Vol. VII.
TORONTO, ONT./JUNE 18, 1926
Editorials
By Herbert J. Samuel
We
Canada and the Jewtoh Board of Deputies
are pleased to call attention to the letter printed in another
column tromMr, Charles H. L. Emanuel, the solicitor and secretary of :he Jewish Board of Deputies. Mr. Emanuel offers some comment on the editorial that appeared in the Review a few weeks ago, in which we discussed the relations of the Board of Deputies to the Jewish communities of the Dominions. His letter deserves careful and sympathetic consideration. There is a strong feeling m Canadian Jewrv desirous of seeing a closer connection with the Anglo-Jewish community, and the Board of Deputies offers the possibility of a medium through which this might be brought about. British Jews have interests in common. Those interests are set forth clearly and convincingly in Mr. Emanuel's letter. It is undoubtedly true that unfavourable legislation in England affecting Jewish interests would prejudicially influence Canadian opinion. It is undoubtedly true that the Canadian press is influenced to no small degree by the English press, We have experienced only too often the difficulty of coping with the influence in Canada of the prejudiced attitude of English papers. We can tackle our local press, but what of the English papers that are so widely circulated in Canada? It cannot be too strongly stressed that we have a very vital interest in the conduct of Jewish affairs at the-centre of the Empire. And we repeat what we have already said in our previous article, that the efforts of the Board through its Foreign Committee deserve all the support we can give, Mr. Emanuel's appeal for the added weight to the Board that Canadian affiliation would contribute is one that we cannot afford to pass lightly by. The Board's Foreign Committee is the most effective diplomatic agency that world Jewry possesses, and the Jews o: Canada owe it to themselves and to their brethren in Europe to increase the strength of the Board. It is not a financial question, for the contribution of a congregation amounts to less than twenty-rive centr- per member. It is a question of adding moral prestige to an important and valuable institution.
doubt, how.ever, whether the present method of overseas membership in the Board has any real value either to the~8oard or 'o tne congregations. It is not always possible to find a former rtemoer v, h0 has taken up residence in London, and it does not follow uch a representative would be desirable or useful.   That this is
that
apparently the prevailing opinion is borne out by the notably scanty ^presentmion on the Board oLlhe South African and Australasian congregci: :ons, They have no alternative affiliations, such as/ve enjoy ln Canada They are undilutedly British. They are ecclesiastically apon English Jewry. But the present system of "colonial" ion does not seem to suit them. As long as membership d revolves mainly upon the selection of a delegate resident it  is inevitable that  overseas  congregations  remain
dependem represero :r. the B-
v. <
dnar
exro:
n Jewry would >not delegate the conduct of its affairs or �on of its- views to a body so remote as the Board of W e like to send our own delegates to the conventions and
conferences which direct our affairs. We like to be able to instruct them and to have them back to report to us. And we insist that those who are charged with the transaction of our communal business shall be immediately answerable to us. The Board of Deputies cannot serve us in these rjirections. We are cool towards the idea of loosely attached representatives who may not interpret our views. Colonialism has died out and we have no intention of reviving it.
We again suggest the experiment of an overseas committee. Such a committee, if sufficiently well informed and able to rise above the insularity which in many ways marks the Anglo-Jewish mind and repels us, might be able to arouse our interest and inspire our confidence. . It would then be possible to change for the better the present detachment of Canadian Jewry from British affiliations. We believe that the important congregations in Canada are prepared to add their weight to the Board of Deputies in recognition of its status in and for British Jewry. We believe that they would readily co-operate with an overseas committee composed of men of standing and of broad outlook. But we know that they will not bother with the present system of representation.
Rabbi Stephen Wise on Federation
Dr. Stephen Wise's address last week to the Business Men's Council of the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies has given rise to a feeling of doubt as to the merits of the Federation system of charity organization. Dr. Wise, in outlining some of the defects of Federation without laying stress on its undoubted virtues, was obviously giving only one side of the question, and for very good reasons; Those who were present realized why it was necessary for the speaker to refer ^tp the shortcomings without enlarging upon the benefits. But it is .perhaps.-a little discouraging when a purposely one-sided address receives a publicity which was not intended. Dr. Wise cannot quarrel with the report, for it was a good report of his speech. The misleading impression created is due to the calibre and nature of the gathering addressed.   It was not a public meeting.
Dr. Wise would have been wasting his time and the time of the audience by dwelling on the acknowledged advantages of Federation. He had before him upwards of two hundred intelligent men. They had rallied to the call for help in collecting in a number of outstanding pledge*. The dinner started punctually. That in itself was evidence of sincerity. It was quickly served, a sign of ordered efficiency. There was an unusual atmosphere of responsible understanding, conveying an impression of organization and appreciation\ For such an audience it was not necessary to enlarge upon the virtues of charity. Those present were sold on the Federation idea, and he would indeed be a poor speaker who did not sense that. The appealing element of Dr. Wise's address Bad already been made by the audience itself. Having before Him a fine set of the flower of Montreal's young Jewry, who were already taking their places as communal workers and leaders,
'(Continued on page 32)
Montreal
A Jewish Weekly Newspaper for the Home
Toronto