
emigration of Jews from Poland, declaring that there were
no prospects for amelioration of their plight. Prince Janusz
Radziwill, president of the National-Conservative bloc,
and Count Michal Wostworowski, demanded before the
Senate Budget Committee that the Government approach
American and British organizations for aid in expatriating
Polish Jews. Prince Radziwill coupled his demand that the
Government seek Palestine immigration certificates from
England, with the ominous statement: "If Germany has
by anti-Semitism obtained a high quota of certificates,
the Polish anti-Semites might wish to follow Germany's
example."
On March 9, the growing tension throughout Poland
because of the anti-Jewish outbreaks, was discussed in the
Senate, when many speakers demanded that the Govern-
ment take energetic steps to suppress the anti-Jewish
activities of the Endeks. Senator Artur Sliwinski, former
Premier of Poland, declared that "the nationalism of the
Endeks is a travesty of true patriotism." Several days
later, Senator Zbierski, a non-Jew, demanded in the Senate
that the Polish Government suppress the National Demo-
cratic (Endek) Party, the chief instigator of the anti-Jewish
terror in the country. While steps in this direction were
not taken, the authorities did refuse to approve the estab-
lishment, by a group headed by Senator Michael Ringel,
of a League to Combat Anti-Semitism.
In March, as a result of the Przytyk pogrom, M.
Dziadosz, the Governor of Kielce (the district in which
Przytyk is situated), was dismissed from his post, and
Police-Inspector Piatkiewicz, known to be more sympathetic
toward the Jewish population, was appointed in his place.

On March 23, with the approach of Passover, the Govern-
ment ordered the anti-Jewish press to stop publishing
ritual murder stories, which had become widespread and fre-
quent. A Polish trade week, scheduled to begin on March
30, at Czenstochow, was prohibited by the Government
authorities after Deputy Emil Sommerstein demanded of
the Minister of the Interior that measures be taken to halt
boycott incitement.
In April, charging that Communist influences were
spreading among Jewish organizations in Vilna, the police
carried out a series of raids on numerous Jewish institutions,
and made many arrests. In the course of a similar raid in
Warsaw on April 6, Nathan Buxbaum, a leader of the Left
Poale Zion, was arrested after a search of the offices of the
Yiddish School Organization, of which he was vice-president
In June, the authorities prohibited the holding of a
Workers' Congress for Combating Anti-Semitism, which
was to have taken place in Warsaw, in accordance with a
decision of the trade unions affiliated with the Bund,
Jewish Socialist Party. An appeal against the decision,
lodged with the Ministry of the Interior, was unsuccessful.
On June 17, Deputy Emil Sommerstein warned the Sejm
that the campaign of economic extermination waged against
the 3,500,000 Jews of Poland was driving them to Com-
munism, and appealed to the Government to act against
injustice to the Jews. Recalling the statement of former
Prime Minister Kazimierz Bartel opposing economic anti-
Semitism, he contrasted it with the speech of the present
Prime Minister, Felicjan Skladkowski, who said that he
could not interfere with the economic campaign against the
Jews.
Anti-Shehitah Legislation.—Agitation against shehitah,
Jewish ritual slaughter, has been current in Poland since
1928. Several organizations petitioned the Government to
prohibit the practice, and the Jewish population suspected
that agitation was instigated by elements desiring to oust
Jewish merchants and workers from the meat industry,
rather than to promote humane slaughter. Thus, it was
significant that an anti-shehitah memorandum had been
submitted to the Government by the Guild of Polish

Butchers. In July 1935, the agitation became more pro-
nounced. In November, the National Democratic (Endek)
Party launched a campaign against shehitah, charging
that it is a barbarous method of slaughtering animals.
The Endeks asserted that the cost of shehitah was borne
chiefly by the Christian population.
In December, the Ministry of the Interior began drafting
a bill to regulate animal slaughter. The Warsaw Chamber
of Commerce and the Chamber of Artisans were reported
to have submitted memorandums favoring prohibition of
shehitah. The Agudath Harabonim began a campaign to
combat the movement; it formed a joint committee,
including Jewish members of the Polish Parliament and
of the Union of Rabbis. The Appropriation Committee of
the Warsaw City Council rejected the proposal of the vice-
president of the Polish Butchers' Union to prohibit shehitah
in Warsaw.
On February 7, 1936, a bill for so-called humane
slaughtering was introduced in the Sejm by Aflme. Janina
Prystor, wife of the speaker of the Senate and former Prime
Minister. The bill required compulsory stunning of animals
before slaughter, a requirement which is equivalent to the
prohibition of ritual slaughter. A special meeting of tha
Board of the Jewish Community, the Council of the Jewish
Community and the Council of Rabbis adopted a resolution
protesting against the proposed bill. Asserting that shehitah
is one of the chief foundations, of Jewish religion, they
declared that the attack on shehitah was an attack on the
Jewish faith, and therefore contrary to the Polish constitu-
tion. The General Council of the Union of Rabbis in Poland
proclaimed March 5, as a fast day in protest against the
threat to shehitah. On February 13, a conference of seventy
rabbis from all over Poland declared itself in favor of
proclaiming a period of mourning for four weeks, during
which no meat should be consumed by Polish Jews. On
February 11, the Jewish deputies and senators in the Sejm
intervened with the Minister of Religions and Public Educa-
tion, pointing out the serious danger of the anti-shehitah
bill for Polish Jewry.
On February 14, without awaiting action by the Sejm

on the bill, Governor Wieckowski of Posen acted on the
basis of the old Prussian law of the province and issued
an order prohibiting the slaughter of animals without
previous stunning. As a protest against this law, the whole
Jewish population of Posen refused on February 19, to buy
any meat. Many other Polish communities passed local
anti-shehitah laws.
On February 16, a conference convoked by the Board
of the Warsaw Jewish Community adopted a resolution of
protest in the name of all Polish Jewry, regardless of opinion
or party allegiance. When, on March 3, it was announced
that Father Trzeciak, a Catholic who had written a pamph-
let claiming that shehitah is a Jewish custom rather than
a religious law, had been appointed one of the experts to
be examined on the matter by the Administrative Com-
mittee of the Sejm, a joint meeting of the Shehitah Com-
mission, the Association of Rabbis, and the Executives of
the Jewish Communities throughout Poland immediately
sent a telegram of protest to Government and Sejm officials,
emphasizing that Jewish clergy alone had the right to
interpret Jewish religion. On March 4, a solemn declaration
signed by 1,200 Polish rabbis, stating that shehitah is
enjoined by the Torah and is one of the fundamental
principles of Jewish religion, was forwarded to the President
of the Polish Republic, members of the cabinet, and every
Sejm deputy and senator.
On March 5, after heated discussion, the Administrative
Committee of the Sejm voted in favor of the bill. Only
the two Ukrainian members and Emil Sommerstein, Jewish
deputy, voted against it.
On March 16, the Central Committee of the Zionist
Organization in Poland issued a public protest against the
bill, and the Jewish pro-Government Party, known as the
"Non-Party Bloc," also protested.
On March 17, the Sejm decided by a large majority to
return the bill to the Administrative Committee with a
request to insert a clause to safeguard the religious require-
ments of the national minorities. This decision was reached
after an address by M. J. Poniatowski, Minister.of Agricul-
ture, who pointed out that the passing of the bill without
authorizing the Government to provide for the religious

rights of the national minorities would lead to serious
economic and other complications for Poland. Expressing
no objection to the bill, the Minister asked Parliament to
vote in favor of giving the Government the right to solve
the religious needs of the minorities, so far as meat consump-
tion is concerned, by the introduction of a numerus clausus
which should provide for the sale of meat under conces-
sions. On March 18, the Administrative Committee of the
Sejm adopted the Government's amendments to the bill,
allowing for a limited quantity of kosher meat for the
domestic consumption of the Jewish, Moslem and Karaite
communities of the country. A sensation was caused when
it became known that the modifications embodied in the
bill, which seek to prohibit shehitah allegedly to prevent
cruelty to animals, included provisions permitting ritual
slaughter for export purposes. This was interpreted in
Jewish circles as evidence that the alleged anti-cruelty
motives of the bill were only a pretext to conceal the desire
to eliminate Jews from the meat trade.
On March 20, a conference of rabbis and Jewish leaders
from all parts of Poland decided to proclaim a seven-week
meatless period as a protest against the expected passage
of the bill. The period began on the first day of Passover,
April 7, and continued through the first day of Pentecost,
May 27.
The anti-shehitah bill was passed by the lower house of
the Polish Parliament on March 20. The Jewish deputies
were alone in opposing the bill, while Government and anti-
Government deputies joined in voicing violent anti-Jewish
utterances. According to the measure, Jews, Mohammedans
and Karaites (a Mosaic sect) are permitted to maintain
their own abbatoirs, but the Government controls the
supply of cattle to them under a numerus clausus system of
concessions.
E. Mazur, president, and Moses Lerner, vice-president,
of the Warsaw Jewish Community, submitted their resigna-
tion to the Polish authorities as a measure of protest against
passage of the bill. The Polish Senate adopted the bill
March 27. It is to come into effect on January 1, 1937.
Economic Conditions.—On September 8, 1935, the first

World Conference of Polish Jews Abroad, opened in London
with seventy-two delegates, representing eighteen countries,
to consider concerted measures to relieve the economic
distress of Polish Jewry. Benjamin Winter, President of
the Federation of Polish Jews in America, was elected
president of the Conference. Z. Tygel, executive director
of the Federation of Polish Jews of America charged that
the Poles were conducting "a definite, carefully-planned
and persistent campaign to eliminate Jews from trade,
industry and handicraft" in Poland. He declared that at
least one-third of the three million Jews were unemployed
and starving, urged a program of cheap credit for merchants
and artisans and the productivization and restratification
of the Jewish masses as the essential requirements of Polish
Jewry, and appealed to the World Conference for united
action in rendering assistance to the impoverished Polish
Jews. Summarizing their situation, Mr. Tygel declared
that there were some 200,000 Jewish workers and 47,000
other Jewish employes; that unemployment among these
amounted to 60%, most of whom were not able to benefit
by unemployment insurance; that of the gainfully employed
Jews, 38% were traders, of whom the majority were
receiving relief; that more than sixty thousand Jewish
professionals were without any dependable income what-
soever; and that 100,000 Jews depended on soup kitchens
for food. The conference, which set up a World Federation
of Polish Jews, adopted resolutions: 1) authorizing its
Executive to request the League of Nations to safeguard
the interests of stateless Jews, and to approach the Polish
Government with a request to intervene in behalf of Polish
Jews who have lost their nationality while in Germany;
2) deciding to establish a special fund to promote immigra-
tion from Poland to other lands; 3) laying the foundation
for establishment of a long-term loan bank to assist Polish
immigrants in Palestine; and 4) deciding to assist Polish
Jews, living in Germany, to emigrate to Palestine. A
resolution protesting against anti-Jewish terrorism in Ger-
many caused the German delegation to leave the hall in
tears. On October 4, the first meeting of the European
Executive of the World Federation of Polish Jews Abroad,
held in London, laid plans for the transferring of Jewish

orphans and neglected children from Poland to Palestine.
In November, at a meeting of representative Jews of Poland,
the Federation was officially recognized.
In January 1936, the desperate plight of Jewish petty
tradesmen was discussed at a conference of the Union of
Jewish Small Traders in Poland. Delegates from various
Polish provinces described the profound effects of anti-
Jewish agitation and official discriminations in many parts
of the country. The conference decided to send a deputa-
tion to the Minister of the Interior, to acquaint him with
the hopeless position of the Jewish tradesmen and to
demand assistance. In May, Morris Meisel, chairman of
the Union of Jewish Merchants in Poland, declared at the
Union's annual conference in Warsaw that the position of
the Jewish trader in Poland was catastrophic. He pointed
to the bureaucratic restrictions which were making the
development of trade in Poland more difficult, and to the
anti-Jewish propaganda which was undermining the founda-
tions of the existence of the Jewish population in Poland.
The conference adopted a resolution expressing the view
that the current anti-Jewish agitation, directed particularly
against Jewish tradesmen, caused great harm to the eco-
nomic life of the country as a whole. On June 8, at a con-
ference, the Federation of Jewish Traders charged that the
position of Jewish traders had become worse as a result of
the government "hands-off" policy on internal economic
competition, announced by Premier Skladkowski. The
meeting asserted that Jewish contractors were being
excluded from servicing Government institutions, and that
provincial Jewish traders were, being victimized by local
authorities. The next day, Premier Skladkowski received
a delegation of traders and informed them that all tax-
paying Polish citizens have full trading rights and that
limitations against them would not be permitted.
Jewish Communal Life.—In July 1935, a proclamation

addressed to the Jewish population of Poland, signed by
leaders of Jewish communities and organizations through-
out the country, called on Polish Jews to continue the fight
against Nazi terrorism by refusing to handle German

