The Maccabaean

that case I would like to know where I was the whole week from September 12th to the 19th. I know that I went without food or sleep most of that time and this may be accepted as proof that I did not exist for the period; but I distinctly remember—though the recollection seems hazy and far-off—hearing Lipsky exclaiming time and again, “You haven’t got the floor!” I recall seeing de Haas peering straight and pointing a finger at a lot of ruffled delegates. I also remember listening to Neaman reporting for a Nominating Committee, and I am sure I was to a Zionist Convention somewhere. But according to the published reports or impressions there were many different Zionist conventions held at the same time and in the same city, and the question is which one I attended.

Perhaps the explanation lies in the circumstance that a Convention is not something organic, whole or complete in itself, that it is a miscellaneous, composite or conglomerate creation and that each one finds in it whatever he seeketh; that a Convention is all things to all delegates (and of course all newspaper correspondents who are sometimes also delegates and thus enjoy double capacity for seeing the unseen). It’s all in the mental attitude say the exponents of the New Thought. Sometimes it is more attitude than mentality, but much at any rate depends upon your preconceived notions, and you usually carry away from a Convention whatever you bring to it plus the headache and that tired feeling. It should also be remembered that there are special convention aptitudes which develop in one after he has been going to them for some years and which enable a delegate to separate the wheat from the chaff of the proceedings, to get at the substance of the business, to overlook the monotonous and dull aspects and to enjoy the real impressive moments. It is easy enough to be a delegate; the thing to do is to become a conventionite. To attain that exalted state you have to become thoroughly initiated, hardened, weatherbeaten, steeled to all trying circumstances. One usually realizes that ideal state after attending conventions for fifteen—twenty years, and then knows enough not to expect too much and acquires a special capacity for relishing the shortcomings of each particular convention. Then you learn also that the convention is enjoyed mainly in anticipation, that it is always an event mainly to be looked forward to, something thrilling to expect and think about, that it is only when it is to be, that it is not when it really is and that when it is over, you hardly even remember anything without the aid of the official stenographer’s report. If the official stenographer’s report is any kind of an aid it certainly is not the first aid to cheerfulness and good humor nor would I recommend it as an anti-swearing preventative.

Of course, you may if you like charge it all up to the arrangements. You may say, "What can you expect under the circumstances?" You bring a lot of delegates together from all parts of the country, and before they have had time to rest from their tiring journeys you coop them up in a large building and pile a lot of sessions and committee meetings one on top of the other. Then after the delegates have been kept for nearly a week without rest or exercise, without sleep and without proper food, and after they are entirely exhausted and are almost incapable of thinking you make them decide upon the most vital questions and elect officers!

You say we ought to improve the form of arrangements. I beg leave to inform you that we have been doing it for the last twenty-two years. We have a perfect plan before

each Convention. What becomes of it? Why, the plan turns into a convention and conventions are only perfect in anticipation. We are going to try again. I have a splendid project for next year and as soon as I have it patented I will make it public. But my hopes for a perfect convention are not very high. It may come some day, but by that time all of Mr. Rosenblatt’s social ideas will have been realized, and who will then want to worry about anything?

Meanwhile I want to say that despite denials I am in a position to prove that there was a convention held in Chicago. Though the impressions contradict each other it is certain that the truth lies between the exaggerations and affectations. It was a large and interesting gathering with fine moments of intense impressiveness. It reached many decisions of great import. Owing to the exigencies of the time several of our previous conventions have been turned into demonstrations. This time we endeavored to return to the old forms. We caught our breath, even if we did that somewhat haltingly. The foremost figures in American Zionism graced the gathering with their presence and the delegates were thrilled by the sound of the most authoritative voices in American Jewry. Important decisions were reached and if no clear policies were definitely enunciated it is perhaps to a large extent due to an uncertain political situation. Delegates at any rate spoke their minds freely and expressed their will in an emphatic manner, they displayed keen intelligence even when after a sleepless week they were hardly capable of the clearest thinking.

BERNARD G. RICHARDS.

Zionist Democracy

Observation on the Chicago Convention

WERE it not for the insistent demands of journalism, one should never be requested to appraise or to give one’s impressions of so important an event as the Twenty-Second Annual Convention of American Zionists, so soon after its adjournment. It is difficult to view the whole dispassionately and in proper perspective, particularly when the would-be historian has himself been a participant, in however humble a rôle, in the scenes he essays to portray.

But the demands of journalism are mercilessly inexorable; and so, at the risk of treating our theme psychologically, rather than logically, and subjectively, rather than objectively, I will venture to make a few brief observations.

The Convention did not take any new or important step in the practical development of our Palestine program. Perhaps it could not. Possibly, the political situation necessitates, at this moment, a policy of "watchful waiting." Or, it may be, as some insist, that our American organization has not developed to the point where its representatives, in annual meeting assembled, could be expected to grapple successfully with this, the most serious problem confronting the movement. Whatever the cause, it was not in this direction that the Convention had any notable contribution to make.

Nor, considered by itself, was the controversy over the relation with the parties (Mizrachi and Paole-Zion) of any deep significance. Its significance becomes great and striking only when considered in conjunction with other manifestations at the Convention, particularly the strength and activity of those elements which would ordinarily be termed the “insurgents,” or the “opposition.” I have put