Spencer Heath Archive

Item 2980

Carbons of letters from Spencer MacCallum to Heath and Beatrice O’Connell regarding the Science of Society Foundation, with marginal penciling by Heath reproduced between slash marks.

January 27, 1960

 

Dear Popdaddy,

 

Here are notes for the two Annual Meetings which will bring the Foundation Minutes up to date. Using these notes, will you please write up a draft of the Minutes and send them back to me for copying into the Minute Book? You will see many gaps where I lacked information as to dates, names, etc. I may be able to resolve some of these gaps when I go down to Elkridge again, but not all of them.  So please fill them in to the best of your ability when writing up the material.

 

      A verbatim copy of the last minutes appearing in the Minute Book (Eleventh meeting, 9/3/58) is enclosed. I think it advisable to amend these Minutes to include some material and especially a point of view that we did not write up at the time. I think you can best word it. I’ll give you first an idea of what should be inserted, and then my reasons why:

 In September, 1958, we had been waiting for tax exemption to come through before (1) attempting to raise money from outside sources, (2) building up wider membership entailing donations or fees which would be tax exempt, (3) undertaking projects involving considerable expense, such as, especially, additional publishing ventures. — In general, broadening the base of the Foundation.

 

      We thought that we had applied for tax exemption on July 27th, 1956, and that after the Foundation had been in operation for at least one year from that time, the Government would investi­gate our activities and pass upon the application. However, this was a mistaken impression. Upon investigating the delay before the eleventh meeting on 9/3/58 (Minutes enclosed), we discovered that our application had not gone through in July, 1956, but that we had been notified that we would have to submit the application after we had been in operation for one year (see Bartlett letter 8-3-56). In other words, we found that the next step had been up to us and not up to the Government as we had thought. The result of this mistake was that the main work of the Foundation, depending as it does on exemption, had been delayed by a year.

 

      We need some recognition of this situation to emphasize (1) that expanding work of the Foundation depends on exemption, and (2) that the Foundation has not slowed down in spirit as might appear from the relative inactivity of 1958-59, but has been delayed by factors beyond its control. This last is im­portant to support the impression that the Foundation has the supporting interest of outsiders beyond the family only — in other words, to negate any impression that the Foundation has declined for lack of outside support.

 

      Enough for the Minutes. When you’ve written these up, adding anything you can remember of importance that I might have left out, send them back. I’ll visé them again at this end before copying them into the Minute Book.

 

      Since our hope in winning the hearing will depend in large part on demonstrating that the ideas promoted by the Foundation are not original with you — so that the Foundation will qualify as a bonafide educational institution and not as the propagandist of one individual’s outlook on life — I regret that CM&A has no bibliography. And especially that you com­mented at the end of your Bibliographic Note as you did. What I would suggest now is that you write the copy for the new bibliography for CM&A that you have several times said that you intend to do. If reference is made to the lack of bibliography at the hearing, it might help to be able to produce copy of such a bibliography intended for a second edition of CM&A when and if such is published. Here are some possible titles I jotted down at Elkridge:

 

Bridgman, Percy W.       The Logic of Modern Physics

Grebe, John J.           (COSMIC CHART — Didn’t see its title.)

Lillie, Ralph Stayner    General Biology and Philosophy of

                            Organism

Radcliffe-Brown, A.R.    Toward a Natural Science of Society

Riegel, Edwin C.         Free Enterprise Money

Whitehead, Alfred North  Process and Reality

Von Mises, Ludwig.       Human Action

Maine, Sir Henry Sumner  (All of his works — about five)

George, Henry            Progress and Poverty

deBroglie, Louis         The Revolution in Physics

Kropotkin, Petr          Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution

Matchette, Franklin J.   Outline of a Metaphysics

Scherman, Harry          The Promises Men Live By

Schroedinger, Erwin      What Is Life?

Sherrington, Sir Charles Man on His Nature

Sinnott, Edmund W.       Cell and Psyche

Whitehead, Alfred N.     Science and the Modern World

 

      Since it would be hard for a book like CM&A to have a complete bibliography, this might be written rather in the form of a tribute to certain outstanding works.

