The Saviour of the United
The 1935 UAPA election returns were in. Dr. Noel had been reelected to the office of Secretary-Treasurer by a 3 to 1 vote. The exultation of the Seattle politicians knew no bounds; they wasted little time in distributing copies of their paper announcing the glorious victory. Running true to form, they could not resist a kick at the down-trodden form of George H. Kay, Dr. Noel’s opponent in the election, as well.
Since Mr. Kay was not present to defend himself, the Seattleites very bravely called him a “literary promoter” and hinted that he was a crook. No proof of these statements was presented; but many New York members believed them, coming as they did from one who holds a position of high trust in the Association.
Was Dr. Noel’s overwhelming triumph indicative of the attitude of the majority? This writer contends that it most certainly was not. Let us ignore the fantastic and unfounded claims which emanate from Seattle, and look at some figures which tell the story:
The last complete UAPA membership roster published in the December, 1933, United Amateur, contained exactly 261 names. From the time that list was made up until June, 1935, no fewer than 303 new members were recruited – according to Dr. Noel’s quarterly reports in the official organ. Adding the 261 already on the list to the 303 new recruits we find that there are (or should be) 564 members now in the organization.
The same source of information shows that but 70 of 564 (about 12%) are residents of Seattle.
Now, there were only 222 proxies counted in the election. Is it conceivable that less than 40% of our members mailed in ballots? With the unusual amount of interest shown in the pre-election campaigning, it seems improbable that so few should register a choice of officers. The question is, how many members received ballots?
The strangest part of the affair is that the usual list of those who mailed in proxies was omitted from the September official organ. It is only logical to conclude that, among the ballots that were received, there was a much larger proportion of Seattle members than 12%. Which explains quite clearly Dr. Noel’s failure to make the figures public.
Just one thing more: Last Spring the Crusaders announced a special mailing, at their expense, through which any UAPA editor could have his paper distributed. George H. Kay wrote to Sec. Noel requesting a complete membership list – which he had a perfect right to do, because the United is not a secret organization like the Ku Klux Klan. After considerable stalling around, the Doc finally mailed the list to Kay.
That roster contained 337 names, fewer than 6% of them from Seattle. Either the Secretary was taking it upon himself to withhold some of the names – thus directly violating the Constitution and setting himself up as another Huey Long – or else, if the list was complete, the Seattle policies must have driven 237 of our members out of the Association!
And still Messrs. Noel, Erford, Gourman, and West have the temerity to boast that except for Seattle the United would not have survived the depression!
Hits and Bits
Mr. C. W. Smith of Haverhill, publisher of The Tryout, states that “An amateur press club is all right locally, but an amateur organization that covers as large a section as New England should be an association.” Ye editor, partly responsible for the name “New England Amateur Press Club,” has just looked up the word “club” in the dictionary, and finds the following definition: “Persons associated for a common purpose or mutual benefit.” Does Mr. Smith still insist that our name be changed?
The success of the second N.E.A.P.C. convention, held in Boston, October 12, demonstrates the enthusiasm with which New England has adopted the hobby of Amateur Journalism. A United convention in the Hub is an assured success.
TO BOSTON IN 1937!
Are We Animals?
By William Haywood
I heard a man say that it is human nature to fight, that it is a natural instinct possessed by all living creatures. Of course the animals must fight to exist, that is the law of the world of the wild, and it is the only law the beasts know.
But the same man says that man is a superior to the other animals, that he was created with an intellect to make him master of the other beasts, even those of greater physical strength. Then why must superior man have the basest beast instinct, to fight? The answer is, he hasn’t. The militarist will try to tell you so, but he is either a non-fighter who wants to have a billion others die so that he may be wealthy, or he is the puppet of such a man, so deluded that he believes that man must fight.
Some of those accepted as the greatest minds of the world will declare they are in favor of war. Why is Mussolini aggressive? What makes Hitler arm his people? Why do any leaders ask for armaments? Because they want war that will make them rich and powerful. They don’t care how many of their own nationals are slain in the attainment of their ends so long as they are alive and sure of wealth and strength.
You ask how you can prevent them from using your money to build armies, your life in a war? Vote for peace and a program that will spend for building roads and homes instead of guns, and armies.
On Free Thinking
by John E. Miller
You may like to sing in the bathtub; perhaps you have a tendency to get up and make speeches in public places; maybe you’d like to take on the wrestler at the circus; you might even like to talk back to a policeman; if so, you should not restrain your feelings. At least, that is what a certain Free-Thinker tells us.
“What if you can’t croon like Crosby?” avers this free-minded one, very earnestly. “He wasn’t always good, either – and perhaps he cannot approach you when it comes to hill-billy numbers. You have no need to think that even the most eloquent of radio orators would eclipse your best attempts should you stand beside him in public competition. Your taller, and more imposing figure and your attention commanding voice would no doubt give you a most positive advantage over most of them.
“As a wrestler, you were pretty good when you were a youth back on the farm. If you are half as good as you were then, your superior speed and intelligence should rule you a strong favorite over the present-day champion.
“What is more, your early training in a small town grocery store answering the quips of the town wits should be all that is necessary to squelch the most sarcastic and beefy officer of the law.”
Not being in a position to claim the prestige of membership in this wonderful brotherhood of free-believers and free-actors, I will refrain from making any personal comments pro or con. I merely suggest that, before being wholly converted to their ways of thinking, you should try one of their methods. Furthermore, best results and quicker ones may be obtained by trying the last trick first: talking back to one of your local traffic officers.
Francis W. Miller, Editor
John E. Miller, Associate Editor
Affiliated with the U.A.P.A. the N.E.A.P.C., and the Crusaders