refute the widespread sentiment, which I quoted some time ago, that every Reform Rabbi represents a Judaism of his own.

Rabbi Newfield-I am convinced of the advisability of referring this to a special committee to act with the Executive Committee. It might be proper, if you wish a consensus of the opinions of the Conference, to send the tract to every member. Last year we found it advisable to appoint a sub-committee to act with the Executive Committee. This proved satisfactory. If we do the same this year, it will probably take the same course. I therefore believe the motion of Dr. Guttmacher impracticable and inadvisable. Rabbi Schulman-I ask for the courtesy of the floor to reply to some of the sweeping statements of Dr. Heller.

The Chair-Dr. Schulman asks for the courtesy of the floor to reply to some of the statements of Rabbi Heller. Will you grant Dr. Schulman this personal privilege? I will put the question. The motion was put and unanimously agreed to.

Rabbi Schulman—I regret that I am compelled to ask the courtesy of the floor. In the first place, this question is not as fundamental as stated. It is, strictly speaking, a matter of form. This Conference has had the courage of its convictions again and again. The whole history of American Judaism has been a history of courage, from the creation of the Conference until today. We have expressed ourselves again and again openly and clearly and fundamentally on theoretical questions and on practical issues. We have acted and not been afraid. Rabbi Heller's remarks on the socalled anarchy of opinion are malicious. There is consensus of opinion in Reform Judaism.

Rabbi Heller—I did not refer to remarks on the floor of the Conference. But outside of the Conference there are people who tell us all the time that there are as many Judaisms as Rabbis.

Rabbi Schulman-Those remarks are maliciously inspired, intended to cast discredit on Reform Judaism, when as a matter of fact we are in accord on essentials. It is merely a question of form that is involved whenever a pamphlet or tract is issued. Brother Heller maintains that this should express the sentiment of the Conference, whereas as a matter of fact it is the expression

of the individual. But all I understood that Rabbi Gries desired was this, that it is more practical on the whole to continue the · course pursued thus far. The simple fact that the Conference has honored a member by accepting a tract written by him, and by issuing it after revision by a smaller committee, is sufficient. Do 'you mean to tell us that two hundred and fifty men must always be bound by the details of individual expression of any man on any particular subject? No; we simply constitute him an emissary of the Conference. It is no reflection on the speaker, no enfeebling of his message, no imperilling of the authority of the tract, if as a matter of form we simply say, "This is our emissary to the public; he, however, speaks for himself in his own particular way."

The Chair-An idea has occurred to the Chair which should satisfy both sides, viz., that we send out the tract without any foreword at all. We need issue the tract only with the words on the title-page, "Tract No. ... ., issued by the Central Conference of American Rabbis; written by This is all that is

necessary.

Rabbi Cohn-The very fact that we have undertaken to publish tracts in the common acceptation of the term, proves that we have certain ideas which we wish to present to the people in popula form. This is different from laying down certain dogmas and fundamental principles, to which we may commit ourselves some day. The very fact that we have this Committee on Tracts, composed of men representing all shades of opinion, insures us against one-sided presentation. What we have undertaken is not to publish men's individual opinions, but something which we offer as the opinion of the Conference.

Rabbi Fineshreiber-I offer this amendment, that in the publication of the tracts, no foreword be printed and no explanation made.

Seconded and carried.

The original motion was then put and carried.

Rabbi J. Stols-Inasmuch as this is our first tract, I think some action should be taken in regard to its distribution. We have heard that this committee sent out over 9,000 copies of the tract

to the various newspapers, ministers, and so on. It has not by any means reached the Jewish public. Not a single person has as yet. told me that he has received this tract, and only two newspapers have, to my knowledge, taken notice of it. I think it well, while the Conference is in session, to devise some plan of systematic distribution, and to let the members of the Conference know that they can get these tracts in quantities. I think it would be well to get an expression of opinion from the Conference for the guidance of the Executive Committee.

Rabbi Morgenstern-At the last meeting of the Conference a limited sum was authorized for the publication and distribution of tracts. The original plan was to issue more than one tract during the year. However, only the one was issued, for which not quite two hundred dollars were expended. Ten thousand three hundred copies were printed, of which 9,500 were distributed in the following way: Copies were, as a matter of course, first sent to our own members, then to the Jewish press and the leading papers of the country, then to all members of the Jewish Publication Society, some six thousand in all, and the remainder were sent to ministers of the Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist and Christian denominations of certain states, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and others, whose year-books were procurable. But it must be borne in mind that there was no other method of distributing this tract to the Jewish public, because no other lists, as far as we know, are in existence. If you wish to send these tracts to all Jewish people accessible in any way at all, or if you wish to carry out the proper plan of sending them to all the ministers. of every denomination in this country, you must bear in mind that this will entail an issue of 100,000 or more. Remembering that we issued about 10,000 copies at a cost of almost two hundred dollars, you will realize the magnitude of this task. In making our plans we must bear in mind the limited state of our finances.

Rabbi J. Stolz-I move that the Committee on Tracts bring before this Conference before adjournment some plan for the distribution of these tracts. Seconded and carried.

Rabbi Kaplan-I move the adoption of the report of the Committee on Tracts. Seconded.

amendment was that it was thought that since no one can serve as President for more than two years, and since naturally their services are desirable as members of the Executive Committee, presently the Executive Committee would be composed almost exclusively of past Presidents and the older men, and the younger members of the Conference would rarely get a chance. The intention was by making the past Presidents ex-officio members of the Executive Board, to give others the opportunity of becoming members. The argument on the other hand is—and this is urged by the younger men themselves—that it is perfectly natural and proper that the older and more experienced men should constitute the Executive Committee, and that after some years we will have so many past Presidents that the Executive Committee would become unwieldy. With this thought in mind, I, as the mover of the amendment, ask the privilege of withdrawing it.

The Chair-Do you grant Rabbi Gries this privilege? (Cries of "Yes, yes.") The amendment is withdrawn. The past Presidents. will have to be elected to the Executive Committee like any other member.

Rabbi Mendel Silber then read his paper on Intermarriage (v. Appendix G). The discussion was participated in by Rabbis Kohler, Schulman, Neumark, Heller, Gries, Kahn, Weiss, Kaplan, Hirshberg, Enelow, Levi, J. Stolz, and Ellinger, and was closed by Rabbi Silber.

Rabbi Heller-In order that this discussion may lead to something, I offer this resolution, that the Executive Committee be instructed to arrange for the presentation of the subject of intermarriage from a historical, philosophical and practical standpoint, by various members of this Conference. My idea is tentative. For example, the Executive Committee might appoint some member to present the subject from the Biblical standpoint, another from the Talmudic, and a third to present the whole subject historically. A fourth paper might be devoted to a statement of the treatment of the subject by Synods and Conferences of the nineteenth century. The subject should be presented in its modern statistical and practical aspect. Perhaps, however, it would be best not to direct the Executive Committee so specifically, but merely to in