their original object would be forgotten; the moderately rich Jews would have created a new and large business, and Jewish emigration would be forgotten.
The notion of raising money in this way is not by any means impracticable. The experiment of collecting Christian money to form an opposing force to the big banks has already been tried; that one could also oppose them with Jewish money has not been thought of until now.
But these financial conflicts would bring about all sorts of crises; the countries in which they occurred would suffer, and Anti-Semitism would become rampant.
This method is therefore not to be recommended. I have merely suggested it, because it comes up in the course of the logical development of the idea.
I also do not know whether smaller private banks would be willing to adopt it.
In any case, even the refusal of moderately rich Jews would not put an end to the scheme. On the contrary, it would then have to be taken up in real earnest.
The Society of Jews, whose members are not business men, might try to found the Company on a national subscription.
The Company's capital might be raised, without the intermediary of a syndicate, by means of direct subscription on the part of the public. Not only poor Jews, but also Christians who wanted to get rid of them, would subscribe a small amount to this fund. A new and peculiar form of the plebiscite would thus be established, whereby each man who voted for this solution of the Jewish Question would express his opinion by subscribing a stipulated amount. This stipulation would produce