I’ve been attempting to dig out specifically what “The Brandt Affair” was, and why artist Zuni Maud and the New York City Yiddish newspaper The Kibitzer, labeled it “anti-semitism”. (P.S., yes, I realize that Cartoons Magazine claims the title is spelled “Kibetzer”, but all other sources I’ve found disagree, and Cartoons also previously named Zuni Maud as “J. Maud”, so, I’m discounting the spelling used by Cartoons.) Given that we have at least three cartoons on the subject — including drawing the attention of noted cartoonist Homer Davenport — and, that these cartoons didn’t feel a need to explain the situation, all lead to the conclusion that the circumstances were well known at the time, but have since become well buried and forgotten.

Click on the above cartoons, to view them in detail & read their captions.

The best (still scant) details I’ve been able to find, are on the following newspaper pages (click on them): the February 13th, 1912 Evening Standard (of Ogden, Utah); the February 15th, 1912 Hutchinson Herald (of Menno, South Dakota); and the February 20th, 1912 New York Tribune (pages One and Three).

To summarize the details I’ve found, the cartoons involve Folke E. Brandt, who was the valet of banker Mortimer L. Schiff. Brandt claimed to have taken the fall for burglary with assault, on the night of March 8th, 1907, for letters taken from Schiff and delivered to Howard S. Gans. This was with the understanding (according to Brandt) that if he pleaded “Guilty”, he would not spend any time in prison, but would instead be deported to his native Sweden, with enough money from Schiff to start his own business. By 1912, however, Brandt found himself serving the fifth year of a 30-year sentence, and squealing. (Or, alternately, inventing a story against his jewish former employer, to get himself out of jail.)

Various newspapers (including those owned by William Randolph Hearst) took up Brandt’s case, to the extent of paying for lawyers to argue for Brandt’s release. With this backing, Brandt’s story was taken seriously enough to earn a grand jury investigation (against Schiff), involve the Governor Dix of New York, and gain national coverage (which was the point of Hearst funding Brandt’s defense — to create a trial that would sell papers). Brandt walked free (on bail) on February 28th, 1912.

Davenport’s cartoon (in Hearst’s newspaper, New York American), above, takes the side of Brandt; while Maud’s cartoon takes the side of Schiff and/or Gans (?) — both Jewish — pointing the finger at Hearst and others for having anti-semitic motivations. (Hearst was well known as anti-semitic, supporting the pre-war policies of Hitler and Mussolini.)

Which party(ies) in this case weres telling the truth, I’ve no idea. If anyone wishes to fill me in (and tell me where they got the info), I may update this post, and credit you for the info.

Doug Wheeler

— Doug