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,2 camouflage
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
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.3 In
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."9 The 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
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."15 Despite
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-
104 OHIO HISTORY |
|
1908, was vehemently denounced by the Columbus Hebrew Educa- tional and Benevolent Society after almost two years of work for the IRO. He was accused of "not caring for an emigrant at all, but for himself," not "spending one hour a day for those emigrants," not "speaking English well," and "dumping them in the Panhandle shops, steel plant for night work and for seven days a week, where even Italians and Negroes refuse to work." The Society had a suggestion for the IRO, which probably revealed its true motivations in criticizing Silber: "pay us the $50 each month and we will handle up to 20 per month and make mechanics, tradesmen, etc of them. We offer you a one month 'free trial.' "17
tively. Residing in Chicago from 1910 until his death, he served as spiritual leader of Anshe Sholom congregation and president of the Hebrew Theological College. See Fred Lazarus et al. to IRO, August 17, 1906, Ibid.; Columbus City Directories, 1905, 1906, 1907; Columbus Ohio State Journal, September 9, 1904; Alex J. Goldman, Giants of Faith: Great American Rabbis (New York, 1964), 207-215; Who's Who in American Jewry, 3 vols. (New York, 1938), III, 988; Oral Interview with Marvin Fox, 1974, con- ducted by Marc Lee Raphael, Columbus Jewish History Project, The Ohio Historical Society. 17. Dr. Joseph Lipman to IRO, July 23, 1906, IRO Papers. |
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
("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,25
a 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.
108 OHIO HISTORY
become permanent residents of the
community was striking. Despite
the enormous national and local relief
efforts by the IRO and its agents,
their contribution to Jewish life in
Columbus seems minimal.
In the early years of IRO operations,
the interior communities were
frequently indifferent to and often
angered by the character of the
immigrants sent. Yet the annual reports
of the organization, like those
of most national bodies, tell
overwhelmingly of "satisfactory loca-
tions." Case studies of local
operations, and the persons who direct
those movements, provide the most
profitable method of testing the
claims made by the national organization.
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,2 camouflage
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.