Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Harper correspondence – to, from and about F.A. Harper

1956-1963

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

 

BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY

Floyd Arthur Harper

 

Biographical References

 

Who’s Who In America, Vol. 27, 1952-53, page 1046.

International Who’s Who, Series IX, No. 9, page 234.

Directory of American Scholars, 1951 Edition, page 386.

Who Knows—And What, First Edition, page 267.

Who’s Who In Commerce and Industry, Vol. 8, 1953, p. 550

American Men of Science, Vol. III, 1956, p.281.

Leaders in American Science, Third Edition, 1958.

Who’s Who in American Education, Vol. XVIII, 1957-58, p. 477

Data

 

Born at Middleville, Michigan, February 7, 1905.  Parents, William Robert

and Clara Margaret (Howard) Harper.  Married Marguerite Ruth Kaechele, 1930;

Children, Barbara Jean (Keith), Harriet M., Helen Louise, Larry Arthur.

 

Education:   High School, Middleville, Michigan; B.S., Michigan State College, 1926; Ph.D., Cornell University, 1932.

 

Experience:   Assistant and instructor at Cornell University, 1928-31; field agent in research, Federal Farm Board, 1930-31; instructor at Cornell University, 1931-34; business analyst, Bank for Cooperatives, Farm Credit Administration, 1934; assist­ant professor of marketing, Cornell University, 1934-35; acting head of Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Puerto Rico, 1937: professor of marketing, Cornell University, 1935-46; economist, Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., 1946 to 1958. William Volker Fund and Foundation for Voluntary Welfare, 1958 —

 

Author:  “Liberty: A Path to Its Recovery,” 1949; “The Crisis of the Free Market,” 1945; “The World’s Hunger” (with Frank A. Pearson), 1945; “Sequoyah, Symbol of Free Men,” 1952; “Gaining The Free Market,” 1952; “High Prices,” 1948; “Morals and the Welfare State,” 1951; “A Just Price,” 1953; “In Search of Peace,” 1951; “Inflation,” 1951; “Eating the Seed Corn,” 1950; “Agriculture’s sacred seventh,” 1954; “Discrimination,” 1951; “Inflation Is on Our Doorstep” (with W. M. Curtiss), 1943; “Freedom and Enterprise,” 1945; “Essays on Liberty,” two volumes, con­tributor of three items in Volume I 1952 and four items in Volume II 1954; “‘Reflections on Faith and Freedom,” contributor of one item; etc.; articles, reports, and reviews in var­ious professional journals and reviews; “Why Wages Rise,” translated into Swedish, Dutch, German, Spanish, Japanese, Finnish, Chinese, and Italian; “Seis Conferencias Sobre Temas Económicos, book, Mexico, 1958; El Problema de los Salarios en los Estados Unidos,” serial in Argentina LA PRENZA, 1957; “Der Schwedische ‘Mittelweg’,” ORDO, Vol. 9, Germany, 1957; “Liberty Defined,” St. Moritz, Switzerland, 1958; “Unemployment is Avoidable, 1958 (translated into three languages); Arbeitalose—so viel wir wollen,” German WIRTSCHAFTSPOLITIK, 1958; “The Greatest Economic Charity,” Festschrift Book, 1956; “La Libertad—Su Definición y Significado,” Argentina, 1958; “La Ciencia de la Ciencia Social” in Ideas Sobre la Libertad, Argentina, 1958; “Essays on Liberty,” Vols. III, IV, and V (numerous contributions); “La Desocupación Puede Ser Evitada,” Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1959; “La Inflación: Elevación y Control de los Precios,” Argentina, 1959; Influencia de Bastiat en Suecia,” Argentina, 1959; “Hablar Con Sencillez,” Argentina”; “Jobs for All (Who Want to Work),” 1960; “Haga lo que Sepa Hacer Mejor,” Espejo, Ano 1, Núm 1, Marzo 1960 (México Instituto).

 

Member:   American Economic Association, American Statistical Association, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Society for Freedom in Science, American Marketing Association, American Academy of Political and Social Science, Academy of Political Science, Mont Pelerin (International) Society, and various collegiate honor societies (Phi Kappa Phi, Pi Kappa Delta, Pi Delta Epsilon, Alpha Zeta, Varsity Club of Michigan State College); Honorary Advisory Board, Centro de Estudios Sobre la Libertad (Argentina); Research Council, American Medical Association.

 

           Home:  55 Rosewood Drive, Atherton, California.
           Office:   Box 72, Burlingame, California

 

 

/Note additional, unpublished, significant essay by Harper, “If I should Die,” not reproduced here because of difficulty scanning, but in the Originals (white) envelope/

 

____________________________________________________________________________

 

For an extensive interview with Heath by Harper and George Resch, inquiring into Heath’s biographical background and influences on his thought (which seemed too long to reproduce in two places), see Resch Correspondence, Item 3087.

1955?

 

____________________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 2125

F. A. (“Baldy”) Harper’s initial proposal for the institute which became the Institute for Humane Studies, now at George Mason University. At this time, “Baldy” had not yet disclosed this plan to Leonard Read, of the Foundation for Economic Education, where Baldy was a staff member. His reason for leaving FEE and forming an institute was that Read (for unknown reasons but possibly lest he be branded with “anarchy” and thereby alienate some of his major contributors) was not willing to go beyond what was already well known about the free market — to explore and encourage the growing edge for break-throughs in understanding human social organization. Heath, Baldy’s friend and confidant, edited this document and offered his hundred-acre property, Roadsend Gardens, at Elkridge, Maryland, as a home for the proposed Institute. Hosted by Heath and Spencer MacCallum, Baldy and his family visited for a weekend and looked over the property, but Baldy eventually decided the intellectual climate on the West Coast might be more intellectually hospitable to the kinds of thinking the Institute would engage in. For the unedited version of this document by Baldy, see the original with Heath’s markings.

 

 

     Preliminary

    Not for Publication

             Personal for Spencer Heath

    February 14, 1956

 

 

An Institute for the Science of Freedom

A Proposal for Research and Learning

________________

 

An informal institute to further the science of society is herewith proposed.

 

            The basic purpose of the institute will be research. But it is also proposed to offer help to a few worthy students in their study of the subject of freedom, to operate in the spirit of an informal graduate school to whatever extent means are forthcoming to make it possible for them to do so.

 

The budget and other details of the proposal will be dealt with in the latter part of this statement. First will be given, however, an explanation of why this type of institute is needed.

 

The World We Live In

 

Presumably we live in an ordered universe where “chance” is only our way of referring to something we do not yet understand. Were this not so, scientific discoveries would have been impossible. But since there is repetition of orderly occurrences, the underlying laws which they reflect can be revealed by scientific research. Knowledge of these laws, in one form or another, is what makes it possible for us to live in greater harmony with our environment — and abundantly, with harmony of spirit.

 

Humans are part of this ordered universe too, along with other forms of life and inorganic matter. So discovery of the principles of human affairs — the human environment — will allow mankind to live in greater harmony with all. Things of the spirit, too, extend this harmony beyond the realms of merely reasoned understanding.

 

Assuming an ordered universe, disorder and discord must be reflections of, and the consequence of ignorance and

contra-spirituality. This can never be corrected by processes of force. Any improvement must come from knowledge and from a feeling for things of the spirit, because their lack is the occasion of disorder and discord.

 

Progress in Science

 

Historically, mankind first sought satisfaction for its basic wants of food and shelter. Throughout most of history this has largely absorbed his energy and time. All his gains in productive power were balanced by his reproductive, bringing with it the need for more and more.

 

            So mankind has populated the earth, crowding more and more persons into the relatively few spots well adapted to human habitation. This, in turn, brought new problems — and the practice of freedom, in society, for the outgrowing of them. Not the problems, as such, but the manner of their resolution by society — the practice and potentials of freedom — shall be our primary concern. Not in government or force, not in slavery or war, but in the creative, and thereby spiritual, power of freedom, shall our inspiration be found. — Not the disorder and unreason but the rationality among men as among the atoms and the stars.

 

            The rationale of societal organization has been so little attended to, the wondrous rationality of nature can be used destructively and without rationality among men. As Dr. Warren Weaver once phrased it, “Our morals must catch up with our machinery.” For whereas material welfare has increased, so has covetousness and predation. Why? Can it be because a highly organized “assembly line life” has been part of the process? Is it because freedom and leisure have given persons not only more time for themselves, but also more time to mind the affairs of others — seemingly the more enticing of the two? Whatever the cause, an increasing loss of freedom threatens what civilization we now have until a science of society gives constructive understanding that under spiritual guidance can resolve disorder into order, discord into harmony.

 

            It is imperative that we probe into the nature of society far deeper than ever before. We must have faith that there are great unifying principles, eternal laws, and /that/, humbly seeking, we can fathom them.

 

An Approach to this Science

 

In seeking the basic laws of society, we can profit by the example of success in other fields.

 

            Since there is a fundamental unity in all nature, the path of success in the natural sciences may be assumed to apply in certain respects to the social sciences as well. By this I do not mean that the intricate details of methodology apply, necessarily. But the type of person and the environmental conditions probably do apply. This is where the history of science and the biographies of outstanding natural scientists prove helpful.

 

            Rather than attempt details here, reference is made to Science and the Planned State by Professor John Baker, Reflections of a Physicist by Professor Percy W. Bridgman, and The Path of Science by C. E. Kenneth Mees.

 

The nearer one gets to what is commonly called pure research, or the search for fundamental discovery, the less widespread is the market for it. No queue waits at the counter for fundamental research, anxious to buy these “silly abstractions.” In fact, the search may uncover nothing, which certainly attracts no buyers.

 

            The “market” for this type of research is indeed a strange one. The only sense in which there is a market at all is that someone of economic means may be wishing to finance its explorations. It is like one person staking another to prospect for gold which, if found, will go to benefit mankind in general rather than to either of them alone.

 

            Such work, then, has an exceedingly thin market. Historically it has been all but non-existent. Sometimes it was done in dusty attics, using up one’s meager savings in the endeavor.

 

            What the buyer of this type of work is buying is the exploration of the unknown by someone in whom he has confidence. One is buying integrity, ability, and devotion to the task of trying to produce something, as yet unknown, searching the realm of nature for the rational beauty and beneficence of God.

 

Team Work and Individual Work

 

 Dr. Warren Weaver once said:

 

“However, it cannot be assumed that this (the research team) will be the exclusive pattern for future scientific work, for the atmosphere of complete freedom is essential to science. There will always, and properly, remain those scientists for whom intellectual freedom is necessarily a private affair. Such men must, and should, work alone. Certain deep and imaginative achievements are probably won only in such a way.”[1]

 

This atmosphere of freedom is probably required above all for those qualified to study the nature and processes of freedom. They sense its absence acutely. And yet persons possessed of this sort of ability which Weaver is describing might well collaborate in their research. Properly designed, some sort of collaboration might well arise that would serve as a positive catalyst instead of as a negative force of distraction and frustration, as often occurs in organizational processes. The individual status of freedom might be maintained, while at the same time creating the ideal environment for cooperation —necessarily a voluntary affair (Ref.: Unpublished manuscript on the nature of cooperation in an organization).

