Three prominent men-a lawyer, a business man and a rabbi-were sitting at the table with their heads together in deliberation. They were about to make a decision on a weighty problem. The roomful of people was tense. There was a deep silence. Then one of the three spoke. “Mothers-in-law”, he declared, “have always caused trouble when they live with their daughters and sons-in-law.” A sigh came up from the roomful of people. The decision was being made.
The three men were Bernard S. Deutsch, president of the New York City Board of Aldermen and of the American Jewish Congress: David Sarnoff, president of the Radio Corporation of America, and Rabbi Israel Goldstein, of congregation B’nai Jeshurun. They were presiding as judges in the Jewish Conciliation Court of America, at its regular fortnightly session in the Madison Street Court House, 264 Madison Street.
They were rendering a decision in the case of Samuel Greenberg against Irene Greenberg.
Seated in a row on the judges’ bench, they had listened to Samuel Greenberg’s complaint. “For five years,” he told them, “we were happily married. We have a little two and a half-year-old baby. Two months ago, we moved to my mother-in-law’s. We got two rooms there. My mother-in-law, two sisters-in-law, and my wife are there I have four bosses.
“We’re no babies. Before we moved, I told my wife that every time we have an argument, we should thresh it out in my two rooms, with nobody else around. Does she do that? No! She brings in my mother-in-law.”
The triumvirate turned to Samuel Greenberg’s wife. She was young, and quite pretty. The tears kept dropping out of her eyes. She spoke huskily, trying to stop her crying.
“Well, you see, he-my husband he’s only making twelve dollars a week. He’s a taxi driver. And I thought since we couldn’t live on that, we should move to my mother’s so that the baby could be taken care of while I got work. So two months ago we moved. Then I found a job-eighteen dollars a week. But he-my husband-he didn’t like that. He was always picking on me, and calling me names. Then one day he took his belongings and left altogether. He didn’t come back for two days, and when he did it was to tell me that he was going to take the case up here. And then he went away and I didn’t see him again. Before we came here, last week. I wrote him a letter, saying we should make up before this came to court. But he didn’t answer me.”
“ALWAYS CAUSED TROUBLE”
The three judges pondered. Magistrate-for-a-day Goldstein spoke. “Mothers-in-law have always caused trouble when they live in the same buildings with their daughters and sons-in-law. The best thing for you people to do would be to live elsewhere, and let your mother take care of the child.”
Irene Greenberg began crying again. “But I can’t leave the baby with her. I have to keep the baby I couldn’t possibly give her up…”
A case for the social workers, the judges decided. So two of the workers rose from the jury box and took Mr. and Mrs Greenberg outside to talk the whole matter over again. “This is a conciliation court,” declared the judges.
And a conciliation court it is Founded twelve years ago, it is really a continuation of the ancient Sanhedrin, the court of 72 rabbis in Eastern Europe. Every other Wednesday afternoon, at 5 o’clock, a promoting lawyer, a rabbi and a business man gather to listen to the cases that come before the court and render decisions on them. Before the case is heard the disputants sign an agreement to abide by the judge’s decision. This then has the power of a contract enforceable by law, and is specifically reinforced by the State Arbitration Act.
TRIED OVER 7,000 CASES
In the 12 years it has existed, the court has tried over 7,000 cases of all kinds. Orthodox and strictly religious old men from the lower East Side sit beside well-dressed women from the fashionable residential districts, awaiting their turn to present their case to the judges. There are disputes arising between Jewish persons and Jewish religious, community, fraternity and benevolent associations, as well as between one organization and another. There are, too, disputes between individual parties-claims for nonsupport, domestic difficulties, cases like that of Samuel and Irene Greenberg.
UNIQUE INSTITUTION
The court is unique. There is no formal procedure. The plaintiff and the defendant stand before the judges and tell their stories. There are no lawyers, no legal fees, no technicalities. If they wish, they are allowed to speak Yiddish to the judges, so that they can express themselves better. And justice is meted out quickly, impartially, understandingly.
There is necessity for understanding here. Sometimes cases arise that have an entirely religious bearing , that would escape the notice of an ordinary court, or might only be ridiculed. There was, for instance, in the last session, the case of the woman who accused a free burial society of not performing the rite oftaharoh,sponging her sister’s body before burial. She wanted back the money she had paid for the services of the society. When the undertaker’s assistant testified to the judges, she became hysterical. “I can’t listen to these lies,” she screamed.
The judges realized that the woman would always feel conscience stricken if she were not convinced that her sister had received the full religious service before her burial. So they reassured her that, as far as they could ascertain from the evidence presented, all that was necessary had been done. And she went away, satisfied that her sister’s soul was safe, but still weeping at the prospect of not getting her $93 back. The court, she intimated, had been fixed. Mr. Sarnoff, Dr. Goldstein and Mr. Deutsch had been fixed. The court-all three members of it-laughed.
BOYCOTT TROUBLES
Another case was that of the Certified Yeast Corp. against the Jewish Bakers’ Voice, a magazine that is read by all Jewish bakers. The paper, it was alleged, had continually accused the company of using German goods, even after Samuel Untermayer’s American League had declared that, as far as could be ascertained, German goods were no longer being used by the company. “But what about the 60 cases of yeast that came in from Hamburg the other day? Hamburg is in Germany, isn’t it?” they demanded. When it was explained that the cases were simply transhipped through Hamburg, on their way from Budapest, the paper agreed to publish a retraction, “on the authority of the American League.”
“This is an excellent illustration of the vigilance and self-respect of Jewish bodies”, declared Dr. Goldstein. “This paper deserves our recognition for its watchfulness and loyalty to the Jewish people.”
Then there was the case of Max Schwartz against the Abraham Lincoln Lodge. He had been expelled, it appeared, because he had brought the lodge to court for not paying some money he said they owed him. According to the constitution of the lodge, no member is allowed to go to court without permission of the lodge. “No court would uphold that by-law”, thundered Mr. Deutsch. “It is invalid.” The lodge said it wanted to punish the recalcitrant member. They wanted him to apologize. “Why should he apologize?” asked Mr. Deutsch. “He’s not sorry. Do you want to make him a hypocrite?”
He owed them $20. That’s different,” exclaimed Mr. Deutsch. “You give him the $23 and he gives you the $20. That makes a difference of $3. The court orders you to pay the $3.” Mr. Sarnoff agreed. Rabbi Goldstein agreed.
“Next case!”
And so they went, cases of lodges against members, members against lodges, husband against wife, sons of inmates against old folks’ homes.
Mr. Deutsch of the City Administration. Mr. Sarnoff. president of one of the great American corporations. and Dr. Goldstein. of a West Side Temple. kept up the trandition of the ancient Sanhedrin for three hours this week.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
