the sentiments of some of our "piney-woods philosophers" regarding the negro? What excuse can be found for such reasoning with all the wealth of modern psychological and sociological findings available as they are today?

6th: We are unable to discover anywhere in ONE's presentation even a suggestion that homosexuals "be accorded special privilege as a class." We strongly resent the insertion of so un-American a charge into ONE's sober and dignified claim for its rights under American law. Never has ONE asked for "special privilege" for the homosexual. However, it does DEMAND that each and every Constitutional right of the millions of respectable and self-respecting American homosexual men and women shall be acknowledged. So long as there is breath in us we shall unrelentingly work to require the postoffice, the courts or whatever agency to cease their attempted infringements of the rights of homosexual American citi-

zens.

THE NEXT MOVE

Is appeal to a higher court. Although it might be said that continued disputation over a magazine already in the hands of thousands of readers is pretty academic, such is not the case.

If ONE were to drop the matter now, the postoffice would be in the strong position of having won its case, and perhaps more ready than ever to interfere with mailings. Further, a court decision regarding ONE Magazine would have become a matter of legal record and a handy weapon for these judicial chess-games. Still another problem would arise concerning bound volumes containing the October, 1954 issue. We cannot afford to stop now.

It appears that the decision was a surprise even to the Government's attorney, who had apparently not hoped to win. This being true, the decision must be reversed, if possible. How a competent legal or even layman's mind could fail to follow the clear and precise reasoning of ONE's presentation is not to be understood. We do not believe a higher court would fail in this respect.

So, here we are, faced with still more work, still more expenses. First move is to a federal court in San Francisco and from there, if necessary (for do not fail to recognize the Government's right of appeal, should it lose) to the United States Supreme Court. All of this involves time, and money, but how can we turn back?

ONE's attorney is so impressed with the significance and serious importance of this case that he has offered his services without cost. It embarrasses us to have to accept his generosity, but we are in no position to do otherwise. If you have studied the Annual Report carefully you have already seen how true is the statement!

There will have to be various court and stenographic costs as well as official printing of the brief and travel to San Francisco. Some of the research can be done by staff members (if they can find time) but at best the expense will run into several hundred dollars. . . . We see no solution but to set up a "Postoffice Fund".. and let those who feel the matter important contribute accordingly. ONE hesitates to be forever talking about money, yet how is a philanthropic, non-profit undertaking to be carried on without broad and sound support from those interested?

We must leave it up to you.

(Conclusion, from Vol. I, No. 1.)

11