of the congress itself, the uncertain and unwise tactics which the administration allowed itself to play in attempting to force its measures against the conscience of the congress as a whole, and in the collapse which a firm though numerically small opposition was able to bring about.
One serious drawback in the congress is its method of proceedure which renders it well-nigh impossible to grapple with any subject so as to dispose of it in some resolution. A speaker upon obtaining the privilege of the floor need make no motion or vorchlag nor indeed need he confine his remarks to any subject in particular. He simply makes an address to which there is generally no time-limit and which need not have any particular object. The result is loss of interest, waste of time, much partisan outcry and applause, and in the end, the rushing through of the important business in the last hour of the Congress. The same wasteful, unbusiness like method prevails in committees. The net result of such a proceedure is to give the delegates the semblance of greater democracy but not the reality. For while the 500 delegates are busy airing their views the few in control continue in office,un- instructed.
It was obvious also that too many delegates had been sent to the Congress, and that if the same ratio between the number of shekolim collected and the delegates sent be continued it will not be possible to give the next Congress the character of a deliberative body even for a single session.
Much of the hottest discussion took place in the delegations from the various countries. The Russian delegation was the largest. It was heartily for the adminsitration, and under the leadership of Ussischkin, constituted its mainstay. The proposals, however, to nominate Tschlenow as opposed to Wolfsohn for the presidency of the Congress and to give the control of the Jewish Colonial Bank to the admistration or Leitung found them divided which had much to do with the defeat of
these measures. The American delegation was the largest that had yet been sent out from this country. I should say that the impartial yet critical stand which it took on all questions had much to do with the ‚modification of the demands made by the party in power. The small Canadian delegation took the same attitude. The English delegation, with a few vigorous exceptions such ‚as Joseph Cowen and Dr. Melamed, were allied with the administration. The Austrian and German delegations bore a somewhat stronger impress of the Herzlian kind of Zionism. Africa chose Palestinians, principally, to represent it, as America had done in some instances. The result was that Palestine was represente«d not wisely but too much. Our Palestinian brothers entertained a rather narrow view of the functions of theZionist organization. Their main outlook and insistance seemed to be to conı- pel the organization to bring all of its funds into Palestine at once. In this view they forgot that they in themselves count for little, but only as the pioneers, as the advance-guard of an entire people and that the resources of the national organization are needed for the national movement as a whole and to pave the way for a mass movement into Palestine —all of which brings me to the cnıı- sideration of the main subject ot this review which might be entitled The Conflict between Old and \od- ern Zionism; for this is what the Eleventh Congress was, in the last analysis. "And it is important in this connection to understand tlıe continuity of Old Zionism and Modern Zionism which cannot be too much insisted upon, if our movement is to attain the fulness of vitality, and also to know their points of difference and departure.
Old Zionism precedes the publication of the "Jewish State" of Theodor Herzl by a good many years. It was even before the birth of Chovevei Zionism. It began with the Diaspora, when every Jew, barred from his homeland by the might of