 

            One of the major advantages of a joint endeavor and cooperation would be in teaching. For most of us, I’m sure, most of our worthwhile instruction came from the inspiration of one or two great teachers. If it were possible to attract to one spot two or more great teachers of the science of society, where students of outstanding ability could come for study, the fruits could be amazing.

The Proposal

 

The foregoing analysis leads to the following proposal:

 

            In furtherance of the objective of freedom, it is proposed to establish an informal institute of research and teaching in the science of society. It is to be the counterpart of a graduate school. But in not granting degrees—at least initially—it can avoid all the trappings of the “licensing” process of formal graduate work. Those who donate their personal endeavors will be doing so as students bent on learning something for the benefit of themselves and mankind.

 

            The institute at its beginning will be at a minimum of size, or one person. No larger size is required to start such an endeavor. It can then grow as desired by the participants — the financial supporters, the staff, and the students.

 

Initial Personnel

 

The qualifications of the person who is to be the initial member are given on the appended biographical sheet.

 

            Special attention is called to certain published works which reflect the intent, scope, and intended direction of the institute.

Location

 

At the start, the work of the institute would be done in the residence of the initial staff member, to save costs of unnecessary office space. Expansion or relocation would be considered as future developments warranted.

 

            The most desirable location, eventually, involves several types of consideration. Westchester County is expensive from he standpoint of living costs. Yet any other location would have to take into account such things as library facilities, accessibility for visiting personnel, and convenience to research materials.

 

            Suggestions for relocation would be invited, constantly. Perhaps a juxtaposition to some college or university would be advantageous. This would have many advantages, including the possibility that someday the institute might grow in esteem sufficiently to become some sort of affiliate to such a college or university without having to surrender its basic purpose and function; this would be the ideal, because of its potentialities as an outlet through the minds and hearts of young people — the teachers and formers of the coming generation. No higher destiny for an institute of freedom could be envisaged.

 

Growth and Staff Additions

 

Additions to the personnel of the institute would be contingent on the availability of financial means. For any additions with the intent of permanency, financial adequacy would include an addition the reserve fund at the level of the accumulation then attained and prevailing.

 

            As supporters were sufficiently impressed with the prospective fruits of the endeavor to contribute additional funds, others could be added by invitation. For instance, it is likely that for an additional $4,000 there could be attracted a top-quality student. And as further funds were made available, other students and additional staff could be added.

 

            Financial support might be provided to the institute direct, for additions of its own selection. Or the funds might be provided direct to the person himself, as a direct grant in the sense of a fellowship or staff addition. In some instances, students or staff might even add themselves, so to speak, from funds of their own or acquired by themselves.

 

Qualifications of additions to the personnel are of extreme importance, because no such endeavor can rise above the abilities of those who comprise it. It seems helpful in this connection to review the work of a few outstanding persons who have made notable contributions to the science of society and of freedom in the past, for they offer a model of its aim. Among those I would mention, whose attainments have been proved by the seasoning process of time, are Lord Acton, Jacob Burckhardt, Thomas Davidson, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Everett Dean Martin, and Henry David Thoreau. The contributions of any one of these seems priceless to us now. What, if anything, did they have in common that could guide us in the selection of students and staff?

 

It was not their nationality, not their religious-cultural background. Nothing of that sort. These were highly varied.

 

It was not a similarity of education.

 

            It was not a particular type of environmental setting, alike for all.

 

            No, the things in common that these great contributors of thought on liberty seemed to have in common were these:

 

1.  Rare perceptive intelligence, and a type of esthetic appreciation and concern for mankind.

 

2.  A scientific type of mind, devoted to the search for truth per se. An ever readiness to review new evidence that might uproot one’s own hypothesis, not a searching for proof of a priori assumptions.

 

3.  A rejection of personal glory or contemporary popularity per se. Instead, the pursuit of truth and rational beauty as the sole objective. Some of the greatest works among these persons were, in fact, published posthumously from manuscripts previously unknown.

 

4.  In order to attain their best work, each seems to have sought the environment which was for him most inspiring. Bastiat, for instance, seemed to prefer seclusion, whereas Lord Acton and Burckhardt seemed to prefer university posts. Davidson chose the classrooms of a wandering scholar. But in every instance an environment of freedom was necessary for them to engage in fruitful work as independent, self-responsible seekers. The manner in which environment affects creative work has been well described by William Easton, in Mechanical Engineering, August 1946; by Leonard Carmichael, in The Scientific Monthly, April, 1954; and in John K. Williams’ books.

 

5.  The teaching of these persons took varied forms. Note, for instance, the contrasts between Bastiat, Davidson, and Acton in this respect. Bastiat’s teaching was largely through correspondence and published manuscripts; Davidson’s was mostly in itinerant classrooms; Lord Acton’s was in both formal and informal classrooms. Some were tutors.

The characteristics of great social scientists such as these have been portrayed clearly by Burckhardt in the chapter of his book Force and Freedom, about the great men of history.

In the Spirit of Freedom

            The institute described here is intended to be wholly consistent with the underlying assumptions of human liberty, thereby striving to attain its end by means entirely consistent with liberty.

 

            The design of the institute assumes, for instance, that an organization voluntarily cooperative can attain more than the sum total of individual personal efforts that a formalized organizational structure is likely to curb the productive spirit of individuals, especially in the area of research exploration and its influence in terms of potential is likely to be negative. The menial services essential for organizational operation can be obtained by hire at reasonable rates.

 

            The purpose of the institute is to provide opportunity for a few promising students of liberty to pursue independent, uncensored exploratory work, and to offer teaching aid to a few promising scholars deemed worthy of encouragement and support.

 

            The project will cost something to maintain. But how much in relation to its potential worth? As a reasonable estimate, it would seem that freedom attained in the past is still yielding economic benefits in the United States of at least $6,000 yearly for the average family. But our freedom is being eroded and those benefits are endangered. Our civilization may even be threatened with collapse, as suffered by those of the past which followed in the way we are now publicly pursuing.

 

            If a project of this sort could succeed in developing even one person over a period of years to the stature of a Lord Acton or a Bastiat or a Davidson or a Burckhardt, what might it be worth to us and to mankind?

 

By F. A. Harper

February, 1956

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061 /2485/

Letter to Heath from F.A. Harper,

The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc.,

Irvington-on-Hudson, New York

December 11, 1956

 

Dear Mr. Heath:

      Every visit of yours here, it seems, generates more work for you. There is always some interesting and valuable point I wish to follow up.

      This time it is the matter you discussed, about the problem of management; how the spirit and economy and patterns of conduct set by top management will permeate down through the business or organization.

      When you get this put down in writ, I very much wish you would promptly send me a copy. It hits at a great problem here, that has caused great and almost fatal turnover of staff over the years (confidentially). My hopes still persist, though they have faded much over the years, that by the educational approach a needed change can in time be effected. That is why I am so anxious to get your remarks, so that on the right occasion I can pass them on to be read and pondered. What you said sounded wonderful!

 The best,

Sincerely,

/s/ Baldy

F. A. Harper

P.S.  A year or two ago I wrote a piece which I may send you some day when I have polished it up a bit, on the matter of gaining cooperation within an organiz­ation. I believe you will like my theory, and that your experience will bear it out. My idea is that the greatest cooperation within any organization is to be obtained by following as closely as possible a managerial conduct that typifies the operations of the market; that the use of power of position and especially instability of bases of decision — “injustice”, as the victims will appraise it — poisons cooperation and precludes the fruits of possible productivity. Do you agree?

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061 /2522/

Letter to Heath from F.A. Harper,

The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc.,

Irvington-on-Hudson, New York

February 8, 1957

Dear Mr. Heath:

I have a rather acute need, highly timely and therefore perhaps an unusual chance for effective reading, of your documented or carefully explained concept that the conduct of high officials in any corporation or organization will always permeate down through the organization. So if you should have it available now in a form you could either give or loan to me, I would appreciate it very much.

 This concept of yours seems to me as sound as the laws of heredity. Emulation is an exceedingly power­ful force, especially when it is reinforced with evidence that emulation is the way “to get ahead in this organization.”

 Another idea that seems to me needed in this connect­ion, and which I would hope you will incorporate in any complete job on it that you may finally do, is this:

Actions rule over any words to the contrary.

The best,

Sincerely,

/s/ Baldy

_____________________________________________________________________________  

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061 /2523/

Letter from Heath to F. A. Harper,

The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc.,

Irvington-on-Hudson, New York

February 19, 1957

Dear Dr. Harper:

 

      Naturally, I have had a great deal to think about since my last two visits with you, especially about the possibilities of a purely research organ­ization.  Something of that kind has been occupying my thoughts more or less definitely for a good many years. I am writing now principally to indicate how much I sympathize with the picture that has been taking shape in your mind. I only wish I could come to your support with strong financial as well as moral resources.

      I wish you could come down and pay us a visit. I’d like you to see our modest set-up here. Possibly it and a hundred acres of land between two main high-ways could be made available, if thought suitable, for the purposes of your projected organization. Perhaps this is only a dream, but it doesn’t do any harm to think of such things. Whatever you do or attempt along the lines of your present thinking, I hope I may count on your keeping me informed of it so that I can give you and your associates every pos­sible encouragement and support.

      When you make us a visit, possibly we could make the rounds of some of our libertarian friends, academic and otherwise, in Baltimore and Washington.

      Apropos of management and so forth, I enclose a little clipping of Newsweek of February 25th.

Cordially,

SH/m Enc:

________________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061 /1524/

Letter to Heath from F.A. Harper,

The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc.,

February 19, 1957

 

Dear Spencer:

It was good to bask in the inspiration of further discussions with you. Thanks again.

 The article about Billy Graham is enclosed. It rather seems to me that the author stints on evidence a little too much to make it convincing for any Graham devotee. If ever you get more facts on the matter, I would appreciate having them.

The Bergson quote I mentioned while we were waiting at the station is as follows:

“I believe that the time given to refutation in philosophy is usually time lost. Of the many attacks directed by many thinkers against each other, what now remains? Nothing, or assuredly very little. That which counts and endures is the modicum of positive truth which each con­tributes. The true statement is, of itself, able to displace the erroneous idea, and becomes, without our having taken the trouble of refuting anyone, the best of refutations.”

— Henri Bergson

(The Scientific Monthly, Sept. 1956, p. 129)

 And the two books by the biochemist Roger Williams, which I

commended, are:

 

Free and Unequal, University of Texas Press, 1953

Biochemical Individuality, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1956

 The best,

Sincerely,

 

(signed) Baldy

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061 /2528/

Carbon of letter from Heath to F.A. Harper,

The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc.,

February 25,1957

Dear Dr. Harper:

 

Your letter of the 20th came the same day I mailed my last letter to you. Quite a coincidence as to similarity of subject-matter. I certainly appreciate and shall respect your confidence re: “An Institute for the Science of Freedom.” I have read Its prospectus with the greatest interest and a sense of inspiration. Cannot help wondering what other persons have shown interest in it. That first section, “The World We Live In,” is profoundly and yet simply philosophical — and spiritual. The second and third, “Progress and Science” and “An Approach to this Science,” are precisely along the lines of my own thought as to method — as played up with con­siderable detail in my forthcoming C.M.& A.

 With respect to biographic dope on yours truly, most of that is in the current and recent volumes of Who’s Who in the East (Marquis); also inside of back cover of “Progress & Poverty Reviewed,” which I enclose. In addition to the above, my grandson is sending you something that was cooked up about me in connection with the birthday celebration you were gracious enough to attend. I hope this will not be too scandalously panegyrical.

