Ohio History Journal

MARC LEE RAPHAEL

The Industrial Removal Office

in Columbus: A Local Case Study

Historical studies of American institutions and organizations have

overwhelmingly concentrated on the national headquarters of such

groups, and generally ignored personalities and activities on the local

level. A look from the "bottom-up" might clarify the effect of national

decisions on local branches, the pressures local groups exerted upon

national organizations, the actuality of national policies, and the values

and concerns otherwise anonymous members of a local group bring to

their activities.

The Industrial Removal Office (IRO), whose voluminous records are

preserved at the American Jewish Historical Society, Waltham,

Massachusetts, was created on January 24, 1901, by the Ex-

ecutive Committee of the Jewish Agricultural Society. Its pri-

mary function was to remove Jews, mainly east European, from the large

East Coast cities (especially New York) and relocate them in com-

munities throughout the United States. The IRO does seem to have

enjoyed some success-at least in quantitative terms-during its two

decades of existence from 1901 to 1922. In the first five years alone,

22,500 persons were relocated by the IRO, in the second five-year

period another 27,000 persons were distributed, and more than 75,000

Jews were sent to over 1700 cities by the end of World War I.1

But such nation-wide gross figures for removals, or even smaller

totals from Ohio,²camouflage a direct appreciation of the headaches

involved in this operation within each community. Case studies of local

branches of national organizations provide us with opportunities to

flesh out the bare skeleton of large numbers and national directives.

Dr. Raphael is Associate Professor of History at The Ohio State University.

1. On the Industrial Removal Office (IRO), see Samuel Joseph, Jewish Immigration to

the United States (New York, 1914); Boris D. Bogen, Jewish Philanthropy (New York,

1917); Samuel Joseph, History of the Baron de Hirsch Fund (Philadelphia, 1935). For the

total removals, see the Annual Reports of the Industrial Removal Office, located in The

Papers of the Industrial Removal Office, American Jewish Historical Society, Waltham,

Massachusetts (hereafter cited as Annual Report of the IRO).

2. From 1901 to 1913 there were 8,773 removals to Ohio, ranging from 152 in 1901 to

1,207 in 1913; Thirteenth Annual Report of the IRO, 1913, January 1, 1914.

Industrial Removal Office 101

Industrial Removal Office 101

Following a pattern established by the Industrial Removal Office

nationally, the Federated Jewish Charities of Columbus, Ohio selected

an agent or representative of the IRO whose salary was paid by the

national organization.³In this way the IRO freed local communities

from financial responsibilities and, by so doing, gained their cooperation

more readily. One of the tasks of the agent was to request, once or twice

a month, applicants in particular trades:⁴

I have need for a good repairer on second hand shoes. If you have a man on

hand that can fill this place, send him at once, as the position is a good, steady

place to make a fine living.⁵

If you have at hand a few good tailors, who have worked at custom work,

please send me them at once. If they are good tailors they will get a very good

salary.⁶

If you will have a good upholsterer between now and the 15th of this month,

please send him here. I have a good place for the right man. Surely to make

from 2-3 dollars a day.⁷

[I need] a first class shoe makerfor repairing work. Must be sober, steady, and

willing to work.⁸

The local agent would not only write directly to the national IRO, but

would also encourage companies to send their requests to the New

York office. A tailor, Herman Radzek, requested "two custom man's

tailors"; Star Loan Bank asked the IRO to send a "presser for 2nd

hand work" paying $12-15 per week with a maximum of a ten-hour

day; while Peer Brothers Shoe Repairs requested two shoemakers, was

sent four by the IRO, and regretfully had to return two men to New

York. The IRO, however, did not respond automatically to each re-

quest; there was frequently a query to the agent or company requesting

more specific information or even rejecting the request. When David

Sachs, the "Shoe Man," bombarded the IRO with requests for a

shoemaker, the IRO informed him he was a poor employer and

cobblers who were sent to him quickly quit; in response to another

demand of his the Office responded that "we have a shoemaker for you

3. Where no federation of Jewish philanthropies existed, groups such as the B'nai

B'rith would direct the removal efforts.

4. At the same time that the IRO requested this of its agents, it protested that it "must

not be regarded as an employment agency whose province it is to cater to the demands of

employers"; David M. Bressler, "What is the Removal Office?" National Conference of

Jewish Charities, May 27, 1904, p. 2.

5. Saul Silber to IRO, August 27, 1906, The Papers of the Industrial Removal Office,

American Jewish Historical Society, Waltham, Massachusetts (hereafter cited as IRO

Papers).

6. Silber to IRO, October 15, 1906, Ibid.

7. Silber to IRO, August 1, 1907, Ibid.

8. Silber to IRO, April 28, 1908, Ibid.

102 OHIO HISTORY

but since he cannot use a jack and you will only thus pay $7 we will not

send him. This is not a man's wage."⁹The IRO did not always await

the letter of the agent; it frequently initiated requests for job place-

ment: "Louis Berg, electrician, at his trade 18 years, shows a very

good reference from his former employers where he was employed as

electrician and wireman for a year, and wishes to leave his family here.

He is in good health; may we send him to your city."10

The IRO never promised, despite an agent's acceptance of a specific

request, that an applicant would find a particular job at a certain salary

in any of the more than fifteen hundred communities to which it sent

men. A person was sent to a specific city, directed to an agent, and

assured that an effort would be made to find work either in the man's

trade or in something else. Nevertheless, the misunderstandings, and

therefore the complaints and accusations, were legion. One man com-

plained that he lost his job after three days because he was placed in

the wrong craft, and that his lodgings were "dingy," without a

"stove," and filled with "foul air." The agent informed the IRO that

the man refused to work at the place assigned to him and hence could

not be guaranteed permanent work, and that

we paid for his board and lodging for two weeks and gave him $50 for shaving

and car fare. I told him we will make it good, we have never yet allowed a man

to hunger. As to his lodging place, we placed him in the same house where

mostly of the people sent by you to us are placed. .the house is a seven room

house. . .all well ventilated, all bed rooms are provided with stoves for natural

gas. I visit twice every week and see that the men should get what we pay for.¹¹

Not only were there incessant complaints from the men assisted by

the IRO, but local agents, as well as communities, registered regular

protests over IRO actions. Most common were criticisms of the quality

of men sent by the IRO:

We are sending back to New York #35685 who is at least a mental incompe-

tent if not a moral one. We have found him five jobs of all varying kinds of

work but the man absolutely refuses to do anything except file brass. .. .He is a

mental incompetent.. .and the person would have to be blind who could not see

it by looking at or talking to this man for two minutes.¹²

9. Herman Radzek to IRO, August 31, 1910, Star Loan Bank to IRO, May 9, 1912,

Peer Bros. Shoe Repairs to IRO, December 1, 1917, IRO to Peer Bros., December 13,

1917, Peer Bros. to IRO, December 26, 1917, David Sachs to IRO, September 9, 20,

October 13, 26, December 28, 1909, IRO to David Sachs, January 5, 1910, David Sachs

to IRO, February 13, March 28, April 12, 1910, IRO to Sachs, November 9, 1910, Ibid.

10. IRO to Arthur Ginzler, March 16, 1913, Ibid.

11. IRO to Ginzler, April 16, 1913, IRO to Silber, January 30, 1907, Silber to IRO,

February 1, 1907, Ibid.

12. Fred Lazarus to IRO, March 20, 1913, Ibid.

Industrial Removal Office 103

Industrial Removal Office 103

The response of the IRO was brief and clear:

#35685 was sent as a brass worker and turner and the fact that he does not

wish other work doesn't demonstrate mental incompetence.¹³

The local agent was paid to undertake a wide range of tasks on behalf

of the IRO and the newcomer, including locating jobs, arranging room,

board, transportation and other necessities of daily living, providing

"friendly suggestions and counsel" (particularly financial), and "get-

ting the confidence of the men that are sent to your city." A typical

request from the IRO to its agent involved tasks such as the following:

Monia Mandel has applied to us for transportation to your city. He claims

that his uncle P. Margulies. . .will assist him and his sister whenever the

necessity arises. Will you please advise us whether we shall comply with his

request or not. If your investigation proves favorable will you inform us how

much P.M. will contribute toward their transportation.¹⁴

A variety of responses characterized the letters of agents to the IRO

when attempting to answer the queries. Sometimes transportation

costs were provided: "hes brother in law gave two dollars toward hes

transportation. at es very defficult, too secure ane money, as the all

dame the have not." At other times the request was totally rejected:

"S. never heard of his 'cousin' and will send no money." When a

relative could not afford to send money, help might be offered instead:

"Mr. R. earns only $10 a week and supports a family so cannot send

money but will receive his brother in law and assist him when he

arrives." Still other times the agent himself, although relatives and

funds were unavailable, would urge the IRO to invest its monies:

"Send H. Gurevitz as he is a good tailor and here is an opening for a

good tailors even though his cousin will not send money."¹⁵Despite

their efforts, agents were continuously damned both by men sent to the

various communities and by local zealous and jealous persons.

Saul Silber (1881-1946),16 the IRO agent in Columbus from 1905-

13. IRO to Lazarus, March 24, 1913, Ibid.

14. IRO to Ginzler, December 9, 1912, IRO to M. Pollatsek, January 12, 1905, Ibid.

15. Pollatsek to IRO, n.d., Silber to IRO, March 3, December 14, 1905, March 1, 1906,

Ibid.

16. Saul Silber, born and educated in Russia, arrived in the United States in 1900 and

was employed in various capacities in Columbus from 1904 to 1908. His work included

preaching and teaching at Agudas Achim synagogue and the Hebrew Free School respec-

Industrial Removal Office 105

Industrial Removal Office 105

Silber's defense, presented by several members of the local advisory

committee, not only praised him for "perseverance, integrity, and in-

domitable will," urged the IRO to raise his salary from $50 to $75 per

month because he worked at his job "day and nite," but provided,

both in its support of Silber and in the response it occasioned, informa-

tion about IRO operations in Columbus.18

IRO activities began in Columbus at the end of 1904, and by the late

summer of 1906, so the local community claimed, there remained

thirty-two IRO men employed in Columbus, nine of whom had already

sent for their families.19 The IRO was rightly not impressed with these

figures, noting that Saul Silber was only required to place twenty-nine

men in 1905 (a minimum of three per month), and forty-five through

August 1906 (a minimum of four per month), a task which should have

left him abundant time for other work. Furthermore, agents in St.

Louis, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo placed, in 1905 alone, 393,

318, 196, and 111 men respectively, although paid only $75 per month.

Thus Silber's salary raise was denied, although the IRO did agree to

consider a small increment if Silber would place more men each month.

Silber's defenders angrily claimed he could easily place more men each

month but that the IRO refused to send any more.²⁰

The issue was finally resolved by forces outside the control of either

the IRO or Silber. By the winter of 1907-1908 Columbus, like so many

cities in the country, following the financial panic in 1907 and the

industrial depression into which it flowed, was faced with severe un-

employment. "To my sorrow," wrote Silber,

we are not able to place any man no difference what trade and what mechanic

18. Fred Lazarus et al. to IRO, August 17, 1906, Ibid.

19. These local figures supplied to the IRO appear to be greatly exaggerated. Of the 29

men sent to Columbus in 1905, only five (four tailors and one cutter) appear in the City

Directory in any year between 1905 and 1910. Even granting the possibility that many

roomed with friends or relatives during these years and hence were not heads of house-

holds, it is doubtful that the directory canvass, which attempted to tally all adults at an

address, would have continuously missed these removals. Either Saul Silber's placement

efforts or the newcomers' employment records were less than admirable. This conclu-

sion places in question the annual IRO summary of removals, which regularly claimed

that at least 75 percent, and in 1912 as many as 94 percent, of the removals found their

new surroundings attractive and decided to remain; see Twelfth Annual Report of the

IRO, 1912, p. 16. Most removals did come alone to Columbus, save some money from

their salary, and, when married, bring their families. Morris Berliner, for example, who

arrived in 1905, earned enough money as a ladies' tailor to bring his family to Columbus

in 1907 (conversation with Morris' son, A. H. Berliner, Columbus, May 1, 1975; and IRO

to Silber, April 25, 1905, IRO Papers).

20. Lazarus et al. to IRO, August 17, 1906, IRO to Lazarus, August 28, September 7,

1906, October 11, 1907, IRO to Lazarus, October 14, 1907, Ibid.

106 OHIO HISTORY

he is. There is more than 30 men of the IRO without work, and it is estimated

that eight thousand men were discharged from work within the last 3 months...

Pan Handle Railroad Shop layed off 800 men, Ralston Steel Car Co. 800 men,

Columbus Buggy Co. 100 men, Columbus Iron and Steel 1500 men ... .We had a

good number of Jews in the above mentioned plants. Many are thrown out

from them. The City Council granted some work in the Water Dept. to the

unemployed men for ten cents an hour, and we got for 15 men work. We are

trying everything to prevent starvation for these people.²¹

By the end of the year Silber had moved to Youngstown, Ohio to

become principal of the Hebrew school, and the IRO work in Colum-

bus, as in dozens of cities, came to a virtual halt. The winters of

1908-1909 and 1909-1910 saw little or no improvement, although by

January 1910 Rabbi Joseph Kornfeld noted that although "industrial

conditions [are] terrible," we "hope for an agency here again by Ap-

ril."22

As industrial conditions slowly improved throughout 1910, 1911, and

much of 1912, the IRO operated minimally in Columbus; by the fall of

1912 a Columbus Committee of the IRO had been formed by the Ger-

man Jewish leadership of the Federated Jewish Charities. The Commit-

tee agreed to supervise an agent, accept at least eight men per month,

and provided a sixteen dollars per month family allowance (two of the

eight removals were to be family men) or an eight dollars per month

individual allowance to the removals.²³

All of the problems which arose during the Silber years reappeared

between 1912 and 1916, the second and final period of IRO activity in

Columbus. These included IRO complaints about agents as well as the

Committee, criticisms of the IRO from Columbus, and difficulties in

placing the men who were sent to the city. For example, the Commit-

tee worked hard to make things run smoothly, insisting that its first

agent (Sam Edelman, b. 1891) carefully and continuously describe

Columbus industries to the IRO. This seemed to be precisely what the

IRO desired; its General Manager noted that "the Removal Office

must always be kept informed of the actual industrial conditions in all

parts of the country, in order that an intelligent distribution may be

made." Edelman sent detailed lists of Columbus companies to the IRO

21. Silber to IRO, January 8, 1908, Ibid; see also Jewish Charities of Columbus, Ohic

to IRO, December 11, 1907, January 1, February 5, 1908, Ibid.

22. Silber to IRO, October 4, 1908, Jewish Charities of Columbus to IRO, November 6

1907, Joseph Kornfeld to IRO, January 20, 1910, Ibid.

23. Simon Lazarus to IRO, July 26, 1911, Fred Lazarus to IRO, September 9, 1912

Ibid.

Industrial Removal Office 107

Industrial Removal Office 107

("our main industries are buggy and auto factories, machine factories,

shoe, couch, mattress, cash register, and piano factories, foundries,

and steel industries"), but the Office considered these too vague,

would not send men without notice of specific job opportunities, and

demanded "more exhaustive efforts." Edelman and the Committee

complained that they were receiving no men, and the exchange of

letters was often bitter.24

The most common complaint expressed by local agents continued to

concern the quality of men sent to Columbus. Arthur Ginzler (1868-

1947), Edelman's successor, scored the IRO for sending a Turkish and

an Arab Jew, both of whom were "shiftless and dishonest and should

never have been sent." Paul Karger,²⁵a subsequent agent, informed

the IRO that Mr. S. "is an absolutely worthless cuss, and has been a

charge upon the charities practically the entire time that he was in

Columbus." And Karger again notified the IRO that "we received in

the last several weeks five tailors from your office. For your informa-

tion I want to state that we are not able to use more tailors at present. It

is the slowest time of the year in the tailor trade and more than half of

our local tailors are without work." While successful placements oc-

cassioned no written communications, it is clear from the IRO corres-

pondence that local communities had little hesitancy in making their

complaints fully known to the national office.²⁶

Most Jews who left the eastern metropolitan ghettos were not as-

sisted by the IRO, but left for inland communities, such as Columbus,

on their own. Some heard rumors of good job opportunities, others

stopped on their way out west and stayed permanently, while still more

joined relatives of landsleit already in Columbus. While comparisons

between immigrants who came independently and those who were sent

by the IRO are difficult, there is little evidence to suggest that the

latter, at least in Columbus, had any significant advantage. Not only

was their adjustment to the new city often painful, but their failure to

24. Samuel Edelman to IRO, September 23, 1912, IRO to Fred Lazarus, February 17,

1913, Ibid.; Bressler, "What is the Removal Office?" National Conference of Jewish

Charities, May 27, 1904, p. 2; Edelman to IRO, October 20, 1912, IRO to Fred Lazarus,

November 13, 1912, IRO Papers.

25. Paul Karger, one of the most active Columbus Jews in providing support for

Russian immigrants, headed the Relief Committee of the B'nai B'rith Zion Lodge No. 62

for many years. As early as January 1901 Karger tried unsuccessfully to convince the

Lodge to send for and support 15 Rumanian refugees. See Zion Lodge No. 62, Minutes,

January 13, 1901, B'nai B'rith Zion Lodge Office, The Jewish Center, Columbus, Ohio.

26. Lazarus to IRO, November 27, 1912, Karger to IRO, January 4, February 16,

1914, IRO Papers.