goods or services.
In the same month, the Union of Polish Rabbis decided
to oppose the action of the Rabbinical Assembly of America,
modifying Jewish religious divorce law for Agunoth (women
deserted by their husbands). T h e Union drew u p a mani-
festo, signed by 1,500 Polish rabbis, warning American Jews
t h a t those adopting the reform would be excommunicated
from the Jewish community, and t h a t marriages to women
so divorced would be prohibited.
A total of 205,681 votes were cast, on July 28, for dele-
gates to the Zionist Congress. There were six tickets, which
received votes as follows: Labor, 117,542; Confederation
of General Zionists, 37,623; Mizrachi, 37,558; Jewish State
P a r t y , 6,738; General Zionist World Union, 5,133; Young
Zionists, 1,087.
On August 13, the Mizrachi World Conference was held
a t Cracow. Rabbi Meyer Berlin, former president of the
American Mizrachi, presided. T h e Conference elected
Rabbi Wolf Gold of the United States to the presidency of
its Executive, and struck out of its statutes the passage
pledging Mizrachists to buy the Shekel, which entitles
Zionists to vote for delegates to the Zionist Congress. It
decided also to present the Zionist Congress with an ulti-
m a t u m demanding the carrying out of the Mizrachi religious
requirements, and to urge the Congress ,to safeguard a
proper ratio for Mizrachists in the immigration and coloni-
zation quotas. Other resolutions expressed opposition to
the creation of an educational fund by the Zionist organi-
zation; protested against the Palestine Government's
immigration restrictions and the immigration policy of
the Zionist organization; demanded the facilitation of
immigration of rabbis, and called upon the Palestine
Government to allow pilgrimages of non-Palestinian Jews
for the Jewish High Holidays.
In September, the Council of the Zionist Organization
of Poland adopted a resolution to continue the economic
boycott against Nazi G e r m a n y ; calling on all Polish Zionist
organizations to organize mass protests against the Nurem-
berg anti-Jewish laws; and welcoming the decision of the
Vaad Leumi in Palestine to withdraw from the committee
regulating business relations with Germany. In the same

month, the proposed statutes for a Polish-Palestine Emigra-
tion and Export Bank were approved by the Polish authori
ties. The Bank, which is to operate as a cooperative society
with limited liability, was organized by Jewish members of
the Polish-Palestine Chamber of Commerce, for the purpose
of supporting Jewish emigration to Palestine, by issuing
necessary credits for the transportation to Palestine of
idle workshops and factories and by financing the export
of Polish products to Palestine.
In November, representatives of sixteen Jewish com-
munities appointed a committee to draft the statutes for
a central organization of Polish Jewish communities, repre-
sentative of more than 140 communities in Poland, with
headquarters in Warsaw, to intervene with the authorities
in circumstances affecting the position of Polish Jewish
communities.
Another movement for the establishment of a central
organization of Polish Jewry was begun in December, when
J. Schiffer, president of the Central Committee of the Polish
Zionist Organization, announced that his organization had
decided to establish an economic and political representative
organization of Polish Jewry, and to convoke for this pur-
pose a conference of all former Jewish deputies and senators
in the Sejm, who are members of the Zionist Organization
and the Jewish National Council; since the Zionist Organi-
zation in Poland had boycotted the Sejm elections, it did
not recognize current Jewish deputies as representatives
of Polish Jewry. In April 1936, conditions for the establish-
ment of a political representation of Polish Jewry were
laid down at a meeting, under the auspices of the Zionist
Central Committee. A committee of five was appointed
to formulate an independent Jewish policy; to lay plans
for political, juridical and social aid for Polish Jews; to
decide upon a political line for members of the various
parties; and to explore the possibilities of calling a congress
of Polish Jewry.
Miscellaneous.—On February 10, 1936, the trial in Lodz
of five persons accused of having been involved in a fraud-
ulent attempt to smuggle emigrants out of Poland into
Palestine ended in the acquittal of three and the conviction

of two of the accused. The trial had aroused great interest
in Jewish circles because, among the defendants, were two
leaders of the Lodz Revisionist Party as well as Abraham
Stavski, who had been involved in the Arlosoroff murder
trial in Palestine several years ago. These three were
acquitted. The chief of the accused, one Chanachowitch,
was found guilty of defrauding a number of people of large
sums of money on the promise that they would be smuggled
into Palestine on a ship which later proved to be unsea-
worthy.
In January 1936, a Jewish film company "Kinur" was
established in Warsaw, to produce talking films in Yiddish.
In May 1936, the customs authorities ruled that gifts
from the United States to relatives and charitable institu-
tions in Poland may be brought in free of duty.
DANZIG
Anti-Jewish Movements.—In July 1935, two Polish Jews
visiting Danzig were attacked by fifteen Storm Troopers.
The police arrested the Jews on the charge of attacking the
Nazis. On July 28, a series of anti-Jewish street demonstra-
tions took place in Danzig. Storm Troopers drove through
the streets in trucks, threatening Jewish passersby. A
delegation of the German Refugee Committee visited the
Polish Foreign Office in Warsaw to protest, and a group of
Polish Jewish leaders wired the League of Nations Council
July 31, appealing for protection for Danzig Jews. In
August, the Board of the Danzig Jewish Community issued
a proclamation placing the blame, for lack of protection,
on the local authorities, and urging Jews to "remember
that any action of ours will be misinterpreted as provoca-
tion." On August 10, Jewish merchants who had been
attacked by Nazis during the annual Danzig market day,
began legal proceedings against their assailants; shops and
stores had been looted and the Jewish proprietors, many
of them women, seriously beaten.
In October, anti-Jewish demonstrations recurred, with
Nazis attacking Jews and smashing windows, without
interference by the police, in direct contradiction to official
assurances that the police would prevent any further anti-

Jewish excesses. In November, the Propaganda Senator of
the Free City of Danzig issued an order to all restaurants
and hotels, prohibiting attacks on Jews, and individual
boycott actions against Jews. In December, new outbreaks
occurred when a group of fifteen uniformed Nazis forced
their way into the Danzig Jewish theatre and attacked Jews
in the audience. In April, following protest by Jews, the
Senate instructed police to stop Nazi groups from the
singing of anti-Jewish songs in the streets; such action was
not taken, however, except where Jews lodged protest in
specific cases.
In March 1936, in spite of their pledges to the Council
of the League of Nations with regard to freedom of the
press, the Danzig authorities commenced proceedings
against the Danziger Echo, the only Jewish newspaper in
the Free City. In December 1935, the State Prosecutor
had brought action for publication in an article reviewing
the attitude of British Church leaders condemning the
anti-Jewish program of the Nazis in Germany. The Senate
had made repeated attempts to halt the publication of the
paper. Paul Bermann, its editor, had been arrested on
October 20, 1935 and sentenced to four months' imprison-
ment, convicted of having cast a slur on the anti-Jewish
Nazi marching song and having attacked Herman Wilhelm
Goering, member of the German cabinet. Bermann's depor-
tation had been subsequently ordered. Dr Theodor Loewy,
whom Bermann had succeeded as editor, had been deported
in July.
Petition to League of Nations.—In August 1935, the Jew-

ish population of Danzig submitted a petition to the League
of Nations High Commissioner at Danzig, protesting
against the anti-Jewish discriminatory legislation adopted
by the Senate. In its reply to the Jewish protest, the Senate
minimized the seriousness of the anti-Jewish disturbances
and declared that the Jew-baiting attacks in Danzig had
been provoked by the insolent behavior of Polish and other
Eastern Jews. In September, the Committee of Jurists
of the League of Nations, to which the petition of the
Danzig Jews, together with those of other minorities, had
been referred, made its report. The committee condemned

the anti-Jewish measures of the Danzig Senate; declared
that discrimination based on supposed racial inequality
was not in conformity with the Danzig Constitution;
attacked the observations made by the Danzig Senate,
which tried to justify its actions by "the feelings of the
great majority of the population" against the Jews and by
the "principles of the new National Socialist conception of
the State"; pointed out that the constitution specifically
provided for equality of rights of all citizens, and that no
political majority had the right to overrule this statute;
and declared that the police and authorities should not
countenance the agitation for a boycott movement against
the Jews of Danzig.
On September 23, in submitting the report on the Danzig
minorities' petitions to the League Council, Captain
Anthony Eden, at that time British Minister for League
of Nations Affairs, severely condemned the persecution of
Jews by the Nazi administration of the Free City of Danzig;
demanded that the constitutional liberties of all the sections
of the population be observed; recommended the Council
endorse the opinions of the Committee of Jurists; and
declared that "the Council recommends the Senate to take
the necessary measures to remedy the situation revealed
by the petition to the Council and by the Jurists' report,
by bringing the legislation of the Free City in conformity
with the Constitution of which the League of Nations is
the guarantor and by ensuring in future the strict observ-
ance of the principles of the Constitution in the application
of all laws." The petitions were also supported by Colonel
Josef Beck, Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Premier
Pierre Laval, and Sean Lester, League High Commissioner
for Danzig. Herr Greiser, president of the Danzig Senate,
promised to forward the Council's proposals to the Senate,
although he defended all the National Socialist activities
in Danzig. In September, a new petition detailing the
reign of terror against Jews and anti-Nazis on the part of
the Danzig administration, was submitted to Eduard Benes,
president of the 16th Assembly of the League, by a number
of German emigre associations, on behalf of Danzig inhab-
itants who wished to remain unknown.
In December, the Permanent Court of International

Justice, at The Hague, ruled by a majority of nine to three
that the new Danzig judicial laws did not conform to the
Free City's constitution. The advisory opinion was handed
down at the request of the League High Commissioner at
Danzig, who had been petitioned to ask for the decision by
the three minority parties of Danzig. The law would have
made it possible to consider "popular feeling" as a legal
precept in much the same way as the courts act in Nazi
Germany. This, the Court ruled, was "not consistent with
the Constitution and violates certain provisions and certain
principles thereof."
On January 20, 1936, the Council of the League of
Nations discussed the Nazi persecution of political oppo-
nents in Danzig. High Commissioner Sean Lester recom-
mended that the League send a committee of investigation
to Danzig and, should the Senate fail to alter the course,
take measures to insure the observance of the Constitution.
Submitting the annual report for 1935, Mr. Lester gave a
shocking picture of the unconstitutional repressions prac-
ticed by the Nazi regime in Danzig, both in the political
and administrative spheres. On January 22, Captain Eden,
acting as rapporteur on the Danzig question at the League
Council meeting, rejected the plea made by Herr Greiser,
President of the Danzig Senate, that the Administration
of the Free City was not guilty of any violation of the
Constitution. Captain Eden declared that the situation
in Danzig was exceptionally serious because the Senate did
not keep its promises and failed to carry out League recom-
mendations. Replying in the general debate, Herr Greiser
reaffirmed the Senate's absolute determination to respect
the Free City's Constitution, and declared the Council's
apprehensions to be baseless.
According to a statement of Herr Berent, president of
the Jewish Community in Danzig, who reported on the
situation in May, the petitions submitted to the League
as well as the many other protests against economic and
social persecution of Jews had had no effect whatever. He
pointed to the distribution of the Stuermer in Danzig, the
singing of Jew-baiting songs in the streets, the posting of
anti-Jewish boycott placards, the smearing of Jewish shop-

windows with anti-Jewish slogans and, particularly, the
unconstitutional treatment of Jewish school children in
the Danzig elementary and secondary schools.
PALESTINE
In August 1935, the report of the 27th Session of the
Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Na-
tions was published. It expressed satisfaction with the
favorable economic and financial situation in Palestine, but
found the Government report on Arab-Jewish relations
discouraging. It expressed the hope that measures to stop
illegal immigration of Jews and Arabs would be effected,
and questioned the wisdom of permitting Japan, now a
non-member of the League, to continue dumping goods in
Palestine.
That report, published a year ago, touches upon the most
important subjects of Jewish concern in Palestine during
the period now being reviewed, except that during this
period, the crisis in Arab-Jewish relations, still continuing,
over-shadowed all other events. Besides other points of
controversy, discussions regarding a proposed legislative
council for Palestine brought out, in high relief, the fact
that a small but determined group of Arabs, unwilling to
be reconciled to the establishment of a national home for
Jews, still exercises tremendous influence over the Arab
populace.
ARAB-JEWISH RELATIONS
Proposed Legislative Council.—As was mentioned in the
preceding Review, the proposal for the establishment of a
Legislative Council in Palestine was made by the Palestine
Administration in opposition to the advice of Jewish leaders.
In the earlier months of the period now being reviewed,
many protests against the scheme were voiced by Jewish
organizations in a number of countries. These protests
proved of no avail for, on December 22, 1935, High Com-
missioner Sir Arthur Wauchope formally announced the
Palestine Administration's decision to proceed with the
immediate establishment of a Legislative Council The
plan announced by him called for a Council to consist of