 Further, my grandson wishes you to see an article he has been reading in the “Princeton Alumni Weekly” for February 15th, entitled, “The Industrial Relations Section: A Famous Research Group Moves into New Fields Under a New Director.” This article goes into the im­portance of investment in organization, from the point of view of management being of far greater importance than natural resources and technological facilities, much after the manner of your own thinking, it seems. We are sending this along for your examination, asking you to return this marked copy for our files.

 Many kind wishes to you and the dearly beloved. It was a delightful visit.                 

                       Cordially,

Encls:  PPR

        Biog.

        PAW

        Thirring article

_______________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061 /2529/

Letter to Heath from F.A. Harper,

The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc.,

February 25, 1957,

 

Dear Mr. Heath:

 

We would very much like to visit you in your environs there, and we plan to do so as soon as a suitable date can be found for both of us.

      I would like to bring my wise and beloved helpmate along too, if it works out right; and perhaps even the two children, if it seemed wise to make the trip on a weekend, as may be the case. The children might visit a cousin who works and lives in Baltimore. And it is barely possible that Harriet would like to see the place too, if it should happen to be advisable for the date to be the last week of March, when she will be home for vacation from Carleton College. I’m not sure what plans she may have for those few days; she has not yet, so far as we know, settled on employment after her graduation in June, and she might happen to have some inter­views, or something of the sort.

      So in view of these observations, how does your own schedule shape up during the next month or so?

      Could you send me a road map for your local area, with the location of your place indicated thereon?

      Perhaps on these matters it would be well to use the address below for our correspondence.

 

Sincerely,

/s/ Baldy

F.A. Harper

Dodge Farm

Chappaqua, New York

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Letter from Heath to F.A. Harper,

The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc.,

Irvington-on-Hudson, New York

February 26, 1957

 

Dear Dr. Harper:

 

      We are delighted at the prospect of a visit from you and your much admired mate at an early date, say late in March. And the children, too. I am sure we can put them up all right by then or, if a bit informally, even before that time. Please make such arrangements as will be most convenient.

      We would like to have you with us for as many days as you can stay, so that if we wish to, we can visit not only among ourselves but perhaps also some persons and places of interest in nearby Baltimore and Washington.

      As to Harriet, it will be lovely to have her come too if she can. If she should not be arriving home for vacation before you leave, she might come directly to Baltimore after you are here.

      I have made a rough map of our neighborhood, which I enclose.

Sincerely,

SH/m

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­_______________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061  /2531/

Letter to Heath from F.A. Harper,

February 28, 1957

 

Dear Mr. Heath:

      Could you send me a few copies of your short statement of the Science of Society Foundation purposes? I’d like to have a few, assuming that you have no objection to my showing it — if and when the time should seem right — to a few close friends.

      Thanks for your “semi-fish-bowl” data, which you kindly gave. Also for the other enclosures, of which I am returning the one from PRINCETON ALUMNI WEEKLY.

      I am awaiting word of your plans for the last week in March. Last evening we phoned Harriet to congratulate her on being awarded a scholarship achievement award, of which we just heard, and she told us that she might have to go to Baltimore while home for vacation that week to be interviewed for a job among those she is considering for post-graduation. So it might be convenient for us to come then.

      If you should think it advisable for any reason, I might even come a bit early myself and have them come and pick me up, or perhaps stay a little later if I should come with them. But there may be no purpose in that.

      I realize in all these speculations that we are doubtless in a process of probing into the darkness with hopes that in all sorts of ways may not coincide when we compare notes more care­fully than we have yet had a chance to do. So I keep thinking of any preparatory thinking that should be done in advance, to make further discussions most worth while when the occasion avails.

      There is probably no reason for panic about this matter, but as I watch the monthly FEE financial reports and analyze them, I begin to think that the critical time financially may not be too far off. For February, for instance, we shall fall about $20,000 behind the same month a year ago — admittedly a time when we enjoyed a bit of a windfall. But for the last year, our income will show about $100,000 less than expenses and some reasons for dark clouds within the next year. So needless to say, I am currently looking at three or four possibilities all at once. I have hoped for many years that the Trustees would awake to the critical situation and lay down whatever specifications seem absolutely necessary for continuing success, and see that they are met, but there is no evidence for hope.

      Do you think any persons with funds would support such a project? How, I wonder, might they be felt out in advance without any revealing of any part I might have in it? For as you should know if I failed to tell you, all sorts of strings and influence would be used to kill any support for me, were it to become known to my present employer that such a project was in the making.

Cordially,

/s/ Baldy

 

_____________________________________________________________________

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Carbon of a letter from Heath to F.A. Harper,

March 2, 1957

 

Dear Dr. Harper:

 

In going over your proposal for a research organization, I have made casually a number of marginal notes, much as though I were going over something of my own. These I have embodied in a

re-write, copy of which I am sending to you by way of suggestion only and which you may or may not find of any value.

 

Cordially,

SH/m

Encl.

 

_______________________

 

/Suggested amendments by Heath to a paper by Harper dated February 14, 1956, “An Institute for the Science of Freedom: A Proposal for Research and Learning.” Heath wrote Harper on March 2, “In going over your proposal for a research organization, I have made casually a number of marginal notes, much as though I were going over something of my own. These I have embodied in a re-write, copy of which I am sending to you by way of suggestion only and which you may or may not find of any value.” What follows in brackets is the original wording by Harper. After that is Heath’s proposed re-write.

March 2, 1956/

 

[So mankind has populated the earth, crowding more and more persons into the relatively few spots well adapted to human habitation. This crowding, in turn, has brought new problems — the problems of society. These are the problems which arise from living in close proxi­mity to one another, and of deciding who shall have this or that among all those things desired beyond their availability. This, in short, is the problem of freedom.

By some strange paradox, as mankind has solved more and more of the problems of material productiveness, it has intensified rather than diminished the problems of society.  … Whatever the cause, an increasing loss of freedom threatens the civilization of which we are a part, unless a science of society and a constructive spiritual guidance can resolve the problems of discord and disorder.

That is why it becomes so important to try to probe into the nature of society far deeper than has ever been done before, in an attempt to uncover basic principles in this exceedingly complex society where we live.

 

An Approach to this Science

 

In searching for the basic laws of society, it seems wise to follow the path of success elsewhere.

The path of success in the natural sciences may be assumed to apply in certain respects to the social sciences as well. By this I do not mean that the intricate details of methodology apply, necessarily. But the type of person and the environmental conditions probably do apply. This is where the history of science and the biographies of outstanding natural scientists prove helpful.]

 

_________________

 

So mankind has populated the earth, crowding more and more persons into the relatively few spots well adapted to human habitation. This in turn brought new problems — and the practice of freedom, in society, for the outgrowing of them. Not the problems, as such, but the manner of their resolu­tion by society — the practice and potentials of freedom — shall be our primary concern. Not in government or force, not in slavery or war, but in the creative, and thereby spiritual, power of freedom, shall our inspiration be found. — Not the disorder and unreason but the rationality among men as among the atoms and the stars.

The rationale of society has been but little studied or attended to.  It thus remains possible for the rationality of nature as revealed in the sciences to be so irrationally employed as to menace not only the peace and property but the very lives of mankind.  …  Whatever the cause, an increas­ing loss of freedom threatens what civilization we now have until a science of society gives constructive understanding that under spiritual guidance can resolve disorder into order, discord into harmony.

It is imperative that we probe into the nature of society far deeper than ever before. We must have faith that there are great unifying principles, eternal laws, and that humbly seeking, we can find them.

An Approach to this Science

 

In seeking the basic laws of society, we can profit by the example of success in other fields.

Since there is a fundamental unity in all nature, the very successful research methods of the natural sciences may be presumed to have a like value in the social sciences as well. This does not mean that the intricate methodologi­cal details necessarily apply, but the basic principles, the type of mind and the environmental conditions probably do. The visionary mind, seeking analogies, quick to form hypothe­ses, ruthless in discarding them, detecting the unifying principle where none was suspected or believed — all within an environment quiet and undemanding yet with enough personal variety for stimulation and cross-fertilization.

_______________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061  /2542/

Note to Heath from F.A. Harper enclosing thermofax copy of letter of March 4, 1957, from Mercer Parks, 3030 Locke Lane Houston 19, Texas

March 8, 1957

Dear Mr. Heath:

I wrote Mercer Parks, saying only that I thought he might enjoy and profit from any exchanges with you. And as you see from this, you have a green light any time there is an inspiration to do so.

/s/ Baldy

______________________________________

 

Dear Baldy:                                March 4, 1957

Yours of the 20th regarding Mr. Spencer Heath is at hand, and I hope you will always feel free to refer me to those you value and vice versa. Some of the most satisfying acquaintances I have are those who have come that way.

      In connection with my study of those in this country whom we have made and are making great by much half-baked praise, I have been giving a good deal of thought lately to the very fact of your existence along with people like Mr. Heath. Such little islands of individualism appear to me to be unique in this country and probably in the world. I base my observations, of course, only on a slight amount of first hand scanning of the most adventurous political thought in the early days of this country plus that leading up to the Civil War, and I find nowhere a complete disillusionment with government per se. I believe Burke did call it a necessary evil, but he was a worshiper of institutions – of which government is among the most carefully protected. Of course, Burke had to avoid any semblance of boat rocking because such might have been construed as concurrence with the revolution in France. John Randolph in this country appears to have approached the nearest in this country of complete distrust of all government, and I suspect he would have been a complete questioner today. Kirk’s first book on conservatism, Randolph of Roanoke, is of course my main source of information plus Henry Adams’ unsympathetic evaluation. The intersection of a sympathetic and unsympathetic review should get somewhere in the neighborhood of the right evaluation.

      If such people as you are unique, they are being heard in public appearance and in publication although they are not getting anything like the coverage accorded the demagogues. But that such people as you are heard by a few appears to be a unique circumstance in the world, and while the act of prophesy is a hazy, confused, and confusing operation, I like to try to imagine what might be the outcome. As a rather hopeful believer in Providence, I always have the intuition that, whatever we do individually or collectively eventually turns out to be fuel to the fire or steam to the hammer which forges (subject to the wills of a few stubborn individuals) tomorrow from the raw materials called yesterday. Actually, there is no “now” for even as we think of it “to be” is squeezed through a tinier and tinier aperture of the split second called “now” to become that immutable item called “was.” Yet, in this mysterious continuum which seems to flow so uncontrollably past us, certain individuals who compose some of those end-to-end split seconds called “now” throw a wave of influence far ahead of them into the stream of “to be.”

      Well, I shall welcome knowing your Mr. Heath and ponder the perhaps bootless thoughts of why and how his interest in the future, played out to a ripe old age, may cast its shadow on things to come.

 

      Here are some enclosures. “An Ethic System” appeals to me as a clever graphic demonstration of the dilemma we all face. Add “government” and “organized religion” (if you can get two more dimensions on a two-dimensional medium), and I suspect there is no area in which one can operate. I have a copy of “The Organization Man” but haven’t opened it yet.

