Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3052

Exchange of letters between Heath, 312 Halesworth, Santa Ana, California and F. A. “Baldy” Harper, 55 Rosewood Drive, Atherton, California, with penned note from the latter to Spencer MacCallum. Included in Originals Envelope is a media account of the Hoover Library situation referred to by Harper.

March-April, 1960

March 19, 1960

Dear “Baldy”:

Millions of thanks for all your helpful letters, etc. in aid of my application for The Science of Society Foundation’s tax exemption.

There is another matter I’d like very much to talk about with you. Dr. Benson, for some time and especially since the four seminars with him and some of his Faculty Members, has shown a very warm and intelligent interest in the new conceptions outlined in my “Citadel, Market and Altar” and a general idealistic philosophy from which these concepts spring. Dr. Benson has written to me at considerable length suggesting “Ways in which The Science of Society Foundation might find itself a base of operation within the general framework of Claremont Men’s College” and saying “The fundamental questions raised in the major publications of this Foundation are so close to some of the fundamental interests of the College and relate so directly to sound scholarship in the Social Sciences that I think amalgamations would be worthwhile”.

However, Dr. Benson’s proposals and subsequent discussions seem to contemplate primarily a quite substantial endowment over which the College trustees would have exclusive, or at least majority control with only a general understanding that the funds or income would be employed in furtherance of the general purposes of the Foundation.

My own present and fairly definite reaction is rather that any funds to be devoted to the purposes of the Foundation should be expended here and now and not stored up for future and necessarily uncertain use or action. Also I feel that I should be not merely

1

a sponsor but more definitely a participant (without salary) in whatever goes on.

Dr. Benson seems to feel if the project is worthy of effort initially it should be worthy of provision for its permanence at the outset; yet he might consider going along for a while on a pay-as-you-go basis.

It occurs to me that the series on Federalism at Claremont, if you know how it was arranged, might be taken as a pattern or a precedent, or for something similar on say “Proprietary Administration at the Community Level” or “Proprietary vs Political Administration” or, less specific, “The Problem of Community Administration.” Do you think something of this kind might be possible at Claremont or elsewhere?

Your wonderful letter to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shows how well you understand and appreciate my own views and aims. Any suggestions from you in confidence or otherwise, would be truly appreciated.

Cordially,

/s/ Spencer

P.S. Will be in California until about April 15.

April 3, 1960

Dear Mr. Heath:

The dust of accumulated affairs after my return from the extended trip have now settled a bit, and I can turn again to your letter of March 19 — and your telephone call.

2

It seems to me that the attainment of tax-exempt status, if you can accomplish it, is your first order of business. Much of the question of what you can and should do turn around that outcome. I believe I have little more to suggest on that score, except to reaffirm what I have said before — and express the strong urging that you have young Spencer at your elbow (a very wise and astute young man). He would probably be in merely a quiet advisory function to you, though could perform well in any capacity, in my opinion.

When it comes to further steps, I will have several ideas for you to ponder at that time, I suspect. It would probably be unwise to enumerate them just now, because one or two might turn on the tax exempt outcome.

Relative to one of these, you might have your lawyer explore the matter, whenever it becomes the proper time to do so, of whether and under what specifications your foundation could be the owner-operator of some residential hotel or apartment properties for elder citizens. This possibility might develop fairly rapidly most any time now, and only for that reason do I suggest that he might investigate it now under the assumption (when and if) tax exemption should be granted; ponder when, if any, corporate change would be required to do so under the assumed eventual tax exemption status.

