The Maccabaean

elected representatives, thus taking authority away from all such organizations that have in the past presumed to speak as the representatives of American Jewry.

The future of the Congress being secured through the election of the delegates, the question of the date was not a matter of principle, but of judgment. The date of the Congress was at no time one of the principles of the movement. We challenged the attempt of our opponents to establish as a principle the right of any group of persons in advance to decide that the Congress should not be held before the cessation of hostilities. It was a constitutional prohibition with regard to the date that we combated. Mr. Brandeis felt that the Congress committee should be free to select any date, which, in its judgment, would best serve Jewish interests. Dr. Adler contended that the holding of the Congress before the cessation of hostilities was so dangerous that his group could not become a party to it unless it was agreed in advance that the Congress under no circumstances would be held before the cessation of hostilities. That was the issue. On our part, it was a defence of the principle of freedom; on the part of Dr. Adler and his friends, it was the assertion of a right to bind the Congress committee by a constitutional prohibition.

The writer is still of the opinion that the holding of the Congress on November 18th would have relieved the situation, not from the point of view of what could be achieved for Jewish rights, but from the point of view of our own internal affairs. There is no doubt that holding the delegates away from the exercise of their rights may weaken them in their Congress interests, and we shall have to hold them together by engaging in educational work related directly to their functions; we may have to provide some medium of communication, through which the delegates may speak. These countervailing efforts will entail a large amount of work, which otherwise would have been unnecessary. The future of the Congress in the hands of the delegates would have removed the fear of usurpation or misuse of authority on the part of the Congress committee, which has in its membership men who are still opposed to the Congress.

But the decision of the majority of the committee was against this view. Having established law and order, to some extent, in Jewish life, it would be criminal on the part of the minority to engage in any revolutionary movement to overthrow the decision of the majority. The power was given by agreement to the Congress executive committee to fix the date of the Congress. It has acted within its powers. It is the duty of every delegate-elect and of every member of the Committee to abide by its decision.

It is deplorable, however, that the reasons advanced for the postponement at the meeting of the Committee held in Temple Emanu-El were of such a character as to compel many of those who were in the majority —in

self-defence—to dissociate themselves from the view expressed. No one questions the sincerity of the men who advocated postponement, but it is clear that in spite of their protestations, they have thus far not caught the spirit of the Congress movement, and still hold ideas that have no place in the new régime.

Their views implied that Jewish policy was to be determined not by internal Jewish need, but by external pressure and opportunities; that the controlling factor was not the righteousness of our cause, but how, under the circumstances, non-Jewish public opinion would regard frank statement of Jewish views; that the organization of American Jewry could not take place if, as a result, prejudice and calumny might attack the good name of the Jewish people. Before the Russian revolution, the same ideas were advanced with regard to the propriety of Jewish denunciation of Russian tyranny. No criticism of Russian misgovernment was to be allowed, for fear of the non-Jewish reaction. In this country, this view was an obstacle to the organization of American Jewry, and the cry was raised that if Jews organized, it would be said that we are forming a state within a state. Those who opposed the holding of the American Jewish Congress took advantage of the same argument to maintain their autocratic control of Jewish affairs. In every crisis in Jewish life, the fear of non-Jewish opinion—known in advance to be unfounded—prevented authentic utterances in the public defense of Jewish interests. That has been the block in the way of Jewish organization, that has prevented the development of a sound domestic policy for the Jewish people, without which a clear international policy is unthinkable.

The writer does not charge all who voted for postponement with the possession of such views, but the spokesmen of the resolution dwelt with undisguised satisfaction upon such arguments as embodied this point of view and indicated that they took it for granted that the old plea would convince. They insisted that when the American government was engaged in war it became the duty of American Jews to abandon all their seperate interests and they warned the meeting of threatened attacks.

The Congress is not seriously affected by the indefinite postponement. But in the resurgence of the Mah-yomru-hagoyim policy in Jewish life there is a great danger to Jewish interests. It threatens the supremacy of the democratic principle in Jewish life, for it makes the democracy subservient to prejudice and calumny, and renders it incapable of dealing with its own problems as free men. This policy must be rooted out of Jewish life. From now until the holding of the Congress, a campaign of education should be conducted to enlighten those who have learned nothing from the Congress movement. If that is done, the postponement may have its compensations.