Looking for Information
On Grandfather in New York
Jeffrey Arkin’s recent story, “My Faceless Grandfather,” touched a nerve because my grandfather, Samuel Solomon, also was involved in the paper box industry in Brooklyn in the 1920s. He was a partner in a paper box factory located at 10-12 Forrest Avenue in Brooklyn, but I have never been able to find the name of his firm which went bankrupt in 1924 or 1925. I wonder if Mr. Arkin has turned up any information that would shed light on my grandfather’s business.
Audrey Kahn
Pound Ridge, New York
If Samuel died soon after the company’s bankruptcy, his estate records might show the disbursement of his assets. Try Kings County Surrogate’s Court at 2 Johnson Street, Brooklyn. In the basement, look at the alphabetical card files; the clerks are extremely helpful.
To tackle the bankruptcy aspect, look for bankruptcy notices in the New York Times historical archives. If a notice exists, call the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to order the bankruptcy records. The archives no longer has the complete records, but they may send a copy of the docket. In addition, search the Times’ other references to Samuel.
The New York Public Library at 42nd Street has old city and telephone directories. Start with the white pages; a listing of your grandfather’s name might also include his business’ name and address. Next, use the yellow pages; you may find dozens of listings (and advertisements) for Brooklyn paper box businesses, as I did for the ones in Manhattan..
The Science and Industry Branch of the New York Public Library at East 34th Street holds considerable background information about the paper box industry. One source I found was a handbook of a national association of paper box manufacturers.
Once you discover the name of Samuel’s business, search for a “certificate to conduct business” (sometimes called a “certificate of incorporation”). I have only done this for Manhattan businesses; my success rate is less than 50 percent, but the certificates I located included a wealth of data. In New York County, access the indexes on the 7th floor of 31 Chambers Street; request the actual records which are located in the basement of the courthouse at 60 Centre Street. For Brooklyn, call the County Clerk’s office at 360 Adams Street, telephone: 718-643-4149.
Finally, there is the granddaddy of all finds: the “general wage investigation data cards” of the Factory Investigating Commission housed at the New York State Archives in Albany. It is possible, of course, to go to the archives in person, but microfilm rolls may be ordered through a public library interlibrary loan. I waited several months for mine to arrive. I ordered roll 5 to find out about my Jacob Arkin, but those cards contain employee information. For business establishments, rolls 21 and 22 (series A3000) and the key to establishment code numbers series A3010, tag 555. The contact person at the Archives is Bill Gorman, telephone: 518-474-8955.
Jeffrey Arkin
Fresh Meadows, New York
Holocaust Survivors Crtiticize
USHMM on ITS Records Access
I read with interest Baird and Sack’s favorable impressions of Bad Arolsen in the Winter 2007 AVOTAYNU—and then I stumbled on the item below which reflects not necessarily badly on Bad Arolsen, but on the decision against making the data available on the web which I, personally, would like.
George Arnstein
Washington, DC
The following is reprinted with the permission of The Cutting Edge. “Survivors Rebuke USHMM’s Shapiro and ICRC’s Meister over Bad Arolsen Discord Following Closed Door,” by Leo Rechter; The Cutting Edge, Edwin Black, Editor. March 3, 2008—Ed.
Editor’s note: This summary and analysis of the Bad Arolsen archive transfer controversy was written by Leo Rechter, elected president of the National Organization of Child Holocaust Survivors, following the January 17, 2008, ICRC-USHMM joint briefing about the Bad Arolsen files. This was the second such controversial closed-door meeting on federal museum property and was marked by the exclusion of mainstream press—Ed.
On January 17th, the National Organization of Child Holocaust Survivors traveled to Washington, DC, to attend a special, private briefing for survivors’ representatives at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) regarding the International Tracing Services archives held at Bad Arolsen and now being transferred to the USHMM.