28 members, including 7 Jews, 5 Government officials,
3 Christian Arabs, 11 Moslems and 2 merchants. Of the
Jewish members, 3 would be elected and 4 appointed. Of
the 11 Moslems, 3 would be nominated and 8 elected. One
of the 2 merchants, it was believed, might be selected from
among the Jews. The project conferred the right to vote
for members of the Council on all persons over the age of
25, including women, who have resided in Palestine for
two years. The Council would not have competence in all
political matters, but would deal with budgeting and
. legislation.
The proposal was read by the High Commissioner to a
delegation of leaders of Palestine Jewry and of the Zionist
movement. It was met with a categorical rejection by all
members of the delegation. When it was read to an Arab
delegation, leaders informed Sir Arthur that they would
make their decision known later, after a conference of the
Arab parties.
Early in January 1936, Dr. Hussein Khalidi, Mayor of
Jerusalem, announced that his party was in favor of partici-
pation in the proposed Legislative Council, and the Arab
Christians also accepted the proposal. On the other hand,
on January 7, the Arab Youth Congress Party and the
Arab Palestine Party (Grand Mufti's party) adopted a
resolution rejecting the Legislative Council and demanding
an Arab national government, with a parliament enjoying
full legislative powers. At the same time, a joint meeting
of the Actions Committee in Palestine, the Jewish Agency,
the Vaad Leumi (Jewish National Council), the Agudath
Israel, and Mayor Dizengoff of Tel Aviv, confirmed the
previous Jewish decision to reject the proposal.
On January 19, members of the British section of the
Jewish Agency of Palestine, Board of Deputies of British
Jews, Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, a.id
the various Zionist parties, adopted unanimously, at a
conference in London, a resolution demanding that any
proposal for the development of representative institutions
in Palestine be based on the inherent principle that the
future of Palestine is the concern of the whole Jewish
people. It described the proposed legislative council as
being "in conflict with the spirit of the mandate and as a

derogation from the status conferred on the Jewish National
Home clauses of the mandate." These views were expressed
to Colonial Secretary J. H. Thomas, who received a deputa-
tion representing British Zionist and non-Zionist bodies.
On February 12, Mr. Thomas declared in the House of
Commons that the provision for the establishment of a
Legislative Council in Palestine would be effected by an
Order in Council under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act of
1890. Again, in reply to questioning in the House on
March 4, Mr. Thomas declared: "I think no one would
challenge the Legislative Council as being contrary to the •
Mandate. As far back as 1922, when Sir Herbert Samuel
was High Commissioner, he himself made a proposal for
a Legislative Council which, at that period, was accepted
by the Jewish community and refused by the Arabs."
On March 12, in reply to the memorandum submitted
by the British Section of the Jewish Agency for Palestine
on January 20, Mr. Thomas reaffirmed the Government's
intention to proceed with the establishment of a Legislative
Council in Palestine. The memorandum had objected to
the establishment of the Legislative Council because "it is
likely seriously to hamper the fulfilment of the Mandate
insofar as it provides for facilitating the establishment of
a National Home for the Jewish people." It pointed out
that the development of Palestine is fundamentally due to
the growth of Jewish immigration and the development of
Jewish activity, and expressed the view that an essential
preliminary to the establishment of a Legislative Council
must be the acceptance, by all sections of the population
of Palestine, of the principles contained in the Mandate.
In defending the projected Council, Mr. Thomas expressed
the view that Jewish opinion was unnecessarily appre-
hensive on this account, that a closer study of the scheme
will reveal that much of the criticism is based on insufficient
grounds, that the proposal has been made from the point
of view of Palestine as a whole, that there is nothing in the
scheme which will interfere with or prejudice in anyway
the discharge of the Mandatory obligations of His Majesty's
Government, that the suggestion that Jewish representation
in the Council be accorded on the basis of World Jewry
was inconsistent with the letter and the spirit of the Man-
date and that "to make this an issue would not, in the end,
help the cause we all desire . . . . , " and that serious dis-
satisfaction and unrest would find expression in Palestine
if the impression were created that the British government
"did not intend to give effect to their repeated assurances
with regard to the Legislative Council."
In a letter on behalf of the British Jewish deputation,
Lord Melchett urged postponement of the Legislative
Council, describing it as a step fraught with grave dangers
to the peaceful progress of Palestine and its people.
On March 24, the proposed Legislative Council was
debated in the House of Commons. Members of all parties
united in criticizing the Government's policy in Palestine.
Participants in the discussion included Winston Churchill,
Conservative leader; Sir Archibald Sinclair, Liberal whip;
and Colonel Josiah Wedgwood, Laborite and noted pro-
Zionist. Colonial Secretary J. H. Thomas defended the
Government's policy.
On the same day, the second hostile demonstration
against High Commissioner Wauchope occurred in Tel
Aviv, when right-wing Zionists showered him with leaflets
and voiced protests against the Government's policy and
the proposed representative Legislative Council. Two Jews
were arrested and sentenced to two months imprisonment,
each. The marked distaste on all sides for the proposed
Legislative Council caused the entire British press to counsel
modernation in proceeding with the project.
On March 30, former Mayor Ragheb Bey Nashashibi's
Arab National Defense Party joined other Arab groups in
signifying acceptance of the proposed Legislative Council.
On April 2, a delegation representing the five Arab parties
was received by High Commissioner Wauchope and was
invited to send an Arab deputation of six to London to
conduct direct negotiations with the Colonial Office there
concerning the Legislative Council. The Arab leaders
accepted the invitation, and asked permission to invite
one Christian Arab to accompany them. This invitation
prompted Hebrew newspapers to demand that a similar
Jewish delegation be invited.
Later in April, it was reported that an internal struggle

among Arab factions was likely to prevent the scheduled
departure of the Arab delegation for London. A meeting of
Arab parties called to select the six members of the delega-
tion broke up because of a sharp difference of opinion as to
the method of selection. Both sides decided to submit
memorandums to High Commissioner Wauchope, seeking
his decision in the matter.
On April 22, it was reported that, declaring that "our
parties must make use of the bloodshed" caused by the
Arab riots which had in the meantime broken out, leaders
of the Arab parties decided to postpone for an indefinite
period the acceptance of the invitation to send a delegation
to London.
Miscellaneous Incidents.—On July 8, 1935, the Grand
Mufti of Jerusalem started a new propaganda tour through-
out the country, appealing to Moslems not to sell land to
Jews. Similar campaigns were carried on elsewhere by
other Arab leaders.
Religious feeling ran high when in September the Gerrer
Rebbe made an unauthorized visit to the Cave of Mach-
pellah, a sacred shrine. Since he did not have official permis-
sion, he and his followers were stopped by the police who
arrested ten of the latter. Five of the ten Gerrer Chassidim
arrested received slight fines, and the rest were acquitted.
In October, great excitement among the Arabs resulted
from the discovery of ammunition concealed in a cement
cargo on a Belgian boat in Jaffa harbor. Rumors were
spread that the cargo was meant for the Jews. It was later,
however, generally believed that the ammunition was
intended to be smuggled into Ethiopia, although the Grand
Mufti of Jerusalem and Ragheb bey Nashashibi, former
Mayor of Jerusalem, utilized the incident to stir up their
followers. The Government made four arrests and warned
the Arab press against efforts to utilize the incident for
partisan purposes. However, on October 22, the Grand
Mufti's party proclaimed a general strike in Palestine.
The proclamation followed the breaking up of a conference
of Arab parties, which had been called for the purpose of
reaching an agreement for united Arab action, which had
been initiated by the "national bloc" in Nablus. The Arab
Youth Federation also demanded a general Arab strike in
protest against the supposed smuggling of ammunition for
Jews. The general strike, which was only partially effective,
as many Arab shops and restaurants remained open and
many Arab busses continued to operate, passed off quietly
with only slight disturbances reported in Nablus. Another
half-day strike was proclaimed November 13, by young
Arab Nationalists on the occasion of High Commissioner
Wauchope's return from England. The strike was only
partially successful in Jaffa and Nablus.
Tension was heightened in November, when Sergeant
Moshe Rosenfeld of the Palestine Police was found shot
dead at the foot of Mt. Gilboa. The police began an investi-
gation and offered a reward of £200 for information con-
cerning the murderer. One British policeman and five
Arabs were killed, and five other Arabs were arrested in a
pitched battle with the Arab murderers of Sergeant Rosen-
feld. Wild disorders took place during the funeral of three
of the Arab sheikhs killed in the encounter. Thousands of
Arabs who attended the funeral attacked and wounded
British officers and descended upon the Central Railway
Station. A second Arab terrorist gang was uncovered on
November 24, when police arrested two of its members.
On November 26, a delegation representing the five
Arab parties submitted a memorandum to High Com-
missioner Wauchope, demanding the introduction of a
democratic government, the complete suspension of Jewish
immigration, and the prohibition of further sales of land to
Jews. The memorandum was forwarded to J. H. Thomas,
British Secretary of State for the Colonies, who replied in
January 1936. Mr. Thomas declared 1) that the demand
for democratic government had been answered by the
proposal for a Legislative Council; 2) that the total stop-
page of J-ewish immigration is out of the question, as this
is regulated by the absorptive capacity of the country;
and 3) that the government approves legislation whereby,
with certain exceptions, no landowner shall be permitted
to sell his land without retaining a minimum area sufficient
for the needs of his family. In February, the Palestine
Government began an extensive survey of Jewish and Arab
land-holdings in Palestine in preparation for the promulga-

tion of the new law, proposed by the British Colonial
Office. Dr. Chaim Weizmann, president of the Jewish
Agency for Palestine and of the World Zionist Organization,
visited High Commissioner Wauchope and protested against
the proposal as a danger to the foundations of the Jewish
National Home. Other Jewish groups also protested against
the proposed restrictions on land sales.
In the meantime, in December 1935, Palestine Com-
munists were reported to be organizing demonstrations in
the Nablus, Jenin and Tul-Karem districts, whither police
reinforcements were sent as a precautionary measure.
In January 1936, the Communists were reported to have
issued a proclamation inciting Arabs to attack Jews. The
proclamation was promptly repudiated by the Communist
parties of Poland and France, and the Palestine Com-
munists withdrew the leaflet, explaining that it had been
intended as an attack on Jewish capitalists in Palestine.
On February 21, the police arrested Tahr Achmed, Arab
Communist leader, and deported him. In the same month,
the Grand Mufti's Palestine Arab Party established a
"Green Shirt" storm troop organization. On February 4,
Palestine Arabs went out on general strike in sympathy
with the Arab Nationalists in Syria. The day passed without
any untoward incidents.
In April, false rumors that Jews of Haifa had killed 4
Hauranis in a Passover ritual resulted in an Arab near-riot
and an attack on the police station. An enraged mob raided
the Eastern European quarter of the city, injuring several
Jews. Police finally succeeded in convincing the Arabs
that the rumor had no foundation. The Hebrew press
charged that the incident could be traced to the propa-
ganda of Nazi groups which had intensified their activities
all over Palestine, and especially in Haifa, during February.
A large number of Nazi meeings had been held all over the
country and leaflets had been distributed in many places.
On May 3, the police arrested Dr. Paul Zuback and Greta
Taumann, both of Vienna, after searching their Tel Aviv
home and finding alleged seditious material and letters
about the German Jews in Palestine. The pair was believed
to have organized Nazi headquarters for Palestine in Naza-

reth. It was announced on May 14, that they would be
deported from Palestine.
General Strike of Arabs.—-The tension between the Arab
population on the one hand, and the Jews and British
authorities on the other, flared up in mid-April into a series
of outbreaks. The immediate cause was the slaying of a
Jew, Israel Chazan, in a hold-up by Arab brigands on the
night of April 15. Chazan's funeral, two days later, devel-
oped into a political demonstration, and a police order to
disperse was met by the crowd with a barrage of stones.
The police opened fire, shooting four Jews; thirty were
beaten and many arrested. On the same day, Arab passion
was stirred by a report that two Arab laborers had been
killed in reprisal. Later, it was learned that one of the two
was a Jewish immigrant from Egypt. However, this did
. not prevent false rumors from circulating through the
country and intensifying the distrust between the Arabs,
the Jews and the police.
This ill-feeling came to a head on April 22, when the Arab
leaders proclaimed a general strike which they agreed to
terminate as soon as a number of demands were complied
with, chiefly that the Government halt Jewish immigration
immediately and prohibit further sale of land to Jews,
and that the government of Palestine be transferred from
the present constitution to a National Government respons-
ible to an elected democratic assembly.
The immediate result of the strike was the complete
cessation of trade and communication in Jaffa, Jerusalem,
Nablus, Gaza, Tulkarem, Hebron, Jenin, Safed and other
communities. At the same time, Arab bands began to
attack the Jewish settlements. Busses were stoned, shop
windows smashed, farmers' huts and their crops burned,
thousands of trees uprooted, and several synagogues
destroyed. Guerilla warfare spread throughout the rural
settlements. For a time, all traffic between Tel Aviv, Jaffa
and Jerusalem, ceased, and on May 21 all inland and
foreign telephone and telegraph wires were cut by Arab
terrorists.
The first official statement on the situation, issued by