Relative to the use of the opportunity your Foundation now affords, I am firmly of the opinion that grants to institutions even for vaguely specified specifics of purpose, can erode and likely work for the opposite of the intent. This is not necessarily an indictment of any specific person in your instance, but I could give you many illustrations to prove the danger. The latest is the amazing case of Hoover Library and Institute, here on the campus and a gift of the Honorable Herbert Hoover — the landmark tower on the Stanford campus, and all that. The faculty are now up in arms and attacking the right of the operation to proceed under the specifications that it is devoted to “research and publications, to demonstrate the evils of the doctrines of Karl Marx — whether Communism, Socialism, economic materialism or atheism — thus to protect the American way of life from such ideologies and their conspiracies and to reaffirm the validity of the American system.” The attack

3

asserts that this is an intolerable attack on the good name of Stanford University, because it is a violation of academic freedom. !!!!! If a great university of such reputation as Stanford will do this to a great like Hoover, after the fact of the gift and the monumental building, and the greatest collection of such books in the world, what will some other college do to the “least” of these? (you or me, let us say) For great as you are in honor and attainment, there is no denying that you have not the prestige and popular name to protect you against unfair attack in the eyes of the general public that H.H. has.

So I say that the design must legally and functionally pin down the use of the money in ways that will hold. I assert that there is no substitute for vesting it in one or more persons as persons when it comes to the carrying out of the intent. This may have to be gauged in terms to satisfy the corporate existence, and the tax exemption provisions, but that must be attained in a legal way even so. It seems to me that the provisions must specify, even though given to an institution if that seems otherwise desirable, that its use is to be in the hands of a certain specified person; that when he passes away, or resigns, or is by some means of determination demonstrably unfit to carry on the intent, the remaining fund passes to some other custody.

If a college refuses to carry out some such design of operation, it becomes pretty sure evidence that without such a specification the intent of the recipient must be suspect, to say the least.

Have you thought of setting up a separate operational Foundation to go into active work along these lines somewhere? To give Spencer the vehicle for his life’s work as its primary objective, because for him to blossom to his fullest he must have freedom of environment and surrounding spirit? Were you to do something of that sort, I would be sorely tempted to join it myself, if adequate means to do the work were obtainable somewhere. What I have in mind, vaguely, is the vehicle for work on projects like Spencer’s great vision of urban redevelopment under private sponsorship; the acquisition of several million of operating assets in the housing field, that are gems of

4

conceptual design for housing for the aged population; research and education on the principles of productive private enterprise. Just a dream, but dreams precede the dawn.

Cordially,

F. A. Harper

April 4, 1960

Personal to Spencer MacCallum

Dear Spencer:

It must be self-evident that the risk of all these things falling on your shoulders someday — some unknown day — means that you should be kept informed. So just to be sure . . .

Baldy

/Enclosed copy of his letter to Heath of April 3/

April 13, 1960

Dear Baldy –

I was very gratefully affected by your intimation of availability as an associate in what I am hoping to do, or at least initiate in a public way. Spencer and I have spoken often of how happy that would be. Much depends on whether or not tax-free status can be obtained. We are badly handicapped for personnel in either case and I look forward eagerly to the possibility of some participation or at least counseling by you.

What do you know about Harvey Mudd College of Science and Engineering and its president, Dr. Joseph B. Piatt? He approaches me with thinking out loud that I might be of value to

5

the College in some extra-curricular capacity (no gift conditions attached) and says he will write to me about it. I would like him to know a lot about you. He is devoted to the ideal of a science school on the widest possible cultural foundations. Please send me some data about you and another copy or two of “Jobs for All” — to 11 Waverly Place, New York 3. As a general rule I think the more a social scientist knows about economics the less he knows about the natural sciences and vice versa. You seem to be a happy exception to that rule.

Many thanks for the matter re Hoover Institution. I’d like to know what further happens.

I am taking plane for New York Friday (April 15). Will be there about a week seeking further reinforcement for May 9^th in Washington.

With all best wishes,

Cordially,

April 19, 1960

Dear Mr. Heath:

In reply to your letter mailed just before you left for the east, I am enclosing a rather crude biographical summary; perhaps it is just as well for the purpose, anyhow.

If and when there comes an opportunity to serve on any Board or Committee, which I welcome doing whenever the time avails for something I respect highly, I must first clear the matter with my superiors in this organization. Were I in a different type of work — laying brick, for instance, on a construction job — I would not feel this to be necessary. But in this type of work, it seems to me only right that my employer be given the option to approve or disapprove. Then if I do not like his decisions, and it is of sufficient importance to me, I have an option to stay or not stay in that job. Right?

6