 

      I haven’t opened Ed’s /Opitz/ latest fusillade. He does not appear to wish to join the issues I have raised with his previous items nor to pick any for confrontation from what I have sent him, and so I am at a little loss. Certainly shall not waste any time on detailed dissection of what he is pleased to call “wire brushes for libertarians.” If they have any abrasive effect, it is more of the character of a sandstorm, likely to cause the libertarian to cough and turn his back, but unlikely to gouge off any skin.

Regards to all,

/s/ Mercer H. Parks

MHP:be

Enclosures

 

P.S. /Penned/  The Smitley item at hand and I’d like that fellow to know. Of course I never had his experience with a thousand books but I’ve picked up as many as half dozen at a time almost sight unseen and I’ve never been disappointed with the purchase.

 

____________________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061  /2540/

Carbon of letter from Heath to F.A. Harper,

responsive to his of March 11 and 15, 1957

March 17, 1957

 

Dear Dr. Harper:

 

      We are looking forward delightedly to you all being here next Sunday afternoon, the 24th, and staying as many days as you can,

      We will be still a bit in the crude but I think we can make all of you quite comfortable ourselves, and if not, we will have other accommodations for the surplus near by; and as to food, if you will be prepared for a bit of picnicking I think we can make out very well right here without having to go very much, if any outside — all according to taste and mood.

      Meantime, my very best to you all.

Anticipatingly,

 

SH/m

_______________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061  /2543/

Penned note and enclosure to Heath from F.A. Harper,

The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc.,

Irvington-on-Hudson, New York

March 18, 1957

 

Dear Mr. Heath:

 

This item, in a letter written by my octogenarian friend Bob Smitley (151 East Palisade Avenue, Englewood, New Jersey) may interest you.

                            /s/ Baldy

______________________________________

 

 OCCASIONALLY from R. L. S.                       March 1957

 “Because we play with causes and effects and never go beyond them, except verbally, our lives are empty, without much significance. It is for this reason that we have become slaves to political excitement and to religious sentimentalism.  There is hope only in the integration of the several processes of which we are made up. This integration does not come into being through any ideology, or through following any particular authority, religious or political; it comes into being only through extensive and deep awareness. This awareness must go into the deeper layers of consciousness and not be content with surface responses.”

 

The above quotation is from “Commentaries on Living” by

J. Krishnamurti. On the dust cover of the book is a Special

Request from the publishers: “We respectfully request that you,

the prospective reader, open this book at the beginning of any of the 88 chapters – and read for one minute.”

____________________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061  /2544/

Letter to Heath and Spencer MacCallum from F.A. Harper,

The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc.,

Irvington-on-Hudson, New York

March 27, 1957

Dear Spencer & Spencer:

We arrived home safely last evening, and want to thank you for all your courtesies and kindnesses.

Now we can see through experience what you mean by not wasting your energy fighting “negatives,” for when a group of Gypsies came along you more or less abandoned your own house for their convenience while there in the vicinity. And you put up no battle at all to retain full use of your own property. Yes, our thanks.

The little book I mentioned by Virgil Jordan is the one titled “Manifesto for the Atomic Age” (Rutgers U. Press, 1946. 70 pp). You will find in it some strange elements of despair, I believe.

I have given Dr. Curtiss your message about the summer seminars. He has full charge of them, and I am sure will do all he can in making his arrangements.

Do you happen to know Mr. E.F. Hutton personally? Or know anything about him that would be a helpful way to open an exploration of some ideas sometime, if there were a good opportunity?

I am sending herewith an item by Sir Flinders Petrie, perchance Spencer M. has not seen it. And you may keep it if you desire.

Cordially,

(signed) Baldy

F. A. Harper

____________________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061  /2537/

Letter to Heath from F.A. Harper,

The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc.,

Irvington-on-Hudson, New York

April 9, 1957

 

 

Dear Mr. Heath:

 

Do you know my friend Professor H. Bayard Phillips, retired head of the Mathematics Department at MIT? If not, and if you want a sample of his thought, write him (Taylor Hill Road, South Lincoln, Massachusetts) for a copy of his recent pamphlet “Religion and Evolutionary Progress.”

 

 Best wishes,

Sincerely,

/s/ Baldy

F. A. Harper

_______________________________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061  /2550/

Letter to Heath from F.A. Harper

The phrase “fruits of freedom coupled with wisdom”

is underscored and marked in pencil by Heath

April 21, 1957

 

 

Dear Mr. Heath:

 

Thanks for your letter of April 10 which was here awaiting my return from a ten-day speaking trip.

 

 The one point of special need for attention in it seems to

be that of the Malthusian tone of THE WORLD’S HUNGER. In

a great many ways that project was enjoyable and stimulating,

but I am sorry to say that some of the stimulation was of a

negative sort. It was from that experience that I firmly

saw the impossibility of any complete joint authorship.

I wonder why I had to see it from direct experience, because

Mrs. Harper had tried it too, on a book of nutrition she had

co-authored, with the same experience. Two persons just can’t

hold the same pencil at the same time, and in authorship above

most anything else individuality persists in being individuality.

 

 On the matter of Malthus, I had wanted very much to add two more chapters, one to deal most forthrightly with the whole population problem, and the other bringing out as best we could how the point Malthus missed was the fruits of freedom coupled with wisdom. In a theoretical sense, at least, it has seemed to me that these things negate the gloomy side of Malthus’ concept — at least as commonly interpreted in our time — and allows the fruits to exceed the consumption. The USA, with all our stumbling, seems to give support to this view. It is that that I strongly felt needed to be stressed. But the senior author, within his rights I presume, vetoed the idea on some basis which seemed not to be fully a matter of disagreement.

 

 All the best,

Sincerely,

                         

/s/ Baldy

F. A. Harper

____________________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061  /2561/

Penned note to Heath from F.A. Harper, attached to an eight-page paper by Pitirim A. Sorokin, “Studies of the Harvard Research Center in Creative Altruism,” slightly annotated by Heath. 

April 28, 1957

 

To: Spencer H. & Mac.

 

Among the things I forgot to say and do when you favored us with a visit at our home was to give you a copy of this — an extra which Sorokin sent to me.

                                 F.A.H.

 

P.S.  Did I mention that Harriet is now thoroughly buried in preparation for her “‘comp’ exams,” so I believe we will just hold A Victorian Village for her, a little while.

F.A.H.

_____________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061  /2565/

Penned note from Harper clipped to a 7-page sermon by Paul Tillich, Harvard Divinity School, Spring 1957, “Loneliness and Solitude.”

May 8, 1957

 

 

How did the speech go at Christian Econ? Leonard had to get home to his golf, so I didn’t get any report on it.  – Baldy

____________________________________________________________________    

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061  /2573/

Letter to Spencer MacCallum from F.A. Harper,

with news clipping about Dr. Roger J. Williams

May 23, 1957

 

Dear Spencer:

 

In your studies of anthropology, it seems to me that you might want to explore the Williams area of concern — or did I write to you of this before? He is the fellow who wrote “Free and Unequal” and “Biochemical Individuality” which seem to me to be something really great on the horizon of new explorations of thought.

 

      Harriet sent this clipping to us, knowing of my interest in Williams’ work. She seems to have now gotten a few minutes to write letters and things, now that her comprehensives are over. Bless her, she did “distinction” work on her comprehensives, we hear.

Sincerely,

/s/ Baldy

F. A. Harper

 

Williams To Encourage New “Science Of Man”

DR. ROGER JOHN WILLIAMS, director of the Biochemical In­stitute, University of Texas, will be the lecturer for the Carleton chapter of Sigma Xi Wednesday, in Boliou 1 at 7:30 p.m. Sigma Xi is a national society for the encouragement of scientific re­search.

  Williams’ main interest lies in a union between chemistry and anthro-pology which would lead to a more comprehensive “sci­ence of man.” Although such studies now exist, he feels that they should be enlarged and developed by competent chemists  investigat­ing scientifically the reasons that man behaves the way he does. Williams stresses the import­ance of biochemical individual­ity. Alcoholism   is one of the specific problems which he feels can be solved by a cooperation between the fields of chemistry and anthropology. Williams be­lieves that alcoholism can be cured and even   prevented on the basis of nutritional factors involved.

Williams received his BS from the University of Redlands, MS and PhD from the University of Chicago, BSc from the University of Redlands, DSc at Columbia university and DSc at Oregon State college.

He has received the Mead John-

___________________________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061  /2664/

Letter from F.A. Harper to Spencer MacCallum at Roadsend Gardens, 1502 Montgomery Road, Elkridge 27, Maryland

July 31, 1957

    

Dear Spencer the Younger (as well as Elder):

 

      A nice series of reviews my friend R. C. Hoiles has published on Popdaddy’s book. Hoiles is a mighty fine and potent person, of great character and wisdom. I rate him as one of the very best libertarians in the country — surely in running for top place. And a fine person as well, who is said to have raised “the finest family of children I have ever known.”

 

      In another week we shall be starting another Seminar, and a day or so before that we shall probably be going to New Hampshire to pay Larry a visit, where he is at camp. Then on or about August 20, Mrs. Harper and I shall be leaving, I expect, for Europe and the Mont Pelerin Meeting — returning either September 9, or perhaps a few days later due to an International Conference of Libertarians to be held in Belgium, to which I have just received an invitation.

 

      Sure hope we will see you again before you leave for the West. When do you plan to go?

 

Best regards,

Sincerely,

/s/ Baldy

                            F. A.  Harper

___________________________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061  /2678/

Letter to Spencer MacCallum at Elkridge from F.A. Harper,

The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc.,

Irvington-on-Hudson, New York

August 20, 1957

 

 

Dear Spencer:

 

If you could know how we all talked far on into the night about some of the ideas that were stirred up, you would sense how much we appreciate your being with us. Thanks.

 

 I wish it were possible to repeat often — yourself and/or Popdaddy. Please come whenever you can.

 

 Best wishes,

Sincerely,

/s/ Baldy

F.A. Harper

 

P.S. (penned) Paul and Ed took the suggestion with enthusiasm to have Virgil Jordan try a review if he will. I suggested saying to V.J. that we believe Mr. Heath would be exceedingly happy if he would do so. Ed has been working away at a review, but seems happy to find another to give it a go.

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Letter to Heath at Elkridge from F.A. Harper, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvington-on-Hudson, New York

October 21, 1957

 

Dear Mr. Heath:

 

It is wonderful to have Citadel, Market and Altar available in the literature on liberty.

 

At the time of publication one can only guess whether or not any book is really great, because true merit is proved only on the wings of centuries of testing. But in my opinion, your book is a notable landmark, a breakthrough of scientific reasoning into the realm of human relationships. In fact, it may be so great a book that it will be bought by only those few persons who have pioneering minds.

Cordially,

/s/ Baldy

F. A. Harper

 

/Penned:/ You may quote.

F.A.H.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061  /2722/

Letter to Heath from F.A. Harper

At 92 Marcourt Drive, Ext., Chappaqua, New York

October 23, 1957

Dear Mr. Heath:

 

      Many, many thanks for the tip about your friend Lindsley.

 

      It might be a great service if you were at an early date to tell him of the general nature and hopes I have entertained of a project of research and education for the cause we hold so dear. I might then, in due course, approach him for a talk, after you have paved the way for me in any way you deem wise.