the High Commissioner, minimized the danger of the
outbursts and attributed them to over-excitement caused
by false rumors. He appealed "to all citizens to do every-
thing in their power to check the circulation of such rumors
and give only credence to what are authentic facts." He
also pleaded for assistance to the police in their efforts to
preserve order, adding that "the Government will suppress
all disorders and take all necessary measures against those
disseminating false rumors or encouraging methods of
violence."
But the Arab leaders chose to disregard this warning,
and at a meeting in Jerusalem, in May 2, decided not only
to continue the strike but to intensify their efforts to bring
in hesitating factions, disregarding the advice which Emir
Abdullah of Transjordania gave to a delegation of Palestine
Arabs which visited him in Amman seeking his support.
The depredations and the killings continued and, early in
May, a conference of 150 Arab leaders decided to extend
the general strike into a campaign of civil disobedience, to
begin on May 15, and to involve non-payment of taxes and
a rigid anti-Jewish boycott.
The first active step taken by the Government in an
attempt to halt the Arab attacks was the introduction, on
May 5, of collective punishment of Arabs for anti-Jewish
depredations. These were vigorously carried out. The
Government also moved military forces into Jaffa and
ordered tanks, armored cars, infantry and other reinforce-
ments from Egypt. By the end of May, Palestine witnessed
the greatest military concentration since the days of the
World War. In a radio address on May 12, High Com-
missioner Wauchope explained that he had requested these
reinforcements in order to deal promptly with the disturb-
ances as they arose and to afford greater protection against
arson.
When, late in May, it was reported that Arab police had
disobeyed orders to fire on the rioters, the authorities
hastened the recruiting of Jewish youths for police duties.
Hebrew University students, laborers, and other young
men were signed up in scores. A company of 600 Jewish
youths was formed on May 31, in Tel Aviv, prepared to

defend outlying Jewish colonies in the event of attack.
Early in June, the Palestine Government obtained the
approval of the Jewish Agency for Palestine to declare
martial law, although the Agency declared itself opposed
to such action "in principle." Martial law was not declared
but, on June 13, the Government announced emergency
measures, giving the police and soldiery added power to
keep order, and providing the extreme penalty of death or
life imprisonment for firing on troops and for sabotaging
public property. A strict censorship of the press was also
proclaimed. The Palestine Government than began scat-
tering leaflets from low-flying airplanes, appealing to the
Arabs to halt the general strike and the terrorism, and
promising that if the strike were stopped, a Royal Com-
mission would immediately come to Palestine and investi-
gate its problems. On May 15, in a further attempt to
induce Arab leaders to call off the strike, High Commis-
sioner Wauchope made three alternative offers at a con-
ference: 1) not to issue the labor immigration schedule
before the Arab delegation completed its negotiations with
London; 2) in the event that the Arab delegation did not
go to London, to have a British Parliamentary Committee
come to Palestine to hear the Arab grievances; 3) to estab-
lish a joint Arab, British, and Jewish committee to deter-
mine the absorptive capacity of the country.
Neither warnings, military measures nor Government
attempts at conciliation had any effect on the Arabs. Not
only did they turn down the High Commissioner's pro-
posals, but on June 26, the Moslem Supreme Council issued
a public statement, signed by Grand Mufti Haj Amin el
Husseini, which said in part: "The Moslem Supreme
Council has repeatedly declared to the Palestine Govern-
ment that the Arab people will never consent to a Jewish
national home in a holy Moslem country, and similarly that
it will not consent to Jewish immigration and transfer of
Arab lands to Jews, which impair the Arabs' existence.
The Council finds no reason for the Government to continue
this policy, which has proven a failure and a hindrance to
the Government. Therefore, the Council regards the
general strike as the one legal means to demonstrate that
an aggressive policy toward the Arabs will only enrage the

people."
On the other hand, the Palestine Manufacturers' Associ-
ation and the Histadruth, the Jewish general federation of
labor, issued a joint appeal on June 21, demanding the
prevention of further killings and sabotage by applying the
newly-proclaimed Government regulations.
The outbreaks caused great suffering to the Jewish popu-
lation. More than 9,500 refugees streamed into Tel Aviv
from Jaffa and other nearby settlements. Their condition
became so acute that a conference of the Tel Aviv Municipal
Council, the Jewish National Council and the Jewish Agency
for Palestine decided on April 27, to construct 1,000 homes
to shelter the refugees. A campaign to raise $125,000 for
this purpose was immediately launched.
By the end of June, it was reported that from sixty-four
to ninety Arabs, forty-two Jews, and nine British policemen
and foreign Christians had been killed. A Government
communique, issued June 10, revealed that, aside from
violators of the curfew regulations, 1,495 persons had been
arrested since the disorders began. These included 1,313
Arabs, of whom 754 were convicted, 226 acquitted, and
333 remained to be tried; and 182 Jews, of whom 104 were
acquitted, 17 convicted, and 61 remained to be tried.
Palcor (Palestine Correspondence) reported that 50 Arab
leaders had been exiled up to June 7.
Losses sustained by the Government in the first eight
weeks of the disturbances were estimated, on June 14, at
$2,500,000, resulting from Arab refusals to pay taxes,
increased military expenditures, decreased income from
customs, and sabotage. Damages to Jews were estimated
at $7,500,000, from incendiarism in fields and groves,
destruction of ther property, and paralyzed trade and
communications. The cost of the general strike to the
Arabs was placed at $5,000,000. On June 23, the Jerusalem
correspondent of Reuters News Agency estimated that the
Arabs had destroyed 140,000 trees, many of them fruit-
bearing, and about 4,000 acres of grain since the disorders
began.
That not all Arabs were in sympathy with the general
strike was revealed on May 27, when Arab villages in the
vicinity of Mount Tabor in the Galilee district sent dele-
gations to the Jewish settlement of Mesha to apologize for
an attack which had been repelled without casualties. The
Arabs asked for reconciliation with the Jews and explained
that they had been misled by agitators. Similarly, on
June 1, the Arab Merchants Association of Jaffa, tired of
six weeks of striking, appealed to strike leaders to "stop
your dangerous game." This appeal was the result of Jewish
merchants' decision on April 26, not to use Jaffa's harbor
facilities, and to make use of Haifa harbor until a new
harbor was built at Tel Aviv itself. The Government gave
permission for the construction of such a harbor, and on
May 25, dredging began.
The unrest in Palestine had its international repercussions
when it was reported that Nazi, Italian and Communist
propagandists were active in stirring resentment between
Arabs and Jews. Twenty-nine Communists were arrested
for distributing literature urging troops to mutiny, and
exiled to Hedera and Rehoboth under protective custody
on June 1. The colonies however, refused to accept them
and on June 15, they were transferred to a special concentra-
tion camp at Sarafend. On May 15, in a public statement,
the Italian consul in Jerusalem denied that Italian agents
had anything to do with the disorders, although daily
broadcasts in Arabic were sent out for a time by the Italian
radio station at Bari. Suspicions of Nazi complicity in the
disorders increased on May 28, when several German
citizens from Tanganyika, speaking fluent Arabic, were
arrested in Jaffa on charges of stirring up disturbances
there. These suspicions were strengthened when it was
discovered that many of the rifles found with Arab rebels at
Nablus, Tulkarem and Jaffa were of German make.
The whole question of the disorders in Palestine was
discussed in a formal debate in the House of Commons, on
June 19. William Ormsby-Gore, newly-appointed successor
to Mr. Thomas, as Secretary of State for the Colonies,
announced the British Government's determination to
carry out its obligations under the Mandate. "His Majesty's
government has not been, and will not be, moved by
violence and outrage," he declared. "As soon as order is
restored, but not before, His Majesty will be advised to
appoint a Royal Commission to visit Palestine to carry

out a most full and searching investigation into the causes
of unrest and of any grievances which may be brought to
their notice by either Arabs or Jews. The sole aim of His
Majesty's Government is to obtain an objective and non-
partisan report, to enable them to do justice to all sections
of the Palestine population." Reviewing the background of
the disorders, Mr. Ormsby-Gore reported the casualties
as follows: Moslems: killed, 42; seriously injured, 109;
slightly injured, 275. Christians: killed, 4; seriously injured,
24; slightly injured, 54. Jews: killed, 28; seriously injured,
65; slightly injured, 84. The Christian casualties he said,
included 1 British constable killed and 3 seriously injured,
and 5 British police officers and 19 British constables slightly
injured, also 5 British soldiers and 1 army officer and 4
soldiers slightly injured. The remainder of the Christian
casualties were Palestinians. Mr. Ormsby-Gore stated
that 1,823 Christian and Moslem Arabs had been tried,
and 1,206 convicted, while 418 Jews had been tried and
328 convicted; 336 Arabs were acquitted and 281 were
awaiting trial, and 24 Jews were acquitted and 76 were
awaiting trial. Collective fines were imposed on 20 Arab
villages for arson, outrage and physical violence. Some
60 Jewish Communists were put under police supervision
in specified places.
Declaring that "half the trouble that has led to these
disorders is psychological," the Colonial Secretary said the
Arabs feared Jewish domination, whereas the Jews were
afraid that their constructive work would be cut short
or terminated and that they would be reduced to "an
inferior status of barely tolerated aliens in Palestine, under
Arab domination."
"I honestly believe," Mr. Ormsby-Gore declared, "that
both these fears are baseless, but they must be shown to
be baseless. It is the desire of the Government to find a
solution, consistent with the fundamental dual obligation,
and they regard this obligation equally an obligation of
honor. It is my confident belief that we can dissipate these
fears, and do justice to both parties, and it is my intention,
when the solution is found, to apply that solution with
firmness and consistency."
David Lloyd George, former Prime Minister, declared

that the Arab demand was nothing but a demand for the
revocation of the Mandate and warned that under another
Mandatory Power Arab freedom would be curtailed. He
pointed out that the obligations of the Mandate were
specific and definite to encourage the establishment of a
national home for the Jews in Palestine without detriment
to the rights of the Arab population. Recalling the plight
of the Allied nations in 1917, he said: "In these circum-
stances and on the advice which we received, we decided
that it was desirable to secure the sympathy and coopera-
tion of that most remarkable community, the Jews through-
out the world. And the Jews—I am here to bear testimony
to the fact—with all the influence they possess responded
nobly to the appeal which was made."
Other speakers, representing all parties, demanded firm-
ness in putting down the disorders and asked for reconcilia-
tion between the Arabs and Jews. At the close of the
debate, Mr. Ormsby-Gore reiterated the Government's
stand, declaring that "there can be no concession to vio-
lence, intimidation and threats, and, above all, to the
attack which is now being made by lawless elements in
Palestine against the fundamentals of British authority."
IMMIGRATION
In July 1935, prisoners convicted of having entered
Palestine illegally, went on a hunger strike in protest
against being treated as common criminals. When the
subject was debated in the British House of Commons, an
official statement was issued in Jerusalem, declaring that
Palestine law does not provide for any special treatment of
political prisoners. The hunger strike ended August 2,
when it was reported that the prisoners would be released
on bail. Other prisoners, arrested for Communist activities,
abandoned their hunger strike August 4, after 16 days.
The Palestine Government announced that it would not
release on bail any further illegal immigrants, unless the
Jewish Agency would agree to deduct the number of such
immigrants from the succeeding schedule of labor immigra-
tion certificates.
During the year there were many arrests of illegal immi-

grants. Fifty of them, mostly women and children were
detained August 15, at the Palestine frontier and put into
Haifa jail pending trial. Hunger strikes of such prisoners
were frequent, and on November 24, 1935, a total of 150
Jews, without legal permission to remain in Palestine,
besieged the offices of the Zionist Executive and demanded
regulation of their status. Again, on February 16, 1936,
a total of 300 illegal immigrants paid a surprise visit to a
meeting of the Vaad Leumi, demanding that steps be taken
to legalize their position in the country. When, on March 1,
another group of 150 illegal Jewish settlers converged on
the offices of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, police were
forced to disperse them, arresting five. On March 30,
another group of 13 illegal immigrants began a hunger strike
at Acre jail. They were reported to have been roughly
treated when they had refused forcible feeding.
On April 16, the Jewish Agency for Palestine reported
that 61,854 Jewish immigrants had entered Palestine during
1935. It was estimated that this influx, together with the
natural population increase, estimated at 6,400, had raised
the number of Jews in Palestine to 29.8% of the total
population, compared with 18% at the time of the 1931
census. The Jewish population was estimated by the
Agency to be 375,000 in December, 1935. On May 18, in
the face of the Arab general strike and the disorders through-
out Palestine, the Government announced a new labor
immigration schedule for the succeeding six months, pro-
viding for the issuance of 4,500 immigration certificates
to Jews, 500 of which were reserved for possible illegal
immigrants. Of the total number, 1,200 certificates were
earmarked for the use of German Jewish refugees.
On January 17, Dr. Werner Senator, member of the
Executive of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, published a
plan for the immigration of German Jews to Palestine.
Declaring that "of a total of about 430,000 German Jews
still remaining in Germany only about half are 'emigrations-
faehig' (adapted for emigration) during the next 10 years,"
Dr. Senator proposed the transplanting of nearly 150,000
others to Palestine within a period of 10 years. He pointed
out that "the execution of a planned program over a number
of years is dependent upon a certain stability of conditions

in Palestine as well as in Germany," and declared that
"contributions 'a fonds perdu,' credits from semi-public
institutions, and private capital must be used jointly."
His pain provided for the immigration into Palestine
annually of 1,000 youths, 3,000 relatives of settlers already
in Palestine, 2,000 families entering under the capitalist
category, and 4,000 laborers.
GERMAN-PALESTINIAN TRADE AGREEMENTS

