To the Friends of ONE:
Many of you know something about the difficulties under which ONE has had to work during the past two years. In April, 1965, with the Corporation standing at the very threshold of fine growth in many directions, a blow fell unlike anything ever before dealt a homophile organization in this country.
Three Voting Members of the Corporation suddenly and quite without warning staged what they called “a mutiny.” None of the three were at the time officers of the Corporation, nor had any of them even been employed by ONE during 1965. Yet this dissident minority and some of their friends plotted to seize control of the Corporation.
Although ONE is chartered by the State of California & must be governed by its legally adopted Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, this, apparently meant nothing. The guiding principle of the mutineers seems to have been to strike without warning and to grab everything in sight, hoping that this would somehow give that old cliche, “possession is nine points in the law” some honorable meaning.
At some time during the week-end of April 17–18, 1965, the mutineers entered ONE’s offices and literally stripped the place bare of everything on which they wished to lay their hands. To do this they made use of keys which had been entrusted to them as being supposedly trustworthy Voting Members of many years’ standing.
This coup deprived the Corporation of its records, equipment and furnishings. ONE’s officers and majority of Voting Members were then arrogantly told that they had been “relieved of all responsibilities in connection with ONE.” Public announcements were mailed
2.
to hundreds of Members, commercial firms and others stating that ONE “had moved its offices.” Every ingenious means was used, including tying up mail deliveries for nearly a month, to completely destroy the Corporation, or rather, to substitute for it something quite different masquerading under the same name.
ONE’s reaction to this fantastic scheme was to take immediate steps to protect the Corporation. Its meager bank resources were safeguarded. Machinery was set in motion to have the mail delivered. After proper legal provisions for doing so were scrupulously observed, the offenders were removed from Membership.
Next, there began a carefully planned series of legal actions to secure the return of all of the properties taken from ONE’s offices and to compel the mutineers to cease from any use of the name, ONE. Also, damages were sought in restitution for the great harm which had been done to the Corporation, not to mention the homophile men and women ONE was dedicated to serving.
The response of the mutineers to ONE's suit was to strike back with a series of counteractions, recklessly charging the Corporation and its officers with all manner of alleged misdeeds, and asking also that the Corporation be dissolved! While claiming in one breath to be profoundly dedicated to the best interests of ONE, in the next they were asking the courts to terminate the Corporation’s very existence ! The inconsistency of such a position appears in no way to have been embarrassing to them.
A conviction on the part of ONE’s Members that they must never falter in their determination to prove that a homophile organization can govern itself honorably and lawfully is what sustained them through all the losses, strain and personal sacrifices which mounted
3.
up during the long, wearisome months which then began.
The Members felt that the public must be shown, and, above all, the many fearful, doubting homosexuals that there indeed is a homophile organization which is worthy of respect & which has high standards of social integrity. Otherwise, how could it be expected that ONE should be fully trusted?
Let both the pessimistic and the cynical shrug their shoulders or laugh and say, “What else did you expect from a bunch of queers?” ONE coald [sic] neither be so callous or detached about the matter. It felt itself bound to keep right on with its efforts to arrive at a proper and legal solution for the problem.
For such pains, the Corporation was met with skepticism & contempt from every side. “Why drag skeletons out of the closet?” or, “You are rocking the boat and will get all the rest of us into trouble.” Another set of attitudes was that ONE was being hopelessly, even stupidly naive. “How self-righteous can you get?” was the frequent question.
Month after month, for two full years, dragged painfully by, until now at long last, ONE stands completely vindicated ! All the charges and accusations of irregularity made against ONE and its officers have had to be abandoned. How could it have been otherwise? The three former members and their followers have now agreed to surrender any and all claims to speak as or for ONE. Most of the properties which were taken are already back in place. The mutiny has totally collapsed, but is this not what all such ventures usually do?
How was it all worked out? The breakthrough began to take form back in August, 1966. Several of ONE’s Members had at that time gone to San Francisco to attend the so-called National Planning Conference there.
4.
On several occasions during the sessions, an intermediary of the mutineers approached ONE’s Members with an offer for a settlement out of court, but when pressed for specifics the answers were vague, The [sic] move started to fizzle out, then died entirely away.
Not until March, 1967, was another offer proposed, This time it was made in the presence of the attorneys for both sides, a friendly third attorney sitting in, and ONE’s President Lew Bonham and Secretary Bob Earl listening to the proposals. These seemed far more realistic than had been those previously made and so were given ONE’s most careful attention. However, as the time went on and the date previously set for the trial to start drew near, it began to seem that this had been another “false alarm.”
So, to court on March 14. There the attorney for the defense claimed illness and asked for a continuance. A new date for trial, April 27, was then set, and there began an almost endless series of sessions for haggling over terms and details of a n agreement such as might remove the necessity for a long and costly trial.
While ONE certainly had no objections to avoiding court, neither had it any intention of doing so unless terms which were honorable and just could be agreed upon. As might have been expected, the mutineers struggled and squirmed until nearly the very last hour to retain as much for themselves as could possibly be salvaged, so as to suffer as little penalty as possible from their conduct.