 

      There now appear on the horizon two possibilities from which to choose in carrying out some such work as we talked about. One is a definite, pressing actual offer; the other is a budding one. One might, in time, develop into something to make use of a site like yours for the establishment of a worthy project. The other must, by the law of the funds involved, be for work located in another state.

 

      I rather suspect that I shall within a few months be deciding on the better of the two moves, unless something else appears, and make the move which seems more and more like an eventual necessity. As you can well imagine, the business and financial recession catches us in a dire state of privation which, though chronic, becomes critical whenever any setback comes into the picture. Those of us in the organization not endowed by the FEE funds, in effect, for our living costs may have to dip into our reserves at any time, in order to maintain a work even then acutely uncertain. So I’m looking …

 

Regards,

/s/ Baldy

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 2975

Penned note to Heath on small note paper from F.A. (“Baldy”) Harper. The journal referred to, Main Currents in Modern Thought, November 1958, is enclosed with the original note.

December 2, 1958

 

 

Dear Spencer:

 

I believe you will be especially interested in the articles by Progoff and Dunn, in the November, 1958 Main Currents in Modern Thought (Foundation for Integrated Education, 246 East 46^th St, New York 17, NY — 60 cents a copy, $3 a year). Why don’t you try to do an article for them, too? The mutual advantage and interest would seem apparent.

Best wishes,

/s/ Baldy

 

 

======================================1960=======================================   

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Penned note to Heath from F.A. Harper

February 1, 1960

 

Spencer:

 

You will of course want to see House and Home, August 1960, on the land speculation and development issue. –Baldy

 

/Penned note by Heath:/ Malthus on Rent

 

____________________________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061  /2984/

Letter to Heath from F.A. Harper, Box 72, Burlingame, California,

advising Heath re his efforts to get tax exemption for the Science

of Society Foundation

February 18, 1960

 

Dear Spencer:

Best wishes for success with your Claremont sessions. What are the dates? If I should be that way, I’d like to sit in on one.

 On tax exemption, your next step – if not already taken – would be to file a protest of the unfavorable decision. I have been told that refusal is common; that the real consid­eration is given to those who persist and protest. So one may not want to take too seriously the charge of deficiency on which a declination was based, though it is the official specific from which to project a protest.

The attorneys who helped us are

(locally) Mr. Joseph J. Carter

Steinhart, Goldberg, Feigenbaum & Ladar

111 Sutter St., San Francisco 4

(more important, in Washington)

Mr. Perry S. Patterson

Kirkland, Fleming, Green, Martin & Ellis

World Center Building

16th and K Streets, NW

Washington 6

The Washington firm has had similar experience to ours with

Council on Library Resources

Bureau of Social Science Research

Asian Cultural Exchange Foundation

Joint Blood Council

Conference on Research and Education in World

Government

Robert R. McCormick Charitable Trust

First Division Foundation

The Cantigny Trust

American Bank and Trust Foundation

We, especially Dick Cornuelle, have had considerable exper­ience in this sort of thing and could advise on steps and strategy, if desired.

 Legal firms tend, of course, to be jealous of their respective provinces and it is difficult or impossible to work with two simultaneously at the same job. With that in mind, rather than send a statement to anyone else I^’m sending it to you — a carbon copy of a letter sent to a willing inquirer so that it will seem to be less of the “planted” sort.

 It is important, I believe, contrary to the position you imply to be taken by your lawyers, not to fall into the fatal trap of strongly identifying a given philosophy in the sup­porting evidence. You could then almost surely expect to have the request denied on grounds that scientific investi­gation does not start with the conclusions in full detail; that it is thereby clearly a propaganda agency, unworthy of exemption. The aroma of “objectivity” must be wholly dominant.

 I would think that letters of appraisal of your “first major report of research” (your book), such as I presume those to be from persons like Roscoe Pound, should be worthy exhibits. Perhaps, also, a few selected with care which identify the importance of the questions being tackled.

 Thanks for the information on senior citizens of interest and noteworthiness.

 When might your trail lead this way?

Cordially,

F. A. Harper

 

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­____________________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Facsimile of letter to Heath at Elkridge from F.A. Harper

March 1, 1960

 

Dear Spencer:

 

We have looked over the materials relative to the protest hearing, and feel that your statement is excellent, so far as we know the facts.

 

Dick, who has had the direct experience of this sort, has returned from a trip, and after looking it over, he strongly advises:

 

1. Do not take a lawyer with you to these hearings. Do the job yourself at that stage, as they will be deciding largely on you and the impression you leave with them about the setup and projected operation. It is not at that point in any sense a legal battle per se.

 

We would further advise:

 

2. Have readily at hand for verbal use and supporting evidence, if not in the previously prepared statement, every bit of information you can pull together to indicate that it is not, in operation or in finance, a family setup. The smaller — as percent of total — family participation and remunerative benefits can be proved to be, the better your chances. Facts are best; explanation of intent and any supportive evidence therefor is next best. Do not overtly conceal, but still do not overemphasize the participation so far as the family members are concerned.

 

3. At the hearings, keep pressing them for advice on how to meet the intent of the law. They will be reluctant to answer, but press them in a wholesome way. They still may not answer, but will be impressed by your desire to abide strictly by the intent of the law. One can almost speak as though approval were an assumed outcome, and that he was trying on this occasion to find out how to adjust in even better accord with the law.

 

Best of success. This could probably go either way, though the impression you leave will surely be highly favorable at this crucial point in their decision.

 

Sincerely,

F.A. Harper

_______________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061  /2986/

Carbon of letter re Heath from F.A. Harper, 55 Rosewood Drive, Atherton, California, to Collector of Internal Revenue, U.S. Treasury Department, Washington, D.C.

March 7, 1960

 

Dear Sir:

I understand that your office has under consideration an application for exemption under section 501 (c) (3) of:

 

The Science of Society Foundation

1502 Montgomery Road

Elkridge 27, Maryland

 

 Mr. Spencer Heath, of the Foundation, has asked me to note for you such facts of my acquaintance with the Foundation as might help in arriving at a fair and sound decision in this instance.

 First, it might be said that my adult employment experience has been entirely with tax exempt research and education organiza­tions, helping me to understand work that is or is not qualified for the presumed intent of the law for tax exemption of this type. For nineteen years I was on the faculty of Cornell Uni­versity; thereafter for fourteen years with two Foundations, The Foundation for Economic Education, and presently with The Foundation for Voluntary Welfare.  This is a total of 33 years of such work.

 My familiarity with the work of Mr. Spencer Heath dates back to the summer of 1946 when the long-time book reviewer for the daily New York Times brought to my attention what he termed to be some of the admirable work on social science which Mr. Heath had been doing for fifteen years, and which had then been brought into rough manuscript form. From then until now, my admiration has grown for both his work and himself, as a scientist and meritorious person.

 To the best of my knowledge, the operation and plans of the Science of Society Foundation fully merit the status of 501 (c) (3) exemption.  In fact, I was surprised to learn only recently that this Foundation, set up by Mr. Heath years ago, was not already operating under that section.

 The purpose of the Foundation as I know it, is in complete agreement with their “Statement of Purposes”, a copy of which you presumably have at hand. Mr. Heath has talked to me for years about his plans to develop the Foundation rapidly into a design of wide participation as to supervising body, activity, and support. This he seems anxious to do as quickly as possible now, which a favorable decision on tax exemption would greatly implement. Outside participation in many instances awaits that status.

 The Foundation, as I know it, is in no manner devoted to narrow, personal benefits of Mr. Heath and those close to him. I have never known a man more wholesomely devoted to social science in its best sense, for the benefit of mankind in general, both now and for the future. The releases of the Foundation have been strictly in the form and spirit of reporting scientific dis­coveries in the area of its contemplations, and are in no way of the nature of narrow dogma or propaganda of preconceived notions. It is, I’m sure, the intent of Mr. Heath to safeguard the future operation of the Foundation in this same spirit — to vest authority in its continuation into the indefinite future so this highest of scientific integrity will be continued.

Sincerely,

/s/ F. A. Harper

af

_____________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Letter from Heath at 312 Halesworth, Santa Ana, California, to F.A. “Baldy” Harper, 55 Rosewood Drive, Atherton, California, with penned note to Spencer MacCallum.

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 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.

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Letter to Heath from F.A. Harper,

55 Rosewood Drive, Atherton, California

March 31, 1960

 

 

Dear Spencer: (Personal)

 

Yes, your letter was in the pile of materials awaiting my return from a trip. But with a two-foot pile, and presently having to do all my own typing and the like, I have been quite unable to give it the attention it all deserves.

 

      I will get to you shortly some additional views and comments. In brief, I agree with your caution in the arrangements under your present consideration.

 

      Perhaps you would allow me to join your Foundation and help conduct its affairs some day? This is not an offer, but neither is it a wholly idle contemplation. Before long I should either know, or know that I don’t know — itself an answer when I am so anxious to go on with my work.

 

Cordially,

/s/ Baldy

F. A. Harper

 

Mr. Spencer Heath

The Science of Society Foundation

312 Halesworth

Santa Ana, California

 

/Penned note:/ We’ll probably be out of town at irregular intervals in the near future.

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Letter to Heath from F.A. Harper. Included in Originals Envelope is a media account of the Hoover Library situation herein referred to.

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.

     

      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 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 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

 

_______________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Letter to Spencer MacCallum from F.A. Harper

Enclosing copy of his letter of April 3^rd to Heath

April 4, 1960

 

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

 

________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Letter from Heath to F.A. Harper

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. Platt? He approaches me with thinking out loud that I might be of value to 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,

_____________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Letter to Heath from F.A. Harper

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?

      As to the tax exemption ordeal, I heard the other day that HUMAN EVENTS was granted tax exemption on the eleventh appeal!

      I know too little about Harvey Mudd College to bother you with it. All I have heard has been most excellent, and once while back at FEE I made some preliminary investigations to see how long before they might need an economist, if ever.

I then wondered if it might not be on the way to /becoming/ the best libertarian unit of the group.

      Perhaps you should know that before coming to Volker in 1958, there were some explorations about some work with Claremont Men’s College. It was very tempting, but didn^’t quite make the grade — for reasons I feel sure were entirely beyond the power of either Benson or myself.  But this is private information for you, and only to have in the back of your mind all the time.

Cordially

/s/ Baldy

F. A. Harper

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Penned note to Heath and Spencer MacCallum from F. A. Harper

on Cornell Club of New York stationery

Late April 1960?

 

Dear Spencer and Spencer:             Tuesday night

 

Thanks again for the dinner and the time you gave me last evening.

 

      I tried to meet Bill Matchette, but found that he has moved from 20 East 66^th St, New York. He and the Foundation offices now at 1 Birchwood Court, Mineola, Long Island.

 

      I talked with him briefly on the telephone

(Pioneer 1-3178).

/s/ Baldy

 

_______________________________________________________________

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Penned note to Heath from F.A. Harper

March 7, 1960

Dear Mr. Heath:

Enclosed is:

1. Photocopy of my March 1 letter. I sent this at once after Dick Cornuelle returned from a trip and reviewed it. Sorry — my notes said that you were to return to Maryland after the lectures, and presumably be there by the first of March.
2. A letter to BIR /Bureau of Internal Revenue/, with extra copy for you. If it suits your needs, you can mail it on to BIR; if not, let me know how it might be improved and I’ll try again.