In September 1935, in reply, it was said, to the anti-
Jewish Nuremberg Laws, the Vaad Leumi, the Jewish
National Council, withdrew its representatives from the
Haavara, the organization carrying out the transfer agree-
ment with Germany. The German Government soon after-
ward announced far-reaching regulations with the aim of
counteracting the Jewish campaign against the agreement.
The new regulation provided that Jews residing in Palestine
would be able to buy special "Haavara marks" and would
be permitted to send them back to Germany to support
relatives remaining there, or as donations to German-
Jewish institutions. This new measure, sanctioned Septem-
ber 20, was intended to assist German Jews dependent upon
help from relatives abroad.
On September 26, the Vaad Leumi issued a statement
asserting that its withdrawal from the Haavara had nothing
to do with the Nuremberg laws, and announcing that it
would reconsider its withdrawal at its next session.
In succeeding months, the transfer- agreement with
Germany was attacked by many Jewish groups. In Warsaw,
the Joint Committee for Combating Jewish Persecution in
Germany requested the Zionist Organization in Palestine
to terminate the agreement because "trade relations with
Nazi Germany are inadmissible from the point of view of
Jewish national interests." The Revisionists in Palestine,
began a campaign against the agreement, and held public
protest meetings throughout the country.
On November 18, 1935, Dr. Franz Mayer, acting presi-
dent of the German Zionist Federation and director of the
German Palestine Office, announced changes in the transfer
agreement. Capital sent to Palestine by German Jews

would no longer be paid back in cash, he declared, but would
be transferred to shares in Palestine enterprises. At the
same time, the export of merchandise valued at over 50,000
marks was forbidden. A few days later, the British con-
sulate in Berlin announced several modifications easing the
requirements to permit swifter entry. In December, the
Vaad Leumi adopted a resolution expressing its agreement
with the decision of the Zionist Congress regarding the
Haavara and its approval of the transfer agreement; it
decided to name a representative to the Haavara Executive
Committee.
On January 19, 1936, the Haavara office in Germany
made the startling revelation that, since February 7, 1935,
not a single deposit had been accepted in Germany by the
Haavara office for transference to Palestine. This was
explained by the fact that not enough German goods had
been sold in Palestine under the transfer agreement to meet
the requirements of the Reichsbank for further transactions.
Since the agreement had come into force, however, the
Haavara had enabled 1,600 Jewish families to take their
capital out of Germany. Toward the end of January the
Haavara office announced that, within a few months, it would
resume accepting new deposits from German Jews for trans-
ferance to Palestine. But on April 5, while negotiations for
modifying the agreement were being carried on between
Zionist officials and the Reichsbank, the Reich Devisen
(Transfer) Office issued an official communique to the effect
that the maximum of 50,000 marks which Jews emigrating
from Germany to Palestine had been permitted to transfer
in the form of German goods, would be reduced "in view
of the fact that the Palestine market is now less capable of
absorbing German goods.!' It was also announced that
refugees to Palestine would be permitted to take with them
goods and machinery for their own requirements. A few
days later, a German Government order placed the opera-
tion of the transfer pact between Germany and Palestine
entirely in the hands of the Haavara of Tel Aviv. The
Reichsbank, it was announced, would no longer transact
any business in connection with the agreement, and the
German end of the transfer details were taken over by the
Warburg bank of Hamburg and the A. E. Wasserman bank

of Berlin. The maximum amount of capital to be withdrawn
in the form of merchandise was set at 37,500 marks per
person, instead of the 50,000 marks formerly allowed.
Further regulations governing the transfer of capital were
made public on April 12. They permitted the sending of
200 marks monthly to German Jewish students in Palestine,
500 marks monthly for the support of German Jelws residing
in Palestine, and the transferring of further capital to
German Jews who emigrated to Palestine independently
and took from Germany "only comparatively small sums
which are insufficient for the establishment of an independ-
ent economic existence."
ITALO-ETHIOPIAN WAR
The outbreak of hostilities between Italy and Ethiopia
aroused fears in Palestine that England and her dominions
would be drawn into the war. The country had suffered a
war scare for several weeks and both Arabs and Jews had
begun to withdraw savings from the banks and to hoard
food. A conference of Palestinian bankers, industrialists
and economists, on September 21, 1935, laid plans for
coordinated measures to protect the Palestine economic
situation in the face of threatened disturbance resulting
from the Italo-Ethiopian developments. S. Hoofien, director
of the Anglo-Palestine Bank, deplored the panic and as-
sured the public that the country's financial system was
sound. In October, upon returning to Palestine after an
absence of several months, Mayor Dizengoff of Tel-Aviv
declared unjustified the state of panic among many Tel-
Aviv inhabitants over the Italo-Ethiopian situation, and
assured the public that the Government and the Jewish
institutions were standing firm and that there was no cause
for alarm.
When, toward the middle of October, the British Govern-
ment proclaimed sanctions against Italy, the Palestine
Government was forced to follow suit. The sanctions
against Italy resulted in a sharp rise in prices in the Palestine
citrus fruit trade.
On November 16, in a letter to the Manchester Guardian,

Dr. Judah L. Magnes, president of the Hebrew University,
suggested that Palestine be made a perpetually neutral
state, exempted from participation in war and from the
imposition of sanctions. The proposal was attacked by
Colonel Josiah Wedgwood, M. P., and by Lord Melchett,
in replies published in the same newspaper.
Fears were also aroused in Jewish circles by alleged
Italian propaganda in Palestine. Frequent radio broadcasts
in Arabic from the Italian station at Bari caused the British
Government to bring the matter to the attention of the
Italian Ambassador in London and resulted in the speeding
of plans for a broadcasting station in Jerusalem.
The crisis caused by the Italo-Ethiopian situation began
to disappear toward the end of October. The institutions
which had been chiefly affected by it were small banks with
little paid up capital. Confidence and normal conditions
returned as the war scare lessened. However, the situation
caused the Palestine Government to prepare banking reform
legislation, so that such a financial crisis would not occur
again. In February 1936, a new Banking Ordinance was
issued, appointing an examiner for Palestine banks to
prevent any abnormal increase in the number of banks,
rather than reduce the number of already existing banks.
The measure also gave the Palestine Government a direct
and indirect control over banking affairs in the country.
On May 18, in an interview given in Jerusalem, Haile
Selassie, fugitive Emperor of Ethiopia, who had stayed in
Palestine for several weeks, voiced his thanks to world
Jewry "for the special interest Jews have exhibited in the
Ethiopian situation."
MEETING OF PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION

When, on May 27, 1936, the Mandates Commission of
the League of Nations met in Geneva, reports that Italy,
which had been linked in London to the Palestine disorders,
might not participate proved groundless, since Marquis
Alberto Theodoli of Italy, chairman of the commission,
presided over the opening session and was reelected chair-
man for 1936.
In its report to the Commission, the Jewish Agency asked

the British Government to make Palestine immune from
further attacks on the part of Arabs. Reviewing briefly the
beginnings of the disorders, Dr. Chaim Weizmann pointed
out, in a letter accompanying the report:
"This is not for the first time that an attempt has been
made by the use of violence to force the hands of the
Mandatory Government into abandoning the policy of
the Jewish National Home and to deter the Jewish people
from proceeding with its work of settlement in Palestine . .
The Jewish Agency trusts that the Mandatory Government
. . . . will not be deflected by any threats, strikes or violence
from carrying out its mandatory obligations." He appealed
for encouragement of Jewish settlement and development,
declaring that "such a policy is urgently called for by the
conditions of dire economic distress and political persecu-
tion to which large sections of the Jewish people in the
Diaspora are now being subjected and that its adoption is
fully justified by the remarkable development of which
Palestine has shown itself capable in recent years as a
result of increased Jewish efforts."
Dr. Weizmann also recommended a special grant of
immigration certificates based on the increasing employ-
ment needs of the country and the special needs of German
refugees, easing of the regulations governing the admittance
of relatives, increase in opportunities for absorption of
Jewish immigrants, legalization of the status of illegal
immigrants, abandonment of the proposed laws restricting
sale of land by Arabs, revision of land laws to halt fictitious
claims, revision of tariff, increased government support for
the Jewish health service, and increase of Jewish employes
in public works to one third of the total.
During the closed sessions of the Commission, Attorney
General Harry Herbert Trusted, representing Palestine,
reported on the Palestine situation. He voiced regret that
the unrest there had not subsided, declared that establish-
ment of order was considered by the Government of utmost
importance, and reported that the British and Palestinian
sections of the Palestine police had been strengthened and
the military garrison substantially increased to deal with
the situation, and that restrictive measures against agitators

and strike leaders had also been taken.
Because Mr. Trusted refused to discuss the Palestine
disturbances any further, his replies to questions on the
proposed Legislative Council, Arab-Jewish relations, police
and military questions, and other Palestine problems, were
generally considered unsatisfactory, the Commission called
a closed meeting June 2, without the accredited repre-
sentative of Great Britain, to consider the procedure which
was to be followed with regard to the Palestine Report.
The majority opinion held that if the Mandatory Power
would not give further information concerning the situation
in Palestine, there was no sense in proceeding with the
examination of Mr. Trusted's report. The Commission,
therefore, proposed that the Mandatory Power be asked
whether it was prepared to give further information or to
submit a proper report at a later date. The next day the
Commission decided to proceed with the examination of
Great Britain's Palestine report for 1935, "in view of the
impossibility of foreseeing at this stage when the desired
information would be furnished."
On June 10, the British Government made public in
London its report to the League of Nations on its admini-
stration of Palestine during 1935. The report ascribed the
Palestine disorders in part to the contagion of the Italo-
Ethiopian War and the Egyptian unrest and to Arab dis-
content arising from Jewish immigration and the sale of
land to Jews. Although public security was well maintained,
the report stated, the latter part of the year had not been
free of tension and Arab discontent. This condition was
constantly manifested, it declared, by vehement speeches
and strongly worded articles in the press which reached
their climax following the death of Sheikh Iz-ed-din, who
was slain by police in a battle with brigands. The announce-
ment of the legislative council plans of the Government,
according to the report, exercised a tranquilizing effect.
The report revealed that 61,854 Jewish immigrants entered
Palestine in 1935, of whom 6,309 were capitalists bringing
with them a minimum of $5,000 each. A total of 1,557
persons were found to have entered the country illegally,
of whom 565 were sentenced and recommended for deporta-

tion. Of the total illegal immigrants, 1,079 were deported,
245 of them being Jews. Jewish immigrants, the report
declared, continued to gravitate mostly to the towns, but
there was a slight movement at the year's end to the
settlements. "The prosperity enjoyed by the Jewish com-
munity in 1934," the report stated, "was sustained during
1935 and manifested itself in a widening of activities until,
towards the year-end, the uncertainty communicated by
the international situation led to a general restriction and
contraction of investment, building and industry."
COMMUNAL ACTIVITIES
Hebrew University.—On July 2, 1935, the student body
of the Hebrew University went on strike in an effort to
•enforce its demand for the addition of an agricultural school
to the University. Continued reports that Dr. Judah L.
Magnes had submitted his resignation as Chancellor of the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem to the Board of Governors
were officially denied in Lucerne, August 27, by Zalman
Schocken, honorary treasurer of the University. Several
days later, Dr. Magnes threatened to resign if additional
funds to meet the institution's requirements were not raised.
In his report to the Governing Body of the University on
September 10, Dr. Magnes declared that the Board of Gov-
ernors had approved the agreement with the Hadassah
Women's Zionist Organization for the joint establishment
of a Medical Centre. The Executive also affirmed the pro-
ject of the English Zionist Federation to establish a Chair
of English as a Moses Montefiore Memorial. The Board
of Governors elected Dr. Chaim Weizmann chairman and
the administration of the University was reorganized. The
post of Chancellor was abolished, and Dr. Magnes agreed
to serve as President of the University. Academic self-
government was furthered by the institution of the offices
of Rector, elected by the Senate, to act as academic head of
the University, and of Deans elected by the various Faculties.
In November, Dr. Weizmann announced the establishment
of the Faculties of Mathematics, Natural Sciences and
Chemical Physics.
Chief Rabbinate.—The death in Jerusalem on September 1,

