in a personal mailing?
We could have a mailing bureau as we do now, to settle this phase of the problem, granting that our publishers would open their hearts and print from two to several times the usual number which they now print. A subsidized mailing bureau might offset this to some extent.
Such an organization would lean more toward adult work, and would be less attractive to youth. In our less highly organized organization this has been pointed out as a disadvantage to progress many times. The attraction for youth must be foremost.
The National has experienced one split in its membership over the result of an election, while the United has had three, or more, and very likely a larger association would be more subject to such divisions, with even better prospects for the dissenters to survive.
Personally, our objections are that a Greater Amateur Press Association would make a “business” of our hobby so much of its lure to us, would be gone. Such a condition might help to interest more people, but commercialism would gradually make conditions different. “The days of chivalry” for our hobby would be gone forever.
We have been a member of the United, and one of the best friendships we ever made in the hobby was with a United member. We have never believed in depreciating any amateur association, feeling that we were all riding the same hobby. We see no reason for not following a “live and let live” policy and giving only good natured rivalry.
The forgoing comments are our own personal views. We have no idea how many others feel as we do, or how many disagree. It would be interesting to have some letters on the subject, and we will be glad to print them.
By G. W. Macauley
In Correction
While the usual amateur journalist’s report of some event, so often is drab and bare in its meagre word picture it seems a little unreasonable, perhaps, to tone down an article on which the color pot was used too lavishly while it is not our intention to go quite that far, I do wish to correct one statement.
O.A.P.C. Review for December gave in the article “O.A.P.C., Prexy Appointed Manuscript Recorder to Succeed Ellis,” stated “Harold D. Ellis found he would be unable to find time to handle the Manuscript Bureau.” I regret this announcement as there was no grounds, insofar as I know, for such a statement.
In explanation of Mr. Ellis’ resignation and Mr. Rolley’s appointment I offer the following:
Mr. Jack Bond was first appointed Recruiting Chairman but could not serve after which Mr. Curtiss Johnson, Jr. was offered the position but due to certain reasons he also refused.
Mr. Ellis had already accepted the office of Manuscript Recorder but due to his training along lines which I deemed would be helpful in Recruiting he was asked to take that office and resign as Manuscript Recorder in which position he had performed his duties as required.
In the meantime Mr. Rolley was asked to serve out Mr. Ellis’ term and graciously agreed to do so. Mr. Ellis then turned over the manuscript on hand together with his records and information.
This may seem many words to explain a small matter but I would rather give this space to correct a misleading statement involving two such excellent amateurs as Robt. Rolley and Harold D. Ellis both of whom were prompt to serve when asked, giving me much cause to be pleased.
18