Cordially

/s/ Baldy

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Letter from Heath at Elkridge to F.A. Harper, 55 Rosewood Drive, Atherton, California

August 24, 1960

 

 

Dear “Baldy,”

The time approaches for me to return to California before very long, certainly before our eastern snow flies, and I am wondering what opportunity may arise for another visit with you. For some time, I have had quite a lot on my mind that I would like to talk with you about. Do you have any plan for coming east within the next month or two, or will I have to seek you out in your California lair?

Following your generous consent, the Science of Society Foundation held a meeting on August 18th, at which you, together with Dr. Hocking, Dr. Pound and John Chamberlain, were elected members of the Board of Trustees of this organization.

The tax exempt situation is unsatisfactory, so we have been in touch with your Mr. Perry S. Patterson, in Washington, to see what possibilities still remain.

Whatever happens, I am looking forward to the pleasure of seeing you and perhaps also some of your associates be­fore very long. I was pleased to receive a nice letter from your daughter, Harriet, answering my congratulations on her scholarship and attendance at Bob LeFevre’s school.

With many best wishes to you and your family as well as official associates,

Cordially yours,

 

 

____________________________________________________________________________________

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Document from Harper to Heath with brief annotation at the beginning

August 26, 1960

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Retrospect — and in Prospect

In my morning mail came a letter from a friend of rare talent among contempo­rary minds on the concepts of liberty. For many years I have been only partially successful in getting through to him what I meant by the full libertarian concept. Though an idealist of high order, he has always seemed to be fearful of this particular brand of libertarian concept for any socie­ty of fallible humans. But this morning he writes: “I am glad I finally caught on to what you were talking about as the voluntary concept of a free society …”

My point here is not to gloat over any conversion of a highly respected ally, but rather to ponder in retrospect the reason for my long failure to get the idea across to him. The reason is an important and generic road-block, worth testing and sharing with others.

We live in an age when thinking is dominated by pragmatism — the urge to be “realistic and practical”. “Man is inherently ignorant and evil; we must treat our fellowmen accordingly in any livable society.”

In order for any person to perceive the libertarian concept as definitely useful in guiding us in our daily affairs, he must first accept in the abstract a purely idealistic concept of liberty (The Golden Rule, The Deca­logue, etc.; a strictly liberal society in accord with these guides, in­volving complete freedom of each person, property owned entirely privately, unrestricted freedom of exchange and movement of persons, and the like with equal rights for every other person). Then one must compromise his expec­tations as to the full attainment of this ideal in our time, without compro­mising the ideal itself in its design.

Having first accepted both the fact of and the necessity for ideals, it can then be seen how an ideal gives a sense of direction to one’s every effort, without becoming a destiny assumed to be possible for any contemporary society of fallible and ignorant persons. This process can be compared to using magnetic north as a guide for ocean navigation from New York to Liver­pool — a basis for decisions necessary for the journey.

None of life’s choices could be made without some ideal as the basis for making them. All improvement requires this process of idealism. In fact, an ideal would be useless except as there are violations subject to betterment.

Any ideal, then, such as this presumed design of liberty, serves as a direction for improvement and not as an expected destiny in our time. No person need fear overindulgence in any such ideal as a guide for his de­cisions. But he must be ready to adjust to chronic imperfections in the actions of both himself and others, finding his hope instead in the oppor­tunity for improvement in both his perception of the true ideal and ability to live by it.

In a sense, this seems to me to coincide with the record as to Christ’s ideals and His conduct.

 

/s/ F. A. Harper

August 24, 1960

    

 

 

_________________________________________________________________________________

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Letter from F.A. Harper, 55 Rosewood Drive, Atherton, California, to

Heath at Roadsend Gardens, 1502 Montgomery Road, Elkridge 27, Maryland

August 30, 1960

Dear Spencer:

You have honored me by the action reported in your letter of August 24, and I hope my best efforts will be worthy of your trust.

It will be necessary for me to obtain formal consent of my superiors before other than temporary consent to serve, but I anticipate no trouble on that score. If there is any question, we shall deal with that problem when we see precisely what it is.

 A trip east has been on my agenda for weeks, and has had to be postponed repeatedly. With our Board meeting coming up about a month hence, there is the pull of two urgencies. But surely it will be before you come westward to escape the snowflakes, and I shall set aside time to see you then.

You will be at Elkridge till then?

I have ideas which might happen to circumvent the tax exemption difficulty. Another Foundation has just been legally estab­lished with purposes which might parallel your own extremely closely. I must tell you about it, if I can obtain approval of its founder who has confided in me about his plans.

Cordially,

/s/ -Baldy

___________________________________________________________­­­­____________   

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Letter to Robert LeFevre, Colorado Springs, Colorado, from F.A. Harper,

Box 72, Burlingame, California, with blind copy to Heath

September 9, 1960

Dear Bob:

The more I ponder this matter of “compromise”, the more it grows on me as vitally important. Among others, I am especially indebted to Pierre Goodrich and Spencer Heath for showing me the way — each in a different manner, however, but both uniquely fine and helpful.

The key is to distinguish between compromising the design of one’s ideal, vs. compromising his expectations of its attainment by fallible man.

If I may suggest a thought relative to your diagrammatical portrayal, it seems to me that the two are not as parallel lines. Instead, the path to the ideal is as a winding, rocky, poorly charted route toward a destiny like the top of a high mountain. But to reach it is not of this life on earth; it is only approachable in degrees proportioned to perception and talent for the trip.

It is thoroughly dishonorable to adulterate or compromise an ideal. In fact, this is unthinkable to any honest, thoughtful person.

But it is not dishonorable to be realistically humble about one’s insufficiencies. Nor is it dishonorable to recognize the same in others. It is only dishonorable when one fails always to re­duce these insufficiencies to a minimum, constantly. I have called this compromising one’s expectations of Utopia, for these very sound reasons.

This allows us to live and let live. It allows us to be hopeful and helpful. It allows Pierre Goodrich’s “lesser of evils, chosen among all seemingly available options of the moment of action”. It allows Spencer Heath’s brilliant analysis of the presumed mean­ing of “resist not evil”, for you can find more fruitful things with which to engage yourself. It gives possible new meaning to “Forgive them, for they know not what they do”, to “Judge not –“, and the like. It allows recognition of the seemingly axiomatic observation that persons are goodly inclined but imperfect; that they always act by what they imperfectly appraise as “good” at that moment, but they are also influenced in part by their unreasoned impulses. It leaves us devoted to research, education, and spiritual guidance vs. force, as the only route to a truly greater good.

Perhaps it gives new meanings of difference to “idealistic” and “Utopian”.

Cordially,

                                 -Baldy

                   

________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Letter to Heath from F. A. Harper

September 20, 1960

 

Dear Spencer:

 

I must absolve Bob LeFevre from the adverse analytical criticism of our friend. It was by another.

 

As soon after October 1 as arrangements can be made to see the persons desired on a trip, I expect to be coming East and will save an important spot to see you; will let you know possible dates when they are known to me.

                                     Cordially,

                                     /s/ -Baldy

 

______________________________________________________________________

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Carbon of letter from Heath to Frank G. Dickinson,

National Bureau of Economic Research,

261 Madison Avenue, New York 16, NY

September 20, 1960

 

 

Dear Dr. Dickinson:

 

I have just re-read your “The Day That Was a Full Vacation,” so kindly sent to me by our friend, “Baldy. It is very inspiring. I am deeply sympathetic with your philosophy of timelessness.

 

In a week or so I expect to be in New York, before going to California for the school year. While in New York, I hope to get in touch with you and possibly have your favor as a luncheon companion. If that can happen, it will be a pleasure to me, I am sure.

 

Cordially,

 

Spencer Heath

SH/m

Cc to Dr. F.A. Harper

 

______________________________________________________________________   

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Letter to Heath from F. A. Harper

September 22, 1960

 

Dear Spencer:

      Your letter of “November 19″ (meant to be September 19, I presume, though time flies!) arrived to await my return home tonight. A reply will go out the first thing tomorrow, hoping to reach you so that I may hear from you as soon as possible — airmail — in order to facilitate making my forthcoming travel plans.

      Spencer whizzed by the door today, but not until tomorrow will I have a chance to say more than a fleeting “hello”. When there is the chance, I may find answers to my question:

      You are planning to be there until October 15, or thereabouts? In that event, I believe it might be wise for me to try to contact you there before you leave. I shall have to make a trip eastward to see quite a number of persons on various matters, and work piles high in subsequent weeks. And I would like to see you before I become engrossed in all of that. How late into October could I plan to catch you there?

      Not having read my “institute statement” for three years, I was interested in reading again now in the version you sent. I do not have a copy of my original at hand for detailed comparison, but will say that I see nothing at all in this with which to object; only a few little spots of editing for clearness, if anything.

      Such a program could hardly work out as good as my dreams of its potential in the sense of the needed fundamentals.

 

Cordially,

-Baldy

 

/Penciled notation:

“Ansd by wire Sept 26/

 

____________________________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Penned text by Heath for wire to F. A. Harpr

September 26, 1960

 

Dr. F. A. Harper:

 

      Many thanks special letter. My schedule leave here evening Oct six Eleven Waverly Place New York till October twelfth. Speaking dates Chicago and St. Louis October thirteenth and fourteenth. Arrive Los Angeles fifteenth or sixteenth. Keep me informed. Letter follows.

 

      Thanks for your fine letter to Bob.

 

                              Spencer Heath

______________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Penned note to Heath from F.A. Harper

September 28, 1960

 

Dear Mr. Heath:

 

I may want to meet you in Chicago or St. Louis. Not sure yet. Where will you be staying, and how long, each place — perchance I can’t make New York before you leave?

 

Please send me at once a few of the CMA promotion leaflets. I gave my last one away.

 

You will probably hear from Dick Smith, of Dallas, about meeting a group there enroute from St. Louis to Los Angeles. I most highly recommend him and that group. Perhaps the best anywhere in the land.

 

Baldy

 

______________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Penned note to Heath from F.A. Harper

October 10, 1960

 

Dear Spencer:

 

Confirming plans as now set — unless they have to be changed — I’ll arrive in Dallas early Saturday morning and leave early Monday morning.

 

We will both stay with Dick Smith, or somewhere he will reserve. This will give time for us to go over matters of mutual interest (with you and with Dick Smith), and meet many friends again.

 

Cordially,

 -Baldy

 

____________________________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Penned note to Heath from F.A. Harper

on Hotel Harrison, Indianapolis, letterhead

October 18, 1960

 

Dear Mr. Heath:

 

It was a great inspiration, and wonderful, to have the weekend with you and the Dallas gang. There is real “pay dirt” there, I believe, and it may be a vital center in the future immortality of your concepts of proprietary displacement of politically administered monopolies in the performing of services vital to our welfare.

 

I am going to propose that this become one of the great, major programs of the Foundation for Voluntary Welfare over future years, and there is little doubt of its approval — as we can find the time for its necessary supervision.

Cordially

 -Baldy

 

____________________________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Penned note enroute to Heath from F.A. Harper

October 20, 1960

 

Dear Spencer:

 

I have had an excellent session with Pierre Goodrich (of the law firm of Goodrich, Campbell & Warren, Electric Building, Indianapolis, Indiana). Without revealing any facts to either party about the personal affairs of the other, I believe you two should get acquainted. He is of highest integrity, and would be happy to help you with his great wisdom on these problems of mutual concern — especially how to meet your desires of accomplishment with your Science of Society Foundation or its objectives.