of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Ha-Kohen Kook, Chief Rabbi of
Palestine and one of the most widely loved and respected
figures in the Jewish world, plunged all Palestine into mourn-
ing. The Mizrachi Organization of Poland also proclaimed
a day of mourning, and memorial services were held at the
Zionist Congress in Lucerne. Rabbi Kook's death left open
the post of Chief Rabbi of Palestine. In October, the Vaad
Leumi announced that, in accordance with official regula-
tions, an election to fill the vacancy would be held. In
January, the Assembly of local Rabbis, meeting in Jerusalem
independently of the Jewish institutions, elected Rabbi Zvi
Pesach Frank to succeed Rabbi Kook. The Jewish institu-
tions, however, announced that they would not recognize
Rabbi Frank as Chief Rabbi. Meanwhile, the Gerrer Chas-
sidim invited Rabbi Zemba to come to Palestine to be their
Rabbi.
Labor Organizations.—In August 1935, workers belonging
to the Labor Federation, Histadruth Haovdim, and the
Hapoel Hamizrachi, the Orthodox labor group, clashed as a
result of a labor dispute. The conflict was settled within
a few days, and the two organizations agreed to cooperate
in the future. On April 30, however, the orthodox Jewish
labor organization broke off relations with the Histadruth
Haovdim, charging that the latter was monopolizing employ-
ment. Similar labor disputes arose in September between
the Histadruth and National Labor Federation (Revisionist).
On February 11, 1936, at the 33rd conference of the
Palestine Labor Federation (Histadruth Haovdim), in Tel
Aviv, it was reported that there were 3,000 unemployed
in the cities and 1,200 unemployed in the colonies, although
8,000 new workers had obtained employment during 1935.
Jewish Medical Congress.—In August 1935, at the world
conference of Jewish doctors held in Lucerne to discuss
Jewish health conditions in various countries, plans were
laid for the convocation of a World Jewish Medical Con-
gress in Tel Aviv. On April 23, 1936, 300 physicians from
all over the world gathered in Tel Aviv. The Congress
adopted a resolution to establish a Jewish International
Medical Organization, and discussed a proposal to estab-
lish a Medical Faculty at the Hebrew University.
In March, Moshe Smilansky, president of the Jewish

Farmers' Association, issued a plea for intensive cultivation
of Jewish land in Palestine. He pointed out that out of a
total of 1,500,000 dunams of land owned by Jews apart
from town property, 1,000,000 dunams are fit for intensive
cultivation, although only 150,000 dunams are actually
under such cultivation. He urged the introduction of a
cooperative program to further the work.
On April 1, an appeal for contributions to a fund of $500,-
000, to aid the Jews in Poland, was made public in Tel Aviv
at a meeting of the Olei Polania, organization of Polish
Jews in Palestine.
MISCELLANEOUS EVENTS
On July 8, 1935, the Palestine government approved the
loan of $650,000 from a London bank by the Vaad Leumi,
the Jewish National Council of Palestine, to be used for
erecting new Jewish school buildings.
Jewish State Party.—-In the same month, the government
refused to register the Jewish State Party unless it eliminated
from its statutes the words "Jewish majority" and "within
the historic boundaries of Palestine." After the passage was
reworded the government agreed to register the party.
Japanese Dumping.—Palestine suffered in 1935 from
Japanese dumping of silk and other goods. While Japan
bought little from Palestine, she was able to sell goods at
extremely low prices. This policy resulted in the failure,
in July 1935, of an important Palestine silk firm, which had
invested $400,000 in its business.
It was pointed out that, according to Article 18 of the
Mandate, Palestine was not allowed to differentiate between
members of the League of Nations in tariff matters. How-
ever, since Japan had withdrawn from the League, certain
circles proposed drastic action against further dumping.
A delegation of Palestinian industrialists visited Sir
Arthur Wauchope, High Commissioner, to ask protection
against dumping from Japan, Czechoslovakia and other
countries. They warned that many Palestinian industries
would be forced to close down unless they were protected.

Mr. Johnson, Treasurer of the Palestine Government,
ordered an inquiry into the causes for the shutting down of
the Sacks Silk Mills.
On October 24, in a debate in the House of Parliament,
Sir Wilfred Sugden questioned the Government concerning
the dumping of goods which endangered the existence of
many budding industries in Palestine, and was told that
this activity could not be stopped owing to the Anglo-
Japanese commercial treaty. In the same month, Nobumi
Ito, Japanese representative at Geneva, declared to the
Mandates Commission that, although no longer a member
of the League of Nations, Japan insists on equal privileges
in the Mandated territories, particularly in Palestine and
Syria.
In December 1935, twenty-five trees were planted in the
King George V Jubilee Forest, celebrating the twenty-fifth
anniversary of the reign of the King. A cypress tree, given
by the King himself, was also planted.
In April, laborers digging on the site of the ancient city
of Jericho unearthed synagogue mosaics more than 1,400
years old. The mosaics were inscribed in the Maccabean
style, which was taken as evidence that the Jews must have
remained in Jericho long after Joshua's death, contrary to
theories that the Jews had deserted the city at that time.
Further excavations uncovered a shrine dating back 5,000
years on the site of ancient Jericho. The excavators, directed
by Professor John Garstang, also unearthed numerous relics
of the neolithic age.
In February 1936, it was announced in New York that
Arturo Toscanini, world-famous orchestra conductor, had
accepted an invitation to conduct the opening concert of
the Palestine Symphony Orchestra on October 24, 1936.
On March 31, 1936, the radio station of the Palestine
Broadcasting Service was inaugurated in Jerusalem by
High Commissioner Wauchope, who stressed the great
benefits which Palestine farmers would derive from the
service. The first program consisted of a broadcast of a
military band, some Arab instrumental music, and Hebrew
poetry and songs. Within four days, however, the station
created hard feelings between Jews and Arabs when the

manager of the Arab section of the station was reported to
have resigned because of the use of the Hebrew phrase,
"Eretz Israel" (Land of Israel), by Hebrew announcers.
The phrase was ruled off the air, and its initials, "Aleph
Yud" (A.I.)i were used in its place. This action aroused a
storm of protest in the Hebrew press, and caused the Vaad
Leumi to make representations to High Commissioner
Wauchope. On April 10, Israel Amicam, a former official
of the Government Posts and Telegraph Department, filed
suit to force lifting of the ban, basing his case on photostatic
copies of proclamations of the late King George V, published
by the Palestine Government, addressed to the Jewish
community, in which "Eretz Israel" was used repeatedly.
On April 12, the Government ordered that only the phrase,
"Jerusalem calling," should be used in broadcasts over the
station. Meanwhile, it was disclosed that the inauguration
of the new station had so spurred sales of radio sets that the
Government was forced to issue 12,000 new permits to
owners of sets.
On April 30, 1936, the Levant Fair opened in Tel Aviv
in the presence of 12,000 persons, and lasted till June 6.
Designed as an international trade and industries exhibition,
the Fair was forced to open with only Palestine products
on display, all foreign exhibitors having been obliged to
postpone their showing until the arrival of merchandise
from Jaffa, where it was tied up as a result of the Arab
general strike. The Fair was opened by High Commissioner
Wauchope, who voiced his regrets at the disturbances but
expressed confidence that they would not interfere with
the normal economic development of the country. Colonial
Secretary J. H. Thomas participated in the opening cer-
emonies by broadcasting a brief greeting from London.
On May 6, the foreign pavilions of the Levant Fair opened
for the first time. More than 300,000 persons visited the
Fair during the 36 days it was in progress.
On May 6, it was estimated that $500,000 had been with-
drawn within a few days from the Polska Kasa Opieki,
semi-official Polish bank, as a result of Poland's new cur-
rency laws forbidding export of gold or foreign exchange.
The press reported that Palestine Jews had suffered a loss
of approximately $600,000 because of the reduced exchange

rates. The restriction on export of foreign exchange made
it impossible -for Polish Jews in Palestine to meet their real
estate and other obligations.
OTHER COUNTRIES
Afghanistan.—In August 1935, the Afghan Consul in

Bombay denied reports that anti-Jewish discrimination
existed in Afghanistan. The Jewish press, however, reported
anti-Jewish outbreaks in Kabul, the capital, and declared
that Afghan Jewry lives in constant terror. It was later
reported that the Afghan Government had deported all the
Jews of Kabul to a remote village in the interior. In February,
insisting that Jews were not persecuted there, the Afghan
consul in Bombay refused to issue visas for a Jewish deputa-
tion to visit Afghanistan to investigate the condition of
Jews in that country.
Australia.—In January 1936, the Jewish citizens of New

South Wales presented an address to Sir Isaac Isaacs, retir-
ing as Governor-General of Australia, expressing "humble
and warm appreciation of your [his] unceasing devoted and
successful efforts to enhance the prestige of the Common-
wealth of Australia in the sisterhood of Nations comprising
the British Empire." In acknowledging the message, Sir
Isaac said that he accepted it in the spirit in which it was
offered, "that is, in recognition and grateful appreciation
of the fact that in Australia, as throughout the British
Commonwealth of Nations, religious belief creates no dis-
tinction whatever with regard to the duties and rights of
citizenship or the opportunities of public service." During
March, at the instigation of a lawyer recently returned from
Germany, an attempt was made in Perth, Western Australia,
to form a branch of the Nazi Party. The organization
announced its opposition to Jews, Catholics and Freemasons.
India.—In April 1936, derogatory utterances about India

attributed to Chancellor Hitler evoked a movement for the
boycotting of the Olympic Games and of German goods.
Nationalist papers printed sharp attacks on Hitler, and, in
a newspaper article, K. F. Nariman, Mayor of Bombay,

condemned him and expressed sympathy for the German
Jews. A meeting of the National Students League adopted
a resolution calling for a boycott of the Games, and the
Bombay Chronicle declared that such action "will no doubt
serve as an eloquent and dignified expression of the resent-
ment caused in India" by Hitler's attitude.
Luxembourg.—In March 1936, a demand for prohibition
of shehitah in the Duchy of Luxembourg, voiced in the
Chamber by a Socialist deputy, was categorically rejected
by the Government; Premier Bech, a member of the Catholic
Party, declared that such a prohibition would be contrary
to the spirit of religious tolerance.
In the preceding month, representatives of eleven nations
took part in the International Congress of the League for
Human Rights, in Luxembourg. The gathering adopted
resolutions appealing to the conscience of the world to con-
demn anti-Jewish persecutions in Germany and in Poland,
and to fight against such medieval methods, and demanding
that the Governments not only offer an asylum for German
political refugees but also grant them the right to work.
Manchukuo.—Late in June 1935, six White Russians
went on trial in Harbin, on the charge of having kidnapped
and murdered the son of Simon Kasper, a local French-
Jewish diamond dealer. On July 1, 1935, the proceedings
were postponed. The accused endeavored to give the trial
a political character, alleging that they wanted to avenge
Russia for the misrule to which it has been subjected by
Jews in high Soviet circles.
In October, Harbin Jews were outraged by the raid of
police authorities who, at the supposed instigation of "White
Russians," entered a synagogue "in search of arms and of
banned literature." The Manchukuo Government was
severely criticized for permitting such a step. The local
Jewish press reported that anti-Jewish terrorism was wide-
spread in the district, several Jews having been kidnapped,
and an anti-Jewish boycott instituted. During Yom Kippur
the Manchukuoan police searched the homes of prominent
Jewish public men and philanthropists in Harbin. These
and similar anti-Jewish activities were believed to be inspired

by White Russians, in reprisal for a protest campaign by
Shanghai Jews against their Jew-baiting activities in
Manchukuo. During April, anti-Jewish agitators carried
out a brutal program of kidnappings and arrests in order
to extort large sums of money from local Jewish business-
men. In May, the Mukden Jewish community was horrified
to learn that Sender Koletz, a 60-year-old Jewish photog-
rapher, had been arrested by White Guards as a Soviet
spy and had been tortured to death during efforts to extract
a confession from him. The official news agency reported
that he had "committed suicide" by taking poison while in
prison.
Turkey.—In January 1936, the Jewish community of
Istanbul was disturbed by continued reports in the foreign
press to the effect that Jewish schools would be forced by
the government to close down. H. Reisner, vice-president
of the Jewish Community, denied this report and revealed
that the Turkish Government had, in fact, granted to the
schools a special relief fund of 10,000 Turkish pounds, of
which Jewish educational institutions received a part. On
June 20, Michon Ventura, professor of Roman law at the
University of Istanbul, was appointed chief rabbi of Turkey,
succeeding the late Haim Bidjarano.
INTERNATIONAL MATTERS
Following is an account of important events which could