The museum staff ran a slide-show demonstrating how an index card, transferred recently from Bad Arolsen, had provided valuable information to one of the museum’s survivor volunteers. After months of work, the museum has now accrued 50 to 70 million digital images from the Bad Arolsen ITS files. In addition to the index cards, the collection contains camp and ghetto records, Gestapo records, forced labor records, records from DP camps, and migration records. Although those documents refer to about 17.5 million people, museum officials warn that they are not a complete list of the fate of millions of additional victims and survivors. Twenty onsite computer terminals (on the museum premises) have been assigned to the tracing service, and 25 staffers have been trained to do the searches. The trained staff will presumably not only search the transferred archive, but will also cross-reference it with the museum’s own archives.
Applicants were told they may make requests for information on the web at: <http://www.ushmm.org/its> or by calling (toll-free) 866-912-4385 or 202-488-6130. Answers should take about six to eight weeks. Requests for ITS data can also be filed by filling out online forms available on the museum’s website, <www.ushmm.org>. Completed forms can be submitted via mail, fax, or electronically. Survivors or their family members can also visit the museum and have searches conducted on one of the twenty onsite computer terminals.
However, the ITS database is not capable of being searched by off-site computers, nor does there seem to be any plans to set up satellite computers around the country to perform the same service. Paul Shapiro of the USHMM stated that, at the request of some European nations (he did not name them), each nation would only maintain a single repository. After the meeting, Mr. Shapiro told me that the USHMM had fought very hard for multiple repositories in each nation, but had been overruled. He promised to send me evidence of this assertion, but must have forgotten, because as of early March, I have not received any corroboration.
Another museum spokesman submitted that: 1) the museum staffers are especially trained to expand searches to include other archives, thus providing the most comprehensive possible responses. 2) For now, the museum will not share the materials with other Holocaust centers to avoid frustrating individuals searching for information. This last sentence is bewildering. To their statement I can only append three question marks???
Another aspect to be considered, according to some of the museum’s spokespersons, is that some of the eleven nations’ commission members of the tracing service still had privacy qualms if documents were freely available on the Internet. Again, the spokesperson declined to name the nations.
During the Question and Answer period, I directed questions at Reto Meister, the ICRC’s ITS administrator attending the briefing. Mr. Meister is an affable and cordial individual, and I had hoped that—as an outsider to the discord over the number of repositories—I would get straightforward answers. Regrettably, that was not the case. Mr. Meister simply blamed all results on “Committee decisions.”
My questions:
1) Who suggested that there be only one recipient institution in each member nation? It seems absurd that countries like Luxemburg and Belgium—with only a minor fraction of the world’s Holocaust Survivors’ population—should get a full set of data and the United States also only one set. Why was such an irrational formula accepted? Who campaigned for this kind of exclusivity and monopoly?
2) It has been asserted that the French delegates and Bad Arolsen technology officers have twice suggested that Internet access be made available directly from Bad Arolsen computers instead of costly and complex data transfer. Why were these suggestions rejected? Who opposed them?
3) When asked why the Amsterdam Conference in mid-May 2007 chose not to place all the files on the Internet, a Red Cross Official—with direct access to the proceedings—allegedly answered, “Don’t ask me. Technically it will be feasible to access these databases from anywhere in the world. We would just export the XML format. We could then support a virtually unlimited number of remote terminals. Member countries would not receive copies—just access. This option was not taken. Had they chosen the Internet option, the records would be accessible in a matter of months.” WHY was this option not accepted? WHO opposed it?
From some of the answers we received, it could be inferred that the museum is more concerned with creating a legacy for historians and future researchers than with the heart-wrenching and pressing needs of survivors for information about their murdered relatives, before they themselves are no longer of this earth.
My perception, as published previously in The Cutting Edge online newspaper of December 14, 2007, is: “Only the survivor can provide clues or links that will lead to an accurate match. That assessment supports our case for a widespread dissemination of access ports in libraries and museums all over the country. To depend on a single access-gate at the USHMM in Washington, DC, is bound to create intolerable bottlenecks and sufferings. For those outside of Washington, D.C. it will create unjustifiable hardships.”
As Esther Finder, a group leader of Second Generation individuals, rightfully pointed out: “How is filling out a form and waiting six weeks for an answer from the USHMM any different than filling out a form and waiting six weeks for an answer from Bad Arolsen, Germany? The Red Cross is now saying they can do a search in six weeks. Where is the bargain offered by the museum?