 

Pierre told me that the legal problems of doing what he wanted to do baffled the best legal talent he had working on it, but by his personal attention he thinks he has a setup unique for the purpose.

 

A wonderful man, a brilliant scholar, a person who blends beautifully some high ideals and yet the practicality of a most successful businessman and lawyer. I commend him most highly to you.

 

Cordially,

 -Baldy

 

______________________________________________________________   

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Letter to Heath at Harvey Mudd College from F.A. Harper,

Box 72, Burlingame, California

November 3, 1960

 

Dear Spencer:

 

Whatever your eventual plans on how best to use your philanthropic funds to attain your hopes and aspirations, I would like to see you proceed with tax exemption for your Foundation. This, I mean, at any reasonable costs involved.

 

There will always be uses for tax exempt corporate structures, and any which could be obtained would one way or another become, for freedom, what nuts are to the squirrel for winter.

 

Cordially,

 -Baldy

 

 

______________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Letter to Heath from F.A. Harper

November 14, 1960

 

Dear Spencer:

 

Thanks for the call about the Orange development. I shall look forward with interest to its story, and a visit when I can make it.

 

Please tell Mrs. Manning that I have now received from other sources the condensed analysis of the Sacramento meeting, and I find that it was not the blessed event that many have por­trayed; that it was a purely designed and planned affair, by those who would deny us the basic virtues of a free society; and the like.

I fear that much of what occurs at these affairs, and their setup, goes unnoticed by those not sharply attuned to the basic ideologies at issue. It stresses, in my opinion, how necessary it is for the effective workers to have done their homework carefully and thoroughly in advance; how they must have individual devotion and allegiance to the basic principles.

Cordially,

/s/ Baldy

 

______________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Letter from Heath to F.A. Harper,

55 Rosewood Drive, Atherton, California

November 19, 1960

 

Dear “Baldy,”

Apropos of your suggestions about possible colla­boration with a tax-free foundation having aims and purposes very similar to our own, Spencer has just called my attention to a prospectus for an “Institute for the Science of Freedom — A Proposal for Research and Learning,” got out by you quite a long time ago. I was greatly Impressed by this at the time and think I wrote you some­thing about it. But, perhaps owing to undue diffidence, I did not send you a slightly amended version of it that I prepared. For your general Interest, I am now enclos­ing this, together with a covering letter of March 2, 1957, which was not mailed to you. It Is a wonderful conception and one which I hope in one way or another is being or in good time will be substantially realized.

I just feel like letting you know how much I am in accord with you in all these matters.

By about the middle of October, I expect to be in California again to carry on whatever I can in various directions, and particularly to act on a very wonderful invitation from Dr. Joseph B. Piatt, president of the Harvey Mudd College of Science and Engineering, to become as he I think whimsically puts it, “Octogenarian in Residence.” I am hoping in this connection to enjoy at least one somewhat better vantage point than heretofore.

From “Bill” Johnson, at our meeting in Washington, I infer that your contemplated visit to these parts has been somewhat delayed. But I will be with you in spirit wherever we are.

    

Cordially,

SH/m Enclosures: 2

______________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Penned note to Heath from F.A. Harper

November 23, 1960

 

Dear Spencer:

 

Many thanks for the fine letter to Pierre Goodrich. Let me know.

 

I’ll hope to see you soon, but these have been and will continue to be the most pressing of my life until mid-January, at least.

 

Cordially,

 Baldy

 

 

==================================1961==============================  

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Letter to Heath from F.A. Harper

January 1, 1961

 

Dear Spencer:

I must see you at the earliest opportunity that is possible for both of us. My schedule calls for a trip to Washington that will demand all my time until my return Friday night (probably), January 13. So if you were available, I would like to make it early the week of January 16, or even swing around there on my return from Washington, January 14 or 15.

Matters I would want to discuss with you call for a place of peace and quiet privacy; Harvey Mudd College may have the right kind of facilities.

Briefly, among the things I would discuss with you is the chance that you might be interested — perhaps intensely interested, with time and even means — in a project George Resch and I have been discussing the last few days. It would be carried out by one or more of the following persons: Spencer M., George, and myself. I might even leave WVF-FVW to help do it, as would probably be necessary; so you can glean the importance I attach to it as a project which needs doing.

This fellow George Resch, I assure you, is of terrific capabilities, along with a few others such as Spencer M.

I have received the letter from Pierre Goodrich, which means a full spirit of desired cooperation, barring the unknowns between you two; but again, he is caught behind a barrier of the same origin which is a large part of your problem (in Washington).

Thanks for your telegram.

Cordially, /s/ Baldy

 

________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Birthday greeting to Heath from F.A. Harper

January 3, 1961

 

Dear Spencer:                                  

 

As one of the great works of His Creation, there came to those on earth eighty-five years ago a man of unique talents and spirit. It has been my privilege to know him, and my only regret has been that time and distance have prevented my knowing him even better.

 

Yet in his persistent youth, there will be many more days for him to continue his great works of creative thought and inspiration to all who can avail of his association.

 

A happy birthday to you, and many more.

Cordially,

/s/ Baldy

F. A. and all the other Harpers

 

_______________________________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Penciling by Heath on notepad paper

January 8, 1961

 

Dear Dr. Harper:

 

Thousand thanks for your letter suggesting mid-January visit at Claremont. Will be looking for you.

 

Spencer

 

 

________________________________________________________  

                                                         

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Penned note to Heath from F.A. Harper

January 14, 1961

 

Dear Spencer:

 

Arrived home safely — too much urgent work, so it is good I did.

 

We are tentatively scheduling a trip southward — (the three of us) for January 27-29. This is between semesters of school for Larry, and could combine business and pleasure for all.

 

One uncertainty is the time of arrival of my mother from the East, for a visit. When we hear from her the date of her arrival, we can decide for sure, I believe.

Cordially,

/s/ Baldy

________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Typed letter from F.A. Harper to Heath at 462 West Hall,

Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, California

January 16, 1961

 

Dear Spencer:

 

A friend has just sent me a copy of a sheet from the NEW YORK POST of December 18, 1960, which refers to the fact that New York’s Tuxedo Park Association, founded as an exclusive club in 1885 on a tract of 600,000 acres, “still handles all community problems such as police, sewage disposal, water and lights” as a task of the Tuxedo Park Association.

 

Are you familiar with this project in any of its details?

 

Cordially,

/s/ – Baldy

 

/Pencil notation here by Heath:

“Answered January 18, 61 – long letter”/

 

________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Penned letter to Heath from F.A. Harper

on Foundation for Voluntary Welfare letterhead

January 21, 1961

 

Dear Spencer:

 

We now definitely plan to come to see you at Harvey Mudd College the coming weekend, if still satisfactory with you. We are uncertain yet about bringing George with us, but probably it would be well to reserve a tentative room for him there at Harvey Mudd, or elsewhere, and it can be canceled if he does not come. So for us please reserve for late arrival (payment guaranteed) Friday, January 27:

 

1. A double room, with cot added for Larry

in some motel there.

2. Tentative for George, somewhere.

 

We shall have to get back Sunday, in fairly good season, because Larry starts a second semester early Monday morning. We can’t leave until Larry’s school lets out mid-morning Friday.

 

So I hope to have full Saturday an some Sunday morning with you.

 

Please confirm, and let me know where we are to stay, so we can go direct there without disturbing you.

 

-Baldy

 

p.s. Some of your words of wisdom when I saw you may be having what could become a major factor in my remaining life. My deepest thanks.

                   Baldy

________________________________________________________                                    

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Penned note to Heath from F.A. Harper

January 30, 1961

 

Dear Spencer:

 

On Mr. Volker and his ideals, the College libraries there surely must have the book of his biography: Mr. Anonymous, by Herbert Cornuelle (Caxton Printers. 1951). It is now out of print, and second-hand copies rather scarce. If you have trouble, let me know, for finding a copy.

                            -Baldy

________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Penned Note to Heath from F.A. Harper

January 30, 1961 (second of this same date)

 

Dear Spencer:

 

It would be wasteful of words to say more than a sincere Thank you for a wonderful time, as a wise and gracious host Friday-Sunday.

 

One or two of the objects of our discussion should, for reasons I’ll not detail here, be kept strictly within the circle of you and George—with me as a partial auditor. If our discussion were to become known to anyone else within the group, directly or indirectly, it might be most unfortunate now.

                                               -Baldy

P.S.

 

We reached home safely about 11:00pm, after driving through some intense fog, and being held up by an accident ahead on a mountain road the other side of Gilroy.

                                           -Baldy

_______________________________________________________________

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Penned note to Heath from Harper re an enclosed article,

“Director’s Letter. . . Dear Member:”, by Edward Dewey.

 

Spencer: Imagine the courage of my friend, Ned Dewey, Director of the Foundation for the Study of Cycles, East Brady, Penna.

 

Very best wishes,  -Baldy

 

/Penciled:/ TOPS! S.H.

 

==========================

Edward Dewey, Director, Foundation for the Study of Cycles, “The Director’s Letter,” Cycles, pp 107-108. May 1961.

Dear Member:

Among the beatniks and the “intellectuals,” in labor union circles, in the colleges, and particularly in the government, profit has become almost a naughty word. Sometimes I think that if it were spelled with four in­stead of five letters it would be banned from polite conversation! Among economic illiterates such as these, profit is associated with greed and anti-social conduct. It is con­sidered reprehensible. Even capitalists (another naughty word) speak defensively of profit.

This, of course, is completely upside down thinking.

Profit

Profit (by and large) is the difference between cost and sales value. I make gumboes and sell them for S2.00 each. They satisfy a need worth S2.00 or people wouldn’t buy them. I use my brains and devise ways so that I can make them for $1.00. My profit is S1.00. (Horrors!) But note what has happened: I have created something worth $2.00 out of only $1.00 worth of labor and material (cost). I have created $1.00 worth of social value!!!

Am I knighted? No, I am mobbed. I am held up to shame and ridicule. I am a profiteer, a gouger, an exploiter, a robber. I am anti­social. If I tell a friend, I do so behind my hand. I am shamefaced about it. I whisper, “And I make $1.00 apiece on the damn things, too!” If people knew the cost they would de­mand a cheaper price, even though, by our premise, the things are worth $2.00. Labor would demand more money, even though, by our premise, a fair competitive wage was being paid and labor had nothing to do with creating the wealth — the wealth not being the gumboes, but the difference between the cost of the gumboes and the value of the gumboes to the user — the profit. “Look at all the money that son of a brickbat is making,” say labor. “Let’s get ours!”

Capital

This wealth that I have created by making gumboes for less than they sell for is the source from which society forges ahead. It provides the money for better houses, for factories, for machinery. Yet I am damned for it! If I accumulate it — which is to say, use it to construct buildings and railroads and machinery and other things of value to society, I am damned even more. Take J.P. Morgan as an example. I happen to know that Mr. Morgan lived in constant fear of mob violence and that he always kept steam up in his yacht so that he could flee the country at any time, day or night, if necessary. At all events that’s what he told Robert Struthers, and Robert Struthers told me. That’s the way we treat the people who create our wealth!

