The Maccabaean

who spoke Russian, tried to persuade them to let the party alone, and when his pleas were disregarded, he ran off. When he was some distance way, he heard a shot and upon looking back he saw one of the Americans fall to the ground. Says the Forward:

"The story of the chauffeur may well be questioned. How did Bolshevik soldiers penetrate into territory which had for so long been under Polish occupation? How did the chauffeur manage to escape so easily from the hands of three armed soldiers? And how was it possible for him to have seen who fell when the shooting commenced if he was in the course of running off?

"No one can credit the story that Bolshevik soldiers attacked the party, for at the time of the murder no Bolshevik men could have been there. Only Polish soldiery could have been found there. If we should credit the story of the chauffeur that the murderers wore Bolshevik uniforms, we would have to assume that these were members of one of Petlura's bands, or of one of the other Ukrainian Ottoman leaders, who often don uniforms resembling those of the Red forces. But there is no need to fall back on this assumption when the first suspicion rests upon the chauffeur himself. The entire story seems to center suspicion upon himself and would indicate that himself or with the help of other Poles, he committed the murder with the idea of robbery or because of some other object. The only question here would be whether the chauffeur himself had sufficient sense to blame the Bolsheviks or someone gave him the suggestion. That to blame the Bolsheviks is the easiest method of covering any and every crime no one need question. The New York Times, for instance, which first gave the report in print could choose no better heading for it than Red Bandits Murdered Doctor Friedlaender. The great point here was to draw attention to the Reds when further search for the true murderers would become unnecessary."

Tributes to the memory of the fallen Relief Commissioners fill the Jewish press. The Day says:

"Jewry across the seas will never forget the names of their two brothers, who came to them with a whole-hearted desire to give them of their best, nay their all—their very lives. The names of Professor Israel Friedlaender and Doctor Bernard Cantor will be written in golden letters in the book wherein are recorded the great and the noble in Jewry."

He offered himself as a sacrifice, thinks the Jewish Morning Journal, and says:

"He risked his life to do good, to bring direct and immediate relief to Jews living in mortal fear and suffering; he went to learn for himself what he could with the exercise of greater care, have learned through others. It is to be hoped that this useful and most fruitful life is not lost, but like our great-grandfather Isaac, he voluntarily came to the stake of duty in order to offer himself as a sacrifice."

Memorial meetings are being arranged by the organizations with which Dr. Friedlaender and Dr. Cantor were affiliated. The J. D. C. has arranged a meeting for September 9th, in which it asks all organizations to take part.

Book Reviews and Intercollegiate

Because of lack of space we were compelled to omit from this issue our book reviews and the Intercollegiate page edited by Clayton Whitehill.

The Organization of the Jewish Congress

(Continued from page 42)

of the members most questions concerning Jewish national and cultural problems. The same may be said of the Jewish trade-unions, of the federations of immigrant-groups (Landsmannschaften), and of national charity organizations. Even in religious organizations of national scope, the individual congregations are not always subject to the views of the national leaders, touching Jewish questions which do not directly enter into the sphere of interest of their particular body.

Such mistaken assumption would also prove dangerous for the Congress. Now that the ironbound moral compulsion, which existed before the First Congress, is lacking, it would be easy for the leaders of a national organization to fly in a temper at the Congress and bolt forthwith. Shall the Congress allow such as these to run away together with their whole organizations? Or shall it throw them a bait, by satisfying all their personal ambitions? And those national organizations, which from the very start refused to join the new Congress —like the trade-unions and the Arbeiter-Ring—shall it be assumed that they fail to participate altogether in the Congress for the mere reason that their national officers are opposed to it?

The solution of both problems—the supervision of the elections and the standing of the organizations—seems to lie in the individual local organization.

The individual local organization: the lodge, the union, the congregation, etc., should be taken as the cornerstone of the Congress. It pays to the Congress the fixed dues or assessment for its members (which, by the way, must be much more than ten cents). It submits to the Congress or to the District Conference the names and addresses of the latter; it renders possible the supervision of the voting; it helps to draw and keep in the Congress movement the whole national organization of which it is a part. And all such individual organizations recruited in each election district form a permanent District Conference with which the Congress administration keeps in constant touch.

It is still the individual man who votes, as heretofore, and not the organization, but through the latter the voting can be duly supervised. How about the person who belongs to more than one organization? It is for him to select the society through which he would pay his dues and exercise his suffrage. And what about a member of an affiliated organization who refuses to pay? That is up to him, but then he cannot vote. And how about members of unaffiliated organizations who desire to pay? For them it should be made possible to register directly in the district office. The same should apply to persons who do not belong to any Jewish organization.

But shall a national organization, which wishes as such to remain officially part of the Congress, lose the right it now enjoys of special representation? We must not be as mean as that. The good-will of the leaders of national organizations is of great value to the Congress. But the latter must not be dependent upon them.—bound to them.

The individual organizations, united in local conferences, proved a mighty driving force in the Congress movement. They should now be organized as the permanent foundation for the Permanent Congress. Out of these permanent District Conferences there may in time grow well-ordered Kehillahs of which American Jewry stands in need.