In its January 23rd issue, The Washington Jewish Week reached the same conclusion: “Locally, most of those seeking information will be able to go to the museum and sit down with a researcher. Outside the Washington-area, that’s not possible. Twenty computers in Washington are not good enough when the vast majority of survivors and their families do not live in the Washington area. The Holocaust Museum needs, as soon as possible, to set up satellite research locations in areas with high concentrations of survivors, such as New York and Miami.
The award-winning investigative reporter Edwin Black wrote in The Cutting Edge of January 17th: “Many searches require tedious trial and error as survivors excavate from their memories nicknames, real names, supposed locations of incarceration or transportation, and other information decades in the past.” Black added, “For some victims, the task would be swift and for others a protracted probe. In other words, survivors would often need to be in the room. Many survivors argued passionately for terminal access at nearby facilities such as local Holocaust memorials, Jewish centers, and federations in their hometowns, the way other government and historical databases are routinely accessed at universities and libraries everywhere. Sources at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, American Judaism University in Los Angeles, Detroit Holocaust Center and many other institutions have expressed interest in such terminal access.”
We sincerely wish and hope to be able to rely on the assertions and promises of the administrators of the venerable and treasured USHMM. But such hope is not easy! In comparison, we read in a recent e-mail from Yad Vashem in Jerusalem: “Yad Vashem is investing immense efforts to integrate the ITS materials into its computer systems in order to eventually make them available to the public in a user-friendly manner.”
Leo Rechter is the elected president of the National Organization of Child Holocaust Survivors. His summary and analysis was adapted with permission from the just-released February edition of the newsletter of the National Organization of Child Holocaust Survivors.
What Is the Correct Tombstone
Inscription for a Woman Married More Than Once?
Tombstones are important sources of information for genealogists. Surprisingly, no convention seems to exist for the following (and related) not-so-rare situation—Ed.
My mother remarried after my father died after which she was widowed for the second time. She will be buried in her first husband’s, my father’s, family plot. How should her name appear on the tombstone? After her given name, Hebrew names, father’s name, and birth and death dates, is it customary to list both the first and second husbands’ surnames?
Rita Krakower Margolis
Rockville, Maryland
Following are some of the responses culled from the Internet and from the Association of Professional Genealogists.
It is the children who usually end up deciding where she is buried and under what name. In cases where there are no children by the second marriage and the woman outlives her second husband, I’ve noticed that often the woman will be buried with her first husband under his name.
* * * * * * * * * *
Seen it done both ways, so I think it depends on the family and your wishes/feelings. I have seen women buried with the first husband’s name because the children feel that was the key marriage and the later life one less significant. I have seen a second husband’s name omitted from the stone entirely. My great-great-grandmother’s stone has her second husband’s name. The problem is that was a late-in-life marriage, and no one is alive today who has any knowledge of the second husband, not even his given name.
* * * * * * * * * *
How it appears and what is written should be according to the local custom. Many rabbis review the inscription you write before it goes on the marker, so in all cases you should consult your local rabbi first, or the rabbi for the synagogue that is in control of the particular section of the cemetery. If you are not comfortable with his decision, then you should consult the national office for your branch of Judaism.
I suppose every era and every society has a “rule” but those are meant to be broken apparently. I have a great-aunt (1888–1948) who had four husbands. She lost two via divorce and two via death. Her tombstone (and her obituary) has her given name, middle initial, maiden name and then all four of her husbands’ surnames! Two of the marriages I knew nothing about and the obituary didn’t mention them, so I was lucky that the tombstone did.
* * * * * * * * * *
My mother was married three times (24, 18, and 17 years) and outlived all three. It was her choice to be cremated and the ashes interred with her paternal grandmother. Mom didn’t want to play favorites with any of her three husbands. More than once Mom said that each time she got married she felt like she lost her identity. Some people knew her by only one married name or another. When she died at 95, I wrote text for the single large flat marker shared by her and her grandmother. Both of their places of birth are on the marker. Their maiden names and all of their married names are on it (Great-grandma was married and widowed twice). My daughter said, “Mom, I could tell you wrote it.”