not be treated in connection with any one country.
Zionist Congress.—The nineteenth (biennial) World
Zionist Congress was held at Lucerne, Switzerland, August
20 to September 3, 1935.
Before the opening of the Congress, a representative of
the German Zionist Federation arrived in Lucerne to
attempt to prevent the gathering from discussing persecu-
tion of Jews in Germany. The representative declared that
the German delegation would be forced to leave in a body
if such a discussion arose. Dr. Stephen S. Wise, of New York
City, announced that he would fight any attempt to sup-

press anti-Nazi discussion and that he and other delegates
would walk out if the question did not arise. The validity
of the American elections for the Congress was questioned
in a petition submitted to the Congress Court by the Jewish
State Party, which charged "improper conduct of the elec-
tions at the polling stations" and accused the Labor Zionists
of selling shekolim to anyone, Zionist or non-Zionist, promis-
ing to vote for the Labor ticket. The objection was over-
ruled by the Congress Court, which, however, invalidated
more than 600 votes cast in the Chicago district.
At the Conference of Labor delegates, David ben-Gurion,
Palestine Labor leader, proposed a plan for re-organization
of national Zionist organizations, providing for Zionist
organizations in each country, consisting of all Zionist
groups, with their administrative bodies composed of repre-
sentatives, in the same proportion as the various factions
are represented at the World Congress. The Laborites
offered two seats in the next Executive to the Mizrachi
organization in order to lay a basis for a coalition Executive.
The Congress was formally opened by Dr. Nahum Sokolow,
president of the World Zionist Organization, who reviewed
the progress of Zionism during the preceding two years.
He pleaded for understanding with the Arabs, for freer
immigration and for colonization of Transjordania, and
called for unity in Israel.
A message from Malcolm McDonald, British Under
Secretary of State for the Colonies, declaring that the gov-
ernment is determined to carry out its dual obligation, as
to both Jews and Arabs, was received coldly by the delegates.
Greetings were also received from David Lloyd George and
from the British Parliamentary Committee for Palestine,
signed by Colonel Josiah Wedgwood, Lord Hartington and
Barnett Janner.
High Commissioner James G. McDonald was accorded
an ovation when, on behalf of the Government body of the
High Commission for Refugees from Germany, he expressed
deep appreciation of the activities of the Zionist Organiza-
tion and of other bodies in the Jewish Agency, in facilitating
the immigration of refugees to Palestine.
David ben-Gurion criticized the British Government for

its Palestine immigration policy. Professor Selig Brodetsky,
member of the Executive of the World Zionist Organization,
delivered a violent attack on the Revisionists for attempting
to split the Zionist movement.
Reporting as chairman of the Central Bureau for the
Settlement of German Jews, Dr. Weizmann declared that
Palestine's absorption of 25,000 German-Jewish immigrants
since March 1933, was proof that Palestine will stand the
test as the Jewish national home. Praising the enterprise
and energy of the immigrants, he said that the problem of
the German refugees remained unsolved, and that his
Bureau was overwhelmed with requests to grant refugee
certificates. Dr. Arthur Ruppin, director of the Bureau's
Palestine office, emphasized that its guiding principle has
been to settle the refugees on the land as well as in manual
occupations and in industry.
The General Zionist Group B. fraction began a movement
to suppress discussion of the Jewish situation in Germany
and to prevent anti-Nazi speeches at the Congress. Mean-
while, M. M. Ussishkin, president of the Jewish National
Fund, demanded the raising of a £1,000,000 fund within
two years for the redemption of land in Palestine, and the
Congress unanimously decided to establish a colony in
Palestine in honor of Miss Henrietta Szold, founder of the
Hadassah, American Women's Zionist Organization.
On August 22, the Executive of the Jewish Agency for
Palestine published its report. It described the preceding
two years as a period of unprecedented increase in Jewish
immigration into Palestine and "of an equally unprecedented
struggle with the Government on the immigration issue";
and drew attention to the fact that the Government's esti-
mates of the absorptive capacity in Palestine fell far short
of those of the Jewish Agency, but "that the official estimates
of the country's capacity to absorb immigrant labor have
been steadily increasing, both absolutely and in relation
to the estimates of the Jewish Agency, and that in spite of
the increasing deductions the net schedule figures have also
risen." Regarding the proposed legislative council for Pales-
tine, the report declared that representatives of the Jewish
Agency had "expressed the fundamental and categori ,
cai
opposition of the Jewish Agency to the proposed constitu-
tional reform." The report also disclosed that the number
of Palestinian workers had increased from an estimated
40,000 in the summer of 1933, to 64,000 in May 1935. "The
Labor Department made great efforts to place the newly-
arrived Chalutzim in agricultural work, but despite its
efforts and those of the Histadruth, it was impossible to
satisfy the demands for agricultural laborers. There was,
on the other hand, a steady increase in numbers of Arabs
employed in Jewish groves."
The Federation of Jewish Societies of France, represent-
ing 80,000 Jews, sent a message to the Congress protesting
against the continuation of the German-Palestinian transfer
agreement; the Jewish Ex-Servicemen's Association of
France, the League for Combating Anti-Semitism, and the
Poale Zion, Left-wing Zionist Organization, also joined the
protest.
Unity in Zionist ranks was furthered by an agreement
reached at the Congress between the regular Zionists and
the Mizrachi, Orthodox Zionists. The latter agreed to modify
their demand for sanctions against violators of the religious
requirements of the Sabbath in Palestine, and declared
their readiness to join the presidium as well as all Commit-
tees of the Congress. Accordingly, Rabbi Meier Berlin,
Mizrachi leader, took his place as Mizrachi member of the
presidium. In the general debate, Berl Locker, head of the
Organization Department of the Zionist Executive, also
invited the Revisionists to resume contact with the Zionist
Organization.
In the name of the American delegation, Morris Rothen-
berg, president of the Zionist Organization of America, pre-
sented a five-point program, and demanded that an economic
commission be established to coordinate private and national
economic enterprises in Palestine.
Outright condemnation of German persecution of Jews
was voiced by Rabbi Wise, and the formal attitude of the
Congress was made clear by Dr. Weizmann's announcement
that the gathering would adjourn for a half-day as a sign
of mourning over the anti-Jewish events in Germany. Dr.
Weizmann called for a renewed effort for the upbuilding of
Palestine as the only dignified reply to the Nazi persecution.
A special committee, with Rabbi Wise as chairman, was

created by the Congress to study the question of the transfer
agreement with Germany.
The report of the American Economic Committee for
Palestine was submitted to the Congress by Israel B. Brodie,
president. It outlined a program of acceleration of the
absorptive capacity of Palestine, particularly in relation
to the industrial development of the country, and proposed
the establishment of an industrial bank and the adoption
of "an enlightened and flexible tariff policy suited to Pales-
tine needs."
The proposal of Israel M. Sieff, London economist, that
a national loan of £5,000,000 be floated for the development
of Palestine, was referred to the Budget Committee, which
appointed a sub-committee of experts to report on this plan
as well as on Mr. Brodie's proposal.
The Congress adopted resolutions appealing to public
opinion throughout the world to assist Jews in rebuilding a
national home in Palestine; emphasizing the Jewish desire
to live in peace and harmony with the Arabs; appealing
to Great Britain "to generously fulfill its obligations under
the Balfour Declaration, by initiating an active and sys-
tematic policy of furthering the development of the Jewish
National Home on a scale and on a basis which the position
of the Jews in the world demands and which the develop-
ment of Palestine, given free scope for Jewish efforts and
active assistance on the part of the Government, can make
possible"; and protesting against the proposed Legislative
Council because it relegates the Jews of Palestine "to the
position of a minority."
At the closing session on September 3, Dr. Weizmann was
elected President; Dr. Nahum Sokolow, honorary president;
and M. M. Ussishkin president of the Actions Committee.
The new Zionist Executive was composed of David ben-
Gurion, Moshe Shertok, Eliezer Kaplan, Laborites; Isaac
Gruenbaum, Professor Selig Brodetsky, Group A. General
Zionists; Dr. Rottenstreich, Group B. General Zionists; and.
Rabbi Fishman, Mizrachi. The plan put forward by David
ben-Gurion for reorganization of the Zionist Organization
on a territorial basis was adopted by the Congress. Other
resolutions adopted included a demand for expulsion from
the Zionist Organization of those refusing to employ Jewish

labor in Palestine; for a free hand for the Jewish Agency in
distributing immigration certificates; for negotiations with
the Soviet Government for larger emigration of Russian
Zionists; for the assignment of 5 5 % of the certificates to
chalutzim and one-third of the remainder to artisans; that
colonization of middle-class Jews be increased; that the
Government protect Palestine industries against foreign
dumping; etc.
Over the objections of the German delegates, a strongly-
worded resolution condemning Nazi Germany for its persecu-
tion of the Jews was adopted. Another resolution favored
the convocation of a World Jewish Congress for the defense
of Jewish political rights and of the economic existence of
the Jewish people. The transfer agreement with Germany
was upheld despite strong opposition.
On August 13, a world conference of Jewish National
Fund representatives and workers opened in Lucerne. M.
M. Ussishkin, chairman of the Board of Directors, com-
plained that the Jews owned only six and one-half percent
of the land in Palestine, despite the fact that the Jewish
population is more than twenty-six percent of the total. A
resolution was adopted expressing grave concern at the
dangerous development of land speculation in Palestine,
calling upon all Jewish institutions in Palestine and abroad
to combat the peril, and asking the Zionist Congress to
create a central body for the control of land concessions.
A new agreement between the Jewish National Fund and
the Keren Hayesod (Palestine Foundation Fund) for the
coordination of fund-raising campaigns also was adopted.
The Jewish Agency.—-The fourth (biennial) session of the

Council of the Jewish Agency for Palestine opened in Lucerne
following the Zionist Congress. Reporting on behalf of the
Executive, Dr. Arthur Ruppin declared that continued
prosperity and economic progress in Palestine are assured
despite frequent assertions that the country was headed for
an economic crisis, and that its "boom" was about to end.
"A temporary setback in the progress of the work is to be
expected," he said, "since no country can hope to escape
such natural consequences. But this setback, when it does
come, will not affect Palestine deeply for two important

reasons. The first of these is the readiness of the Govern-
ment of Palestine to expend half of its £6,000,000 surplus
on a programme of public works, if and when the situation
warrants such an expenditure. The second is the continuous
stream of capital of Jews outside Palestine which is flowing
into the country."
The Council issued an appeal to the Jewish world to raise
a million pounds within two years to finance the colonization
of 2,000 workers' families in Palestine. An agreement was
reached between Zionist and non-Zionist members, giving
three seats on the Executive to non-Zionists instead of the
two they previously held. Speakers at the gathering urged
support of the Agency's work in Palestine and criticized the
Mandatory Power for restricting the immigration of Jewish
labor. On November 11, David ben-Gurion was appointed
president of the Executive, sharing the political work of
the Jewish Agency with Moshe Shertok. Other appoint-
ments were Eliezer Kaplan, treasurer; Isaac Gruenbaum,
head of the Labor Department; and Dr. Werner Senator,
head of the Immigration Department. In November, the
Jewish Agency submitted to the League of Nations a plan
to take 200,000 Jews out of Germany within six years and
settle them in Palestine.
On November 28, at a conference of Jewish relief organ-
izations in Geneva held under the auspices of the Jewish
Agency, the proposed establishment of a liquidation bank
to help German Jews transfer their capital to other coun-
tries, under a German-Jewish agreement similar to the
Palestine transfer agreement, was opposed by a majority
of representatives who decided not to present the plan to
the League of Nations Committee of Experts studying the
refugee situation.
On September 11, the First International Conference of
the Youth-Aliyah Committees, held in Amsterdam, dis-
cussed the problems of training and preparing German-
Jewish youths for life under the conditions now prevailing.
New Zionist Organization.—In September 1935, the New

Zionist Organization (Revisionists) reported the following
returns in the voting for its first constituent congress:
REVIEW OF THE YEAR S696 389
Poland 298,532; Eastern Galicia, 97,000; West Galicia,
40,000; Palestine, 27,000; Czechoslovakia, 38,000; Lithuania,
22,000; North America, 20,000. On September 8, the first
Congress of the New Zionist Organization opened in Vienna.
Vladimir Jabotinksy, president, submitted a ten-year plan
to settle 1,500,000 Jews on both sides of the Jordan; announced
that a bank with a capital of $500,000 would be established
by the Revisionists to further the development of Palestine;
attacked the Palestine Government for its immigration,
land reserve, and Transjordan policies; and assailed the
proposed Legislative Council as unwise and dangerous. Mr.
Jabotinsky repudiated the accusation that he and his organ-
ization were Fascist in tendency. Outlining the constitution
of the new organization, Dr. Oscar Rabinowitch asserted
that "the New Zionist Organization is no Jewish Party, it
is Jewry itself." He declared that all Jews were automatically
members of the New Zionist Organization, without distinc-
tion of class or private views and that therefore the Organ-
ization represented world Jewry. Dr. Rabinowitch declared
that, considering itself the representative body of world
Jewry, the New Zionist Organization would demand rec-
ognition by Great Britain and by the Mandates Commission
of the League of Nations as the Jewish Agency for Palestine,
as well as the eventual granting of a seat in the League of
Nations. Over the objection of Jacob de Haas, American
delegate, who declared that American Jews were opposed
to militaristic activities, the Congress appointed a special
committee on the Jewish Legion. The motion was defended
on the ground that it had nothing to do with militarism, but
was only a matter of affording adequate protection to Jewish
peace.
On September 11, the Congress adopted a constitution.
It proclaimed the aims of the organization to be: "First,
the creation of a Jewish majority on both sides of the
Jordan; secondly, the establishment of a Jewish State in
Palestine on the basis of reason and justice and in the spirit
of the Torah; thirdly, the repatriation to Palestine of all
the Jews who wish to be repatriated there; fourthly, the
liquidation of the Diaspora." The constitution provides
for the establishment of a Parliament, to be known as the
Zionist National Assembly, to be convoked once every three
years. The Congress adopted a resolution condemning the

German-Palestinian transfer agreement and calling upon
all Jews to denounce and terminate it. During the debate
on the resolution, B. Y. Jacobi of London accused the
Haavara (transfer agency) of giving back to the German
Jews only 39% of the entire amount of goods imported from
Germany, and asserted that several Jewish organizations
were receiving large benefits through the agreement.
The Congress elected Vladimir Jabotinsky as president
of the organization, and set up an Executive Committee
with headquarters in London. Among the resolutions
adopted were those demanding a more equitable interpreta-
tion of the Balfour Declaration by the British Government,
opposing the proposed Legislative Council, calling for the
establishment of a Jewish State, and condemning labor
disputes in Palestine.
In November, the first plenary meeting of the Executive
of the New Zionist Organization, held in Paris, decided to
proceed with the creation of national federations of the
New Zionist Organization in different countries, to launch
a national loan, and to prepare details of the proposed
immigration plan. On March 17, 1936, Vladimir Jabotinsky,
president of the New Zionist Organization, announced in
London that the first world convention of the organization
would take place in August 1936. This convention, he said,
would pave the way for formation of a National Assembly,
to be elected once every three years by all Jews, irrespective
of ideological differences.
Hicem.—In March, 1936, the Executive Committee of

the HICEM (Hias-Ica-Emigration Association), meeting in
Paris, approved a resolution to convoke, in July, a general
Jewish emigration conference, to be attended by representa-
tives of all the committees affiliated with the HICEM in
countries of emigration, transit and immigration, of the
organizations providing assistance to refugees from Ger-
many in different countries, and of certain organizations
concerned in Jewish emigration which have worked in close
contact with the HICEM. Edouard Oungre, Director of
HICEM reported that the organization had helped more
REVIEW OF THE YEAR 56% 391
than 3,000 refugees to emigrate from Germany during 1935,
making a total of 13,667, from May 1933 to February 1936.
High Commission for Refugees.—On July 17, 1935, a public

session of the Governing Body of the High Commission for
Refugees Coming from Germany took place in London,
presided over by Viscount Cecil of Chelwood. High Com-
missioner McDonald declared that the meeting must "con-
sider a basis for the definite liquidation at the end of this
year of the High Commission for Refugees from Germany
and the transfer of its responsibility to a new organization
directly responsible to the League of Nations." He declared
that the work of the Commission was two-thirds done. He
stated that some 36,000 refugees had been settled overseas,
18,000 had been repatriated in Central and Eastern Europe,
and from 5,000 to 10,000 had been established elsewhere.
He estimated that, out of a total of 80,000 refugees since
January 1933, approximately 15,000 were still unplaced.
"The plight of thousands of these is now grave," he de-
clared. "They and others must soon become desperate
unless the present tendency to deny to unsettled refugees
opportunities to work is reversed . . . I see no prospect
that this task can be carried forward to completion except
under the direction of an organization created by the League
of Nations as an integral part of the League system, and
empowered to act on behalf of all the categories of refugees
—-Russians, Armenians, Assyrians, and others as well as
Germans."
Mr. McDonald also reported that immigration to South
American countries is at present restricted to agriculturists;
referred to Palestine as "the chief country of refuge for the
Jewish exiles from Germany"; praised the work of private
organizations in Europe and America, and reported that
"since April 1933, a sum approaching two million pounds
has been collected and distributed on behalf of the refugees."
To this total, American Jews had contributed $3,000,000,
British Jews $2,500,000, and the rest came from the Jews
of France, Holland, Denmark and elsewhere.
The High Commissioner stated flatly that "it is . . .
impossible . . . to recommend in any case any persons who
had left Germany to return," and reported that there had
been no further dealing with the German Government with
regard to economic questions of refugees, such as that of
remittances of incomes from Germany to the refugees.
The subject of the resignation of Mr. McDonald, is treated
at length in the United States section of this Review.
League of Nations and Refugee Questions.—In July, 1935,
the urgent need for dealing comprehensively with the refugee
problem was expressed in a memorandum circulated by the
Secretary-General of the League of Nations to the Assembly,
Council and members. The memorandum was submitted
by the Norwegian Government, which asked that the
question of international assistance to refugees be placed
on the agenda of the approaching sixteenth Assembly of
the League. The Norwegian Government supported High
Commissioner McDonald's plea for the establishment of a
central organization at Geneva to carry out for all refugees
the functions exercised by the Nansen Office for certain
groups. Denmark, Finland and Sweden supported the
Norwegian Government's proposal.
On September 13, after debating the Norwegian Govern-
ment's plan, the Sixth Committee of the Assembly of the
League of Nations decided to appoint a sub-committee com-
posed of representatives of fifteen states to study the ques-
tion and report on it at a later date. On September 1, the
Sixth Committee adopted a resolution of its sub-committee,
practically rejecting the proposal of the Norwegian Govern-
ment, confirming previous plans for the liquidation of the
Nansen office, and leaving to the League Council the ques-
tion of the refugees, under the supervision of the High Com-
mission for Refugees from Germany. The Council, in turn,
appointed a Commission of five experts to study the prob-
lem. On September 24, the League Assembly adopted the
report of the Sixth Committee.
The Assembly decided to ask the Council to appoint a
small committee of experts to "collect all useful evidence,
particularly that of the Inter-Governmental Advisory Com-
mission for Refugees."
Appearing before this committee, Major T. F. Johnson,
secretary-general of the Nansen Office, disclosed that the
Nansen Office was engaged in assisting Jewish refugees
from the Saar to settle in Brazil and Paraguay. A special

commissioner had been sent to South American countries
for this purpose, and about 8,000 refugees from the Saar,
Jewish and non-Jewish, had been furnished with Nansen
passports. At hearings conducted by the Committee,
representatives of central Jewish organizations demanded
the establishment of a special agency for dealing with Ger-
man refugees.
On December 8, the Committee of Experts completed
its report on the refugee problem, and made public its recom-
mendations. The Committee unanimously recommended
the appointment of a person to carry on the work of the
High Commission for Refugees from Germany, to convoke
an intergovernmental conference to draw up a unified legal
code for refugees, and to work out a program for the increased
emigration of German refugees into such countries as Pales-
tine, South America and elsewhere. The Committee made
two alternative proposals for the solution of the refugee
problem. One of these, adopted by four votes to one, recom-
mended the appointment of an eminent personality as pres-
ident of the Nansen Office, which would include a specia-
organization dealing with German refugees; after the liquidal
tion of this office at the end of 1938, the special organization
for German refugees would become an autonomous League
body. The alternative proposal recommended, in case the
first proposal were rejected, the creation of an autonomous
international organization under League auspices, for the
protection of German refugees. In an minority report
Signor de Michelis, Italian member of the Committee,
recommended that the protection of the refugees be entrusted
to private organizations. In February 1936, Michael Hansen,
of Norway, was appointed president of the Governing Body
of the Nansen International Office for Refugees.
On February 18, announcement was made of the appoint-
ment of Major-General Sir Neill Malcolm as League of
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from Germany,
to succeed James G. McDonald. Sir Neill declared he would
not be concerned with the charitable aspects of the work,
which are handled by private organizations, but only with
"the political and legal side after people have become
refugees."
Sir Neill stated that he would not carry on with the work
of settling and assisting refugees from Germany, which was
being conducted provisionally by Professor Norman Bent-
wich. On March 19, Joseph A. C. Avenol, secretary-general
of the League of Nations, sent out invitations to member
States of the League as well as to the Governments of the
United States and Brazil, to take part in an Inter-Govern-
mental Conference to be held at Geneva on July 2, which
was to decide the legal status of refugees from Germany.
On February 23, the Juridical-Political Commission of
the International Union of League of Nations Societies met.
Prior to the meeting, the Dutch League of Nations Society
adopted a resolution demanding that the Union ask either
for annulment of the Nuremburg laws, or for the grant to
German Jews of the status of a national minority. On the
Dutch group's initiative, the Commission adopted a resolu-
tion to be proposed at the annual conference of the Inter-
national Union at Glasgow on May 31. The resolution
declared that the German legislation concerning "non-
Aryans," their treatment, and, in general, Germany's policy
in the sphere of religion and freedom of thought "violate
the generally accepted principles of justice" and cause
serious difficulties to other states; and that these policies
will make difficult "the resumption of Germany's interna-
tional cooperation with the rest of the world"; and recom-
mending "the next meeting of the League of Nations should
find an opportunity for examining these different measures,
an examination which is demanded by the present position
of the Jews." The German League of Nations Society
announced its withdrawal from the Union because of this
stand, and was dissolved by the Nazi authorities.
On June 4, the plenary session at Glasgow of the Inter-
national Union of League of Nations Societies unanimously
adopted the Dutch resolution, and also a resolution asking
the British Government to facilitate immigration of Jewish
refugees to Palestine "to the utmost extent consistent
with the Mandate."

AJC Review 1936

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AJC Review 1936

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AJC Review 1936

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REVIEW OF THE YEAR 5696*

While much of the attention of the American Jewish

REACTION TO BERLIN RIOTS

Almost at the beginning of the period, a wave of anti-

A huge mass meeting in Brooklyn, New York, adopted a

and women the world over." "I am quite satisfied,"

repression, against intolerance, and against autocracy, a n d

Besides events in Germany, occurrences in the United

The affair was further complicated when, in September,

In the course of the same speech before the Reichstag

THE OLYMPIC GAMES

in reply that he had not heard of any discrimination and

upheld by General Charles H. Sherrill, American member

Holmes; Mayor Fiorello H. LaGuardia; Amos Pinchot;

and Francis A. Henson, treasurer of the Committee on Fair

of the principles or practices of the Nazi G o v e r n m e n t . "

A new drive to raise funds for the American Olympic

AMERICAN COLLEGES AND THE HEIDELBERG FESTIVAL

Vassar College, Amherst College, Cornell University, the

inscription had been changed to read: "To the German

OTHER PROTESTS AGAINST NAZI POLICIES

ities to gather for the purpose of discussing local self-

Madison Square Garden in New York City attended by

THE TRADE BOYCOTT MOVEMENT

In connection with the movement to boycott German

Shortly after his arrival in New York in December, Mr.

Mr. McDonald's letter of resignation and its annex

finding a place of refuge. 1ft May, the Massachusetts

U p to the time of the outbreaks of anti-British a n d

anti-Jewish excesses in Poland. The Jewish Labor Com-

to the letter of Dr. Cyrus Adler, the President of the Com-

DISQUIETING REPORTS FROM ROUMANIA

Press reported an impending march of supporters of the

Jewish problem and that "anti-Semitism has almost com-

PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL IN PALESTINE

Hashomer Hatzair and Hadassah, meeting jointly in New

THE RIOTS IN PALESTINE

emergency. A small sub-committee was also formed, which

that Palestine does not belong to Great Britain, but is held

In July 1935, Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organiza-

had, in 1935, made new investments in Palestine aggrega-

THE WORLD JEWISH CONGRESS MOVEMENT

represented the American Jewish Congress, opposed elec-

sentiment to the holding of a world Jewish congress in the

not even be in a position to command the support of the

munities throughout the country; they elected delegates

Several weeks before this, on May 26, Mr. Rosenberg

leaders of British Jewry, who presented proposals for a

countries has become most precarious." Felix M. Warburg,

On November 10, the Peoples ORT Federation launched

VISIT OF DELEGATION OF BRITISH J E W S

Early in 1936, widespread discussion was aroused by a

they are ransomed by Jewish money to be used in stimu-

Appeal and the Joint Distribution Committee announced

NAZI AGITATION IN AMERICA

support of the Nazi regime, anti-Jewish attacks were

City garment center to advertise a Nazi rally, were

THE SENTINELS OF THE REPUBLIC

declared: "It must be apparent in the light of the Lincoln

THE BLACK LEGION