But, while it is true that in our great cities sweatshops principally developed under Jewish auspices, it is equally true that in the fight to abolish sweating Jews have taken an active and honorable part. This I know of a certainty, and the insinuations to the contrary contained in the article under discussion are as cruelly unfair and unjust as they are untrue. So, too, in the fight against child labor in the cities and factories of the North. It was my privilege to take part in that fight, and I know that in the very forefront of the long struggle for remedial legislation, helping with money and with personal service, side by side with Christians, were many men and women of Jewish ancestry and faith. I know, too, that fighting on the other side were both Christians and Jews. It is preposterous that any attempt should be made to so misrepresent the struggle for "the practical humanizing of industry" as to make it appear that the Jewish people in particular were either hostile or indifferent to it.
The second impression which the article is intended to convey is that in those industries which are controlled by Jews no such attempts have been made to better the lot of the workers employed in them as have been made in those industries which are controlled by non-Jews. This charge, likewise, is wholly baseless, as anybody who desires to know the truth can readily ascertain. It was my good fortune and privilege, as one of the representatives of the public appointed by President Wilson, to serve as a member of the First Industrial Conference convoked by the President in October, 1919. Among the members of that Conference chosen to represent the public were both Christians and Jews, and I venture to say that there was not one of the former who for a single moment doubted the sincerity, the patriotism, or the humanitarianism of the Jewish members. Moreover, in the course of our work there was brought to our attention an astonishing amount of information concerning efforts being made by progressive and high-minded employers in all parts of the country to introduce into their industries reforms looking to the betterment of the lot of their employees, including profit-sharing and participation in shop management and control by the workers. It is neither more nor less than the literal truth that these reports were quite as favorable to the Jewish employers as to their Christian competitors. As a matter of fact, in the ready-made-clothing industry, which is very largely in the hands of Jews, many of the most interesting experiments in industrial democracy and many of the sincerest efforts to humanize industry are being made. These things are known to every student of the problem—and they suffice to brand the statements made against the Jews in the article under discussion as both untrue and studiously unjust.
Not only is it true that in the ever-increasing effort to bring about "the practical humanizing of industry" no distinction can honestly and justly be drawn between Gentile and Jewish employers, just as no such distinction can honestly and justly be drawn with respect to the selfishness and ignorance which result in conditions that are inhuman and oppressive; it is equally true, as a study of the records of Congress and the legislative bodies of the individual states will show beyond question, that no such distinction between Jew and Gentile can be honestly and justly drawn with respect to the mass of social legislation enacted in recent years. Socially minded men and women have supported such legislation, regardless of differences of race and creed, while men and women who lacked social consciousness, who were selfish and indifferent to the claims of their fellow human beings, have opposed such legislation, making common cause regardless of differences of race and creed.
All this is exactly as it should be, of course, and precisely what might be expected to result from our ideals, our institutions, and our laws. It would be tragic and disastrous, indeed, if our experience were otherwise. The charges made against our Jewish citizens by the Dearborn Independent amount in reality to a terrible verdict of failure against America and the democratic ideal which America represents. The only hope we can have of solving the great problems which confront this nation rests, and can only rest, upon the assurance that an enlightened citizenry, united by love of country and of mankind, and undivided by race or creed, will strive with ever-increasing strength, vision, and courage toward the goal of equality of opportunity for all. Thus only shall this nation which we love fulfill the high hopes of its greatest spiritual leaders and statesmen. To destroy the faith of our sons and daughters in American democratic ideals—which is precisely what anti-Semitism is aiming to do—is a monstrous thing.
X[ToC]
A FINAL WORD
I have finished with the Dearborn Independent and the flimsy fabric of its ridiculous charges. My self-imposed task is finished, and I am content to leave the grotesque legend of the protocols, together with the monstrous and cruel charge based upon them, to the judgment of my fellow citizens of Gentile birth. Into the motives of Mr. Henry Ford I do not care to enter. I suspect that they are pathological in their origin. Be that how it may, my pity for the man is as profound as my contempt for the propaganda with which he has chosen to associate himself. To be capable of deliberately inciting and fostering race hatred at any time is to cease to be capable of enjoying the fellowship of decent and just men and women; to incite such hatred now, in the midst of such unprecedented suffering and the universal need of fellowship and healing, is a pitiful self-degradation.