Letter 068, pg. 1

To DeWitt Emery

139 East 35th Street

October 4, 1941

Mr. DeWitt M. Emery
1635 Pittsfield Building
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Mr. Emery:

Here is the outline of the Organization Plan which we discussed. This is only a brief, general plan, covering the most important points. I don’t know how this will fit in with the by-laws of the National Small Business Men’s Association, but I assumed that this was to be an entirely separate branch, so I outlined the manner in which I think it should be organized. You will notice the main precautions which I mention to keep the organization from being kidnapped by the wrong element, in particular the absense [sic] of general elections. This is most essential—or the whole thing will be snatched right from under our feet as soon as it shows signs of succeeding.

I read your Memorandum of September 24 with great interest. I think it is much better than the printed booklet. There are a few things in it with which I don’t quite agree, but they are minor. I will mention them to you when I see you, if you wish my detailed opinion. There is only one suggestion I should like to make here: I think the tentative name you propose for the organization, “American Neighbors”, is very wrong. The name of an organization is its trademark and its slogan. It must suggest some idea of what the organization stands for. It must have a certain ring, an inspiring quality. “American Neighbors” is wrong because: 1. The first thing it brings to mind is the “Good Neighbor” Policy; people’s first impression will be that it has something to do with South America. 2. It is actually meaningless—because it could mean anything; it doesn’t convey any suggestion of our cause. 3. It is too deliberately prosaic; it’s not inspiring; personally, if I heard of an organization by that name, I would not join it—I’d distrust it. Whatever name we decide upon, it must not be anywhere in these categories.

Now, as to the article “The Evolution of Freedom” which you sent me for comment, I think it is extremely bad. It is so confused, so involved that it’s impossible in places to understand what the author is talking about. It seems to be written by an amateur determined to sound like a professor,