Now I’ll admit that when I have made my S1.00 profit I don’t have to save it, i.e., buy buildings and machinery, etc. I can spend it on myself in fancy living. That is repre­hensible, but in our upside down world, con­spicuous spending brings approbation!

Creating profit is to be praised, no matter how “excessive.” Personal spending, however, beyond modest requirements, is to be deplored.

Turn now to a consideration of governmental spending. Here, alas, the guide of profit is absent. Pork barrel, do-good-ism, and political considerations govern.

My scunner against Government (and I hate its guts) is that instead of operating on a sound economic basis it operates either on the basis of what some damn fool at the central place thinks is good for society, or operates to pay a political debt (i.e., a bribe) out of public funds. I’ve been on the inside and, believe me, I know. It isn’t that the projects aren’t “good”; it is that they usually don’t make a profit (profit is a good word!). That is, they don’t produce more utility than they cost.

Private vs Public Projects

Consider two irrigation projects — one pri­vate, one public. In Apple Valley, California, some people bought up a tract of land for 50-cents an acre. (That was all it was worth or the owners would have sold it to someone else for more.) They brought in water, utilities and added planning, brains, and organization. Then they sold the land for $5,000 an acre. It was worth that much to the buyers, or the promoters couldn’t have got it. They had created value, and the more profit they made — that is, the less the creation of this value cost them — the more real wealth they created. In a soundly economic society people like that would be rewarded by the government in­stead of being penalized — provided of course that they didn’t spend this profit on private consumption.

In contrast, in Western Pennsylvania you — yes, my friend, YOU, even though you live in New York or California — are going to build and pay for a thing called Kinzua Dam, pro­jected cost SXX,000,000. Granted that it will create benefits, but at what a cost! The benefits, widely advertised as benefits to “Western Pennsylvania” will actually be for a few landlords (of whom I am one) whose proper­ty will increase in value if it isn’t flood­ed quite so badly every few years. These people who “suffer great damage from floods” actually suffer nothing. Because the land is subject to flooding they got it just that much cheaper to start with! You are going to be taxed to put into the pockets of these land­lords the difference between floodable land and non-floodable land. Moreover, to cap it all, you are going to be taxed for useless labor and concrete at many times the benefits to these landlords. That’s Government for you!

Isn’t it ironic that in Russia, where the very words of our so-called capitalistic society are anathema, the Government at least tries to run things on a sound economic (capitalistic) basis — that is, tries to create the maximum spread (profit) between cost and ultimate consumer selling price, and uses this spread or profit for capital goods i.e., heavy industry (except what it drains off for war); whereas here, where the concept of communism is anathema, our government out-communists communism? That is, here, instead of taking $5 of your $10 and giving it to the fellow who has none so that each of you has $5 (according to ideal communist theory), they take $5 of your $10, waste $4 of it, and give the other fellow $1 so that he now has $4, or $5, or $6! But of course if the fellow who gets the $1 voted for somebody, that makes everything all right!

Oversimplified Picture

It should be obvious that in painting this picture I have been using a broad brush — maybe even a whitewash or “blackwash” brush. There are many situations where economic consider­ation should not govern. After an accident you do not bind up the wounds merely of those who can pay for the bandages! But the fundamental soundness of my position is disputable. The Government can dispute it only at its peril — and ours.

 

Cordially yours,

/s/ Edward Dewey

Director

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Penned note to Heath from F.A. Harper enclosing copies of pages 5-7, 173-176, and 295-296 from F.J.C. Hearnshw, A History of Socialism, showing Henry George’s influence in the revival and spread of socialism. See originals envelope for these pages.

January 31, 1961

 

Spencer

 

Here is Hearnshaw — University of London historian — on Henry George and related matters.

                                 -Baldy

 

________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Carbon of letter from F.A. Harper to Edward R. Dewey, Director, Foundation for the Study of Cycles, East Brady, Pennsylvania, with copy to Heath

May 16, 1961

 

Dear Ned:

 

I sent a copy of your Director’s Page on the recent issue to my good friend, Spencer Heath (Room 462 West Hall, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, California). He was very much interested in it and would appreciate receiving a sample copy of your “Cycles” magazine.

 

The enclosure will introduce Mr. Heath to you. I believe you two should become acquainted at the earliest opportunity because I am certain that there is much of mutual interest and understanding between you, as to the cyclical nature of the universe.

Cordially,

/s/-Baldy

F.A. Harper

FAH:wp

Cc/Spencer Heath

________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Letter to Heath from Edward R. Dewey, Foundation for the Study

of Cycles, 117 Rebecca Street, Irwin 7, Pennsylvania,

responding to Harper’s letter of May 16, 1961

May 24, 1961

 

Dear Doctor Heath:

 

In response to Baldy Harper’s letter of May 16, it was a pleasure to send you a sample copy of Cycles magazine and a sample copy of the Journal of Cycle Research.

 

I remember, with pleasure, your stimulating book. You send me a copy several years ago. Thank you again for it.

 

Very cordially yours,

/s/ Ned Dewey

Edward R. Dewey

ERD:pg

________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Seemingly a form letter, signed for him by his secretary, from F. A. Harper, William Volker Fund, Post Office Box 118, Burlingame, California

May 25, 1961

 

Dear Mr. Heath:

 

I wonder if you might be able to give me some assistance on a project I will be starting in a week or so?

 

What I would like to do at the outset is to interview a number of persons whose special knowledge and experience would help me most to find out which educational methods work and which do not, in furthering an understanding of the free society as we understand it.

 

I would appreciate your suggestions as to persons or organizations — with their addresses — that it would be worthwhile for me to contact in such a survey.

 

I hope everything is going well with you.

 

Thanks and best wishes,

Cordially,

F.A. Harper

FAH/j

________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Handwritten notes by Heath for a letter to F.A. Harper

No date

 

Dear Dr. Harper:

 

How truly I wish I could suggest to you some persons who understand our free enterprise society and who also have found out how that understanding best can be taught.

Among those who understand the free society (so much of it as exists), I think I would place you highest on the list. For you seem to understand it in terms of itself, its own structure and mode of operation, instead of by ill-natured reference to its coercive, bureaucratic, and ultimately totalitarian opposite. The effective teacher _____________ glorifies his own goods /gifts?/ by his communication of the faith and understanding with which he is inspired. For if he conceives it merely as a matter of relief or __________, he is uninspiring as he is himself uninspired.

However, our libertarian efforts seem to be addressed more to the necessity to escape than the desire to attain, more to deplore what is evil than to glorify what is good. Let us look rather to the real and true subject-matter of the education and find in that some clues to the methods that can best be employed.

 

Economics in my life time has progressed from the “dismal” to the pedestrian. It is almost drably utilitarian, has no Utopian dream, no ravishing goals. Beyond its primarily materialistic aspect, we need to comprehend the basic exchange technology of the social organization in its over-all aspect as an evolving (or developing) high form of life in which the specialized members and groups, through their complementary processes and relations, are constantly improving the conditions of their lives and therewith their length of days. In this Golden Rule relationship (and in no other) they rise from being death-doomed as mere creatures, uncreative parasites and pensioners pressing against a diminishing subsistence, into their spiritual nobility of building not mere subsistence and utility but ever more order and beauty in their world in the very image of their desires and dreams.

The societies of men today, insofar as their free enterprise has brought them out of political bondage to their animalistic past, are blindly and painfully /?/ on their way to their kingdom of hearts’ desires. As in the unborn child, its organs and parts are slowly taking form in the womb of time, all unseen and unrealized by the con­scious minds of men. How can they be awakened with understanding, that it may sing in their hearts and minds and quickly speed the coming dawn?

“Principalities and powers” may retard the coming but cannot indefinitely postpone, nor can their darkness give way any faster than through understanding its rationale and its potential glories _______________ high practices of freedom through enterprise shall expand its public-serving and thereby value-creating technology into
the field of public administration as it has already so well begun to do.

 

Dear Baldy,

It gives me heart to know that you are starting a new project (Volker Fund auspices, I infer), and I^’ll surely be glad to help with your “furthering an understanding of the free society” in every way I can. I’m afraid I scarcely know of anyone who knows how to educate people to it who is not already better known to you. However, I think you might not know William Teague, Vice President of Pepperdine College in L.A. I know he is a very forceful and entertaining /?/ speaker and effective publiciser, and I hope to improve acquaintance with him. Norval Young, the President, is very much like-minded as is, I believe, the whole administration of the College, including Mr. Pepperdine himself.

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Letter to Heath from F.A. Harper, Box 113, Burlingame, California

June 20, 1961

 

Dear Spencer:

 

I am anxious to hear what more you learned about Emerson College and its principals — Duskin and Goldes.

By coincidence, Dick Cornuelle had lunch with Duskin Friday, as you may have heard there. Duskin professes, it seems, to be a “Goldwater type” except on foreign policy. Did you get any such impression? And if so, is that general among the staff?

We noted quite a different selection of periodical liter­ature in the library, which you probably studied more carefully than we did. Also, did you read the Summer catalog and note strange overtones in spots? Did you sense these elsewhere during your visit?

George will be writing you about a couple of ideas we discussed.

I would, if I were you, consider revitalizing of some activity in the Foundation at an early date, and then rather quickly reapply for tax exempt status. It might be the best vehicle by which to challenge the basis for the initial discouragement they gave you. Details of what to include could be worked out after some activity — republication of some worthy literature, perhaps — has been embarked upon in definite form. What do you think?

Cordially,

  -Baldy

FAH/wp

Cc/MacCallum

 

/Penciling by Heath: “The man who greeted and conducted us Smith? Speech Alvin Duskin  Philip MacDougal — History — Dialectic (pink)  And Judy _____? Secretarial”/

________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Carbon of letter from Heath at 462 West Hall, Harvey Mudd College,

Claremont, California, to F.A. Harper, Box 113, Burlingame, Calif.

June 24, 1961

 

Dear “Baldy”:

It is high time I should be writing to you and Mrs. Harper by way of appreciation of your kind attentions, friendship and hospitalities upon my stop-over visit with you in return­ing from my two weeks with Spencer and his two cousins, Irvan and Beatrice in Seattle. And it was specially good of you to take George Resch along and drive me down to Pacific Grove for a day’s visit to Alvin Duskin and his Emerson College there.

It is too bad there were no sessions and so few of the per­sonnel on hand, but I will probably visit there again in the latter part of July since Spencer and I are planning to meet in San Francisco shortly after that time and do some things together for the rest of the summer.

My impressions at the College were a good deal mixed. Duskin himself was the most promising feature, clearly an academic lib­ertarian in his love of freedom in the pursuit of learning and I think definitely of the same cast of mind for freedom in the world of public affairs but probably without any great amount of infor­mation or special enthusiasm for it. He is almost certainly not committed to Marxism or even to pink liberalism, although I think he has at least a mild tolerance for it.

Duskin somewhat apologetically (as you may imagine) asked me to stay overnight — this on top of his invitation which you heard for me to become e free-lance visitor Inter on. I not only stayed overnight but accepted his very warm invitation to supper and to spend the evening at his home. There were present, besides Duskin, the Speech instructor (was his name Smith?) who first greeted and conducted us, and Philip MacDougal, A.B., philosophy, history etc. The three of us talked until midnight before I was conducted back to my dorm, largely, on my part at least, