HUMANE CASTING FOR JEWISH SLAUGHTER [To the Editor of the
SPECTATOR.] Sia,—Your article on this subject, in your issue of January 5th, assumes that the present (alternative) methods of casting have been proved to be inhumane, and that Mr. Weinberg, having invented and perfected a machine for mechanical casting, has had his negotiations for its testing and adoption exasperatingly protracted by the Jews. These assumptions lead to a covert hint, that if we do not adopt this machine at once we may find ourselVes prohibited by law from killing by our ritual method—i.e., we may be deprived entirely of the possibility of procuring any fresh meat. It is suggested that both these assumptions are ill-founded, and if the " other side " is heard this will be apparent. Our position as regards our method of slaughter has been somewhat peculiar. Up to a few years ago a persistent attack was being made on the method of slaughter itself. No language was sufficiently strong for its condemnation. Every attack, however, was answered, with the result that it is now grudgingly admitted– on the authority of independent reports made by Profs. Leonard Hill, F.R.S., Sir William Bayliss, F.R.S., and others—that our method is humane. But our former attackers wereby then pledged to get the safety pistol substituted for the .,pole-axe. Apparently the objecting butchers, when driven to the wall, offered to withdraw their objection to the new weapon if its use were imposed on Christians and Jews alike, ignoring the fact that Jews would not be permitted to eat shot or stunned meat. To win the support of these illogical people an attack was made on the casting (which is preliminary to, but is popularly considered.
as part and parcel of our method), regardless of the fact that the eminent Professors—all non-Jews—who had severally reported that our method was humane, had also inspected the casting and had reported that the preliminaries also were humane, and humanely performed. To stop this continual annoyance we expressed our willingness to adopt a mechanical method of casting, if one could be found which would work satisfactorily.
Mr. Weinberg's machine was then evolved, and, long before it was in working order, we were blamed (as we are now) for not adopting it. I attended a test of this machine in a private slaughterhouse. It was a dead failure, for the machine broke down. After that occurred delays commented upon in your article. I have perused the correspondence between Mr. Weinberg and the London Board of Shecheta, and my impression is that if a fraction of the time expended on pro- paganda and correspondence had been devoted to recon- struction of the machine it might have been adopted by now. As it was, the Shecheta Board waited in vain to hear that substantial alterations had been completed, so as to fit the machine for another test.
When at length the intimation came, to avoid the charges of prejudice against the machine which were being so lightly made against the Shecheta Board, that body willingly ac- quiesced in the formation of an independent Committee under the chairmanship of Professor Hobday, President of the Royal Veterinary College, who had already pronounced himself as in favour of mechanical casting.
A test was arranged in London, at the cost of the Shecheta Board. Again the machine failed. Your article says that the Committee came to no decision after this test. This is not accurate. They were so disappointed with the performance that they declared the result to be unsatisfactory, and refused to reassemble unless they had independent assurances that the machine had been put into working order.
It is reported that the machine has now been altered and has worked satisfactorily in a trial at Leeds. The Shecheta Board has therefore requested the independent Committee to re-test the invention in London, undertaking to pay all the incidental expense, and the reply of the Committee is daily expected. The suggestion in your columns that the Shecheta Board should be pressed to adopt this machine without waiting for the opinion of the Committee appointed for the very pur- pose of testing it, does not commend itself to us nor does it seem to be logical or wise. As a matter of fact, there are three other machines under consideration, and it is hoped that they may be tested at the same time, and that one of them at least will prove to be successful and will be adopted.
In short, our point of view is : (1) Our present method of casting is not inhumane. (2) But we are willing to adopt a satisfactory mechanical niethod,- so as to remove any fears which may exist on the part of our critics. (3) We will not adopt any machine unless it is pronounced by the inde- pendent Committee appointed for the purpose to be in every way satisfactory.—I am, Sir, &c., C. H. L. EMANUEL (Solicitor to the Board of Deputies of British Jews)..
23 Finsbury Square, London, E.C. 2.
Previous page
