San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1891-04-29
THE RABBI TALKS.
What He Says in Explanation OF the
Minister'S Action.

son, of Temple Beth Ell. The local editor
would say that Mr.. Jacobson was first
asked TO give his statement of this matter
last Monday, but he refused to make any
statement then, and of course the report
was one sided. but decidedly IMPARTIAL:
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, April 2S, 1891.
Editor LIGHT.
Permit me TO occupy some space in your
columns, inaSmuch as your one sided or
rather but partial report of what occurred
at yesterdays meeting of the Ministers
association. does me an injuS ice.
In the year 1889 it was AT my proposition
! that union thanksgiving service was,
| for the first time. held in this city under
| the auspices of all religious bodies. At
| that meeting il was resolved to make a
| collection of moneys to be distributed un-
Sectarianly to such poor as came under
| the associations notice. We collected the
sum of So and some odd cents. This mag
nihcent amount awakened the cupidity
of the Y. NJ. c. A, whose president in
| their behalf, petitiOned that the whole or
part thereof be given to this society
telling "a pathetic tale of how two years
| previous $500 had been given to the Y.
NJ. G. A. and that after doing Herewith
| vast amount of good, that fund was eX-
hauSted.. The petition would have been
| met Immediately had | not made two
objections! First, that in public an
| nOuncement it was stated that the Minis
ter'S association were to control what
| ever money the collection brought in.
and second, after this objection was Stig
| matiZed as technical quibbling.-that il
had been decided that the money was to
| be distributed nOn-Sectarianly, and that
| the Y. NJ. c. A. was Sectarian body.
| This objection carried the day by "a tie
| the late Rev. DR.. Neil whose broad liber
atty was proof against narrow
| fanaticism. But this was only after
| "a heated debate wherein it was
! maintained that the Y. NJ. c. A. repre-
senting all Christians was not Sectarian.
As to my.QueStiOn as to whether the Min
| listers association was however christ
| ian body, in as much, as | was a full
| member, Chaplain Robbins asked me
heatedly: Are we not all followers OF
| our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christi |
replied: NO. am not follower of your
Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ
This was the climax OF some previous
discussions, wherein asserted that, as !
was requested to Join the association as
an association of all ministers of all de-
nominations, it should never take any
more Il Christian phase than a Jewish.
but should be turned solely to the cOSmO-
pOlitan interests of this city in the way OF
associated charities, the peoples literary
advancement, and the improvement of
general morals. Seeing that | could not
meet with this liberal response. |
determined to resign my secretary
ship, which | then held and
my membership. The resignation of my
office was accepted. and | was urged on
the grounds of courtesy To withdraw my
| resignation as member, and If did not
feel like coming | could stay away. but
whenever | chose to come | could do so
with the full title to membership. Out of
| courtesy consented and thus remained a
| member. However did not attend, eX-
cept on two occasions, one to turn the
ministers attention to a case of christian
charity which some of my Jewish people
were doing, but which they could not
wholly meet. and inaSmuch as the parties
were christians. could with right ask the
help of christians thereto. The second
occasion was Yesterday. when my sole
purpose in attending was to participate
in the action Of a testimonial TO the mem
DRY of DR.. Neil, whom | respected and
warmly felt attached to.
No information of a change in the by
laws or constitution had ever been sent
me- | was notified Of no proposed or
passed appointment. 1t seems, however
that my Christian Controversy called
up an amendment that instead Of any
ministers being eligible to membership,
only Christian ministers hereafter were to
be eligible. But even then that could not.
fore that amendment, of whose existence
| was not made aware, or surely should
not have diSgraced myself by appearing
before that Christian body. No law can
be re trOaCtiYe.
In course of the discussions on the res
OlutiOnS of DIR. Mel. the appointment of a
| committee for which. by the way. |
seconded, there was much minor dis
cusSiOn. but nothing that was not per-
| fectly amicable. Rev Mr.. PinsOn Sug-
gestpd that the committee withdraw to
make rough draught for i'm
| mediate submission To the society
| seconded that motion and before
| it had scarcely been put. MIR. Barrett
rises to point of order desiring to be
on personal terms of friendship with me-
| but that according to the above amend
| ment, had no right of voice in the pro-
| ceedings. although for the half hour be-
| fore. ! was recognized. 1t seems that Mr.
Barrett whose main development Is in
| the paunch, and whose brain matter runs
| to his stomach to he found there unaSSimi-
latable to his constitution and hence eX-
PEELED from the system in due course OF
nature Just that moment obtained this
profound inspiration. The president
with a timidty resulting from mental
strength, wanted to waive the objection
without answering it yes or no. But
pushed by my inSiStance, he decided
against me, whereupOn | appealed. being
seconded by Rev. Mr.. Murphy of st.
Paul'S Episcopal church. Mr.. Roberts
was called to the chair and his profound
knowledge of parliamentary law would
fill thousand CuShingS with what he
does not know. The president
stated his decision and it's ground.
stated the above facts of my resignation.
its withdrawal and the agreement that
a law can never be retroactive. Mr.. Rob
erts. although that should have closed
the discussion, for in an appeal, while the
previous question is yet pending, only the
appallel and the appealer can speak, al.
lowed the LEARNED and cnrnnlpnt 'RrO.