An Open Letter from Mr. Every
Item
-
Title
-
en
An Open Letter from Mr. Every
-
Date
-
March 1938
-
volume
-
3
-
issue
-
3
-
pages
-
1, 3
-
content
-
en
AN OPEN LETTER FROM MR. EVERY
Editor's Note: The Riposte, in keeping with its policy, wishes to continue to be the medium by which fencers throughout the country may find self-expression. It will be very glad to print the opinions of fencers on the coming elections for League officers, and asks only that any discussions be purely on the merits of the candidates and not dissolve into a discussion of personalities.
—
Dear Editor:
You have been kind enough to print the thoughts of many of the amateurs and professionals throughout the United States. I have followed these signed articles and letters carefully and must compliment you upon your general publication of them whether they proved instructive, constructive, critical, vehement or sarcastic. To date, I have refrained from entering any of the many controversies that have now arisen as the result of the new "RIPOSTE". However, a controversy has now arisen with the A.F.L.A. itself to which I can no longer remain a silent by-stander.
Despite the fact that the present popular President of the A.F.L.A. had expressed a willingness to serve another term if requested, the Nominating Committee did not renominate him for that office. On the day that the Nominating Committee's report was issued there was a chorus of "Why?" aimed at me. I could give no answer to my questioners, for I had not yet recovered from my own surprise.
That Van Buskirk was popular was soon evidenced. There was little delay in the formation of a petition. It has now been presented to me signed with the most impressive list of names any petition to the League has ever carried. The votes of confidence and loyalty expressed by these signatures alone would be a reward in itself for work well done.
A man cannot well sign a petition to himself. On the other hand, I cannot remain the mute recipient of a petition of this kind, when I feel so heartily in accord with its purpose; the renomination of Harold Van Buskirk for President of the Amateur Fencers League of America. I have consequently sought "The Riposte" as a source of outlet for my strong feelings in the matter, an outlet otherwise supplied through the petition of these several fortunate fencers.
Van Buskirk has proved to be an excellent President. He is well liked and has given unstintingly of his time and energy for League affairs. At considerable inconvenience to himself he has been on hand night after night for long hours at the League's most thankless task of Directing and Judging. He is known personally and liked by the rank and file of fencers for whose service the A.F.L.A. functions. In this work he has commanded the respect of our fencers, men and women alike, and much of the improvement that has appeared in the conduct of A.F.L.A. competitions in New York has been due to the inspiration he has given other men to serve the League in this most important capacity of fencing official.
Serving as Secretary to President Van Buskirk, I have been in a favorable position to judge the man. There is no other man under whom I would have preferred to serve. My respect for him is greater after having worked with him for two years than when I tremulously took over this duty. He has been most considerate, helpful and conscientious. His judgment is cool, unselfish and reliable. Why then should such a man be retired after a Presidency of only two years when only once in the League's 46 years has a President served so short a term?
The A.F.L.A. under Van Buskirk has prospered with a larger number of members and Divisions than ever before. During his, thus far, short Administration the cancellation of Divisional Charters has ceased and the League has resumed is growth in the Divisions as well as in New York City. I believe that the records will show that more Divisional fencers entered the National Championships last year than were ever so entered in a non-Olympic year. Why then should we not seek his re-election?
Van Buskirk began fencing as a student at the University of Pennsylvania. While there he captained their Fencing Team and won the Intercollegiate Foil Championship. He was one of America's leading sabre men from 1923 to 1933, won the Epee National Championship of 1927 and served in the 1924, 1928, and 1932 American Olympic Fencing Teams. He was unanimously elected as Captain of the 1936 Olympic Fencing Team, but unfortunately was unable to accompany the team when it sailed. Nevertheless, he worked long and hard at the training and development of that team. After serving several years as a member of the Board of Governors and one year as its Special Vice-President, he was elected President of the A.F.L.A. in 1936 and 1937.
Hanway first became interested in fencing at Yale where he served as Manager of the fencing team. Although relatively a young man, he has not been seen in fencing costume to my knowledge during the last ten years. He is primarily a managerial type. His interest in fencing expressed itself after college in service in the Intercollegiate Fencing Association where he served for two years as its Graduate Secretary. He was elected Secretary-Treasurer of the A.F.L.A. in 1934 and 1935, and in 1936 and 1937 served as Treasurer under Van Buskirk. He has never been other than an ex-officio member of the Board of Governors. He was unanimously elected Manager of the 1936 American Olympic Fencing Team.
These facts are important in our analysis of these two men. Both men have served fencing and the A.F.L.A. long and well. One man came up through the ranks of the active fencers through leadership and executive ability, the other succeeded entirely through his managerial ability. Both men were unanimously elected to positions on the 1936 Olympic Team, the one as Captain, the other as Manager. There is a slight difference between these two positions. That election itself was a distribution of honors between them which, more than anything else, shows the esteem which we hold for both, as well as the exact placing of the two men from the fencers' point of view. That, in addition to the strong feeling that Van does not deserve to be unseated, intentionally or otherwise, is the basis of the current petition.
There is no man who has signed the petition to my knowledge has done so as an expression of enmity to Hanway. These signers agree, however, that when it comes to a choice they as fencers want to have their League headed first by a fencer who has proved through service that he will be a popular President, second by a fencer who knows the sport from all angles, and third by a man whose reputation in his sport commands the respect and admiration of all members, all other things being equal.
Your very truly,
Dernell Every.
