R. 5990) to regulate these licensing procedures, and further, to revoke Mattachine's permit.

Rallying to the rescue of this highly unconstitutional bill of attainder last August was the press in Washington, and in later hearings, even the Commissioners of the District of Columbia opposed it. For in outlawing Mattachine, Dowdy's bill would also cut out CARE packages and aid to Ohio Valley flood victims, and so on. Consistently the press there found itself torn apart so to speak, because it had to oppose the bill, and at the same time state it might not approve homosexuality, but it did uphold Mattachine's right to exist and operate. D.C. officials condemning the bill felt this same pinch, and ACLU came out boldly in support of the Mattachine position and opposed to Dowdy.

However, in winning the battle, some of the war was lost, because it was learned that a majority of the Mattachine officers signing the application for the permit had used pseudonyms (they suddenly become aliases in a matter like this). Because of this, the Mattachine application and permit, previously granted, was cancelled. Another factor was involved also when it was noted that the "Charitable Solicitation Permit" business concerned only those organizations which solicited more than $1500 per year in the District, whereas the Mattachine budget was nowhere close to that.

Even though this makes the whole affair a tempest in a teapot, Rep. Dowdy persisted in introducing his bill, and the date for it came up--March 9, 1964. But on that date Rep. Dowdy was absent from the floor of the House, we are told.

By no means is this "rundown" on the organized homophile movement a complete and exhaustive report. Particularly in treating the organizations of Mattachine and One have there been omissions of all but most important milestones.

But Mattachine and One, however different in concept and operation, are, like the fourteen organizations and branch offices described, unified in ultimate purpose if not in technique and self-evaluation. In other words, the areas of "alikeness" are far greater and more important than the little islands of "differentness."

mattachine REVIEW