 

      Thinking further how we could demonstrate that the fundamental ideas of the Foundation did not originate with you: (1) Ground rent the basis of public services. Strongly founded in Henry George, and he got it from whom? Physiocrats and who else? (2) Natural science of society — Radcliffe-Brown and many others going back to the beginnings of sociology. The Foundation ex­pects to take on an increasingly anthropological turn as I become more active in it. (3) Principle of voluntarism in human and social affairs — Kropotkin and Maine and classical economics, Adam Smith, Henry George. (4) That the aesthetic is the socially significant element in religion — Robert Bridges, Santayana.

 

      Popdaddy, I think we should have asked Baldy to become a Trustee of the Foundation long before now. Would you sound him out on that and see if we can get that accomplished before the hearing? Also, I think Arthur Holden would make an excellent Trustee. I’d like George Resch eventually to be a Trustee, although probably not yet. Lucille Cardin Crain would be an excellent Trustee. Max Wehrly, Executive Director of the Urban Land Institute might be an excellent candidate for a Trustee after we get to know him. I wonder if by any chance Percy Greaves might know him or vice versa, since both are in the Washington area. For purposes of the hearing coming up, Percy Greaves would be an excellent person to have as a Trustee, though I don’t know if he understands how radical your departure from gold-standard-libertarianism is. Still, that’s not essential, since I can think of no possible area of conflict. I suppose the only limitation on the number of Trustees is the difficulty of getting a quorum together for a meeting. In studies of small group dynamics, it^’s been found that either five or six (I forget which) is the optimum number for maximum cooperation. In any event, let’s ask Baldy right away, shall we?

 

      Looking through the reviews down at Elkridge, I really couldn’t find any that it seemed we could benefit from by getting in touch with at this time. Almost none show any real understanding of CM&A — a very different situation from that which obtained with the Suez Canal proposal. Perhaps the best of any was the editorial in Urban Land, written by Max Wehrly, about whom I told you and Fran in Santa Ana. Another good review was that in Main Currents in Modern Thought, but I don’t have a reference here of the man who wrote that or when it appeared. You may have it among your things. The short review in Freeman was good, but how much weight do the libertarians carry in Washington? Or in scientific circles? Murray Rothbard wrote that review. He has a degree, but no standing as yet. I notice that Fred Singer, at the University of Maryland, wrote you in reply to your last letter about CM&A, “Stimulating ideas and concepts. … It is the sort of book that One wants to return to … and read and understand more deeply each time one does so.” Your best response by far to CM&A was from persons, and not from the review media. A.H. Hobbs, libertarian sociology professor at the University of Pennsylvania and friend of Lucille Cardin Crain, certainly showed interest in the book at one time, although we haven’t had any word from him for a couple of years. Dr. Sylvester Petro might be glad to help in any way that he can.

 

      I^’d certainly feel more reassured if you’d bring Dr. Harper’s expert lawyer into the case, at least to the extent of a consul­tation, since he apparently knows the ropes so thoroughly and is fresh from winning the same sort of an appeal as ours for the Foundation for Voluntary Welfare (Baldy^’s organization). I don’t know just how you’d talk with him, though, being in San Francisco.

 

Now for some personals:

 

      Elfriede is keeping the apartment spotless. Both she and Gene were concerned about the large white enamel cooking pot that they said you were looking for and could not find. As I remember it, that pot was burned beyond use on the bottom and by consensus of the two of us found its way to the trash. Elfriede bought a very attractive piece of blue material for a cover for the living room couch.

 

      We have a nice arrangement about language: Every time I can correct her use of English, she teaches me a word or a point of grammar in German. It’s a nice way to learn.

 

      The time has come when I must sell 20 more shares of Standard Oil of New Jersey. I remember you offered to buy these yourself in order to save me brokerage fees and to keep the loss only a paper loss within the family. I appreciate it and hereby turn over twenty shares to you. Is this sufficient record of our transaction? A day or two ago when I looked at the paper, the price stood at 47, which makes a total cost of $940.00.

 

      I closed my account at the Bank of America in Santa Ana and now am keeping my main account in Leesburg with a very small checking account up here in the Corn Exchange Bank.