When April 27 arrived, the case came before Judge Bayard Rhone, in Superior Court #1 of Los Angeles County. The attorneys for both parties thereupon informed Judge Rhone that an “Agreement of Settlement” which provided for a board of arbitration t o dispose of any still unsettled disputes, had been executed and
5.
signed by both parties to the suit. All further necessary papers were thereupon completed and filed with the Court, and the “Agreement” went legally into effect.
It had been arrived at through long and careful effort. In order that a full and public record of the facts shall be made available and to forestall any circulation of speculation and rumors its full text is reproduced here, as follows:-
<Click to read the terms of the compromise>
In the “Agreement” note that the "good will and reputation of ONE, Incorporated, “have been awarded entirely to ONE and its legally elected officers and Voting Members, having offices at 2256 Venice Boulevard, Los Angeles. Also awarded to ONE were by far the greater proportion of the “tangible as sets” which h a d been removed from ONE’s offices back in April 1965.
10.
Why, then, in the face of so complete a victory, should not everything have been returned? Because, to have made no concessions at all would have meant going through one, two, or more weeks of further and very costly litigation. This would have probably meant losing the offices for that period while ONE’s officers sat in court. Would such a move not have compounded still further the losses, these losses having been set as being in the neighborhood of $60,000 already?
How much more could ONE afford to risk? Chilling also was the very real possibility that the unknown judge who would be assigned to the case might find the whole matter so distasteful as to hand down a decision expressing more of his personal feelings than of legal calm. He might even throw the entire proceedings out of court after listening to it briefly, as not meriting more of the court’s time. This kind of thing does happen. So it was that ONE felt it sensible to concede certain equipment no longer needed, or by now badly worn.
The relinquishing of damages was a much more painful decision. What led to this decision was the question: ---how could damages be collected, even if they were awarded? For plainly, the mutineers had by this time very little left, after the first flurry of their supposed “move to a new location” had worn off. The collection of damages was seen to be but a hope, and little more than that. Reluctantly, this hope was then abandoned.
Critical also was the Library. The terms of the “Agreement” spell out its dispostion. Hundreds and hundreds of the volumes are now back in places shelved in their original bookcases, also returned. Recovery of some of the, other books will be handled through
11.
the board of arbitration. However, ONE believes that, all things being considered, this was a sensible solution for the part of the "Agreement" concerning the Library, especially in view of the fact that the rest of the property was so sweepingly restored to its original home.
Final item provided by the “Agreement” is a letter suitable for mailing out in explanation of the conclusion of the suit. A satisfactory draft has been prepared. This, ONE made known its readiness to sign. However, it was far too explicit and plain-spoken for the taste of the losers. They refused to accept it. This brought on still more conferring and expenditure of time, the final product, being a blandly noncommital page. Whether anyone will ever bother to circulate it remains a question.
Meanwhile, we thought you might be interested in reading the text of the original letter proposed. It seemed to us to be quite fair, perhaps overly generous in its tone of neutral reportage. The text is as follows:
(DRAFT)
Dear Friend of the Homophile Movement:
As you are undoubtedly aware, a serious rift developed at ONE, Incorporated, in April, 1965. Since that time, the disputes arising out of those events were placed in litigation, which was until recently pending in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles.
During the two years since the dispute first arose, considerable confusion has been created by the publication of competing magazines under the name, ONE Magazine; and by conflicting assertions as to who is and who is not entitled to hold himself out as the duly authorized representative of ONE, Incorporated.
12.
Upon careful reflection, the parties to the dispute have decided that the expense, the delay and the bitterness which are always attendant upon litigation will be sufficiently disadvantageous to b oth sides, and so damaging to the homophile movement as a whole, as to make a compromise desirable.
Whatever our other disagreements, we are unanimously in accord for the proposition that the movement, which means so much to us and to you, should not be made to suffer because of any dispute among ourselves.
Acc ordingly, a settlement agreement has been concluded without regard to the legal rights and obligations of the parties, in the hope that we will now be free to concentrate all of our efforts on the worthwhile & productive activities which have always been our principal concern.
Under the agreement of compromise, it has been resolved that the offices of ONE, Incorporated, will remain at 2256 Venice Boulevard, Los Angeles, California; and that the organization whose headquarters are at that address will have the exclusive right to act under the name, ONE, Incorporated, and to publish ONE Magazine. The organization whose headquarters are now situated at 3473-1/2 Cahuenga Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, and which has recently been publishing Tangents Magazine, will continue to do so, and will henceforward conduct its affairs under the name of Tangents.
There remain some differences of opinion between us as to how homophile interests may best be advanced; and we have no doubt that you are familiar with these differences. However, although we may differ as to the means, the fact remains that we continue to have
13.
a common objective. Now that our pragmatic differences have b een resolved, we join in urging you to lend your active support in the future (as you have in the past) to that organization whose aims, methods and principles most nearly coincide with your own. Both organizations need your help, and will welcome any contribution you can make. (END OF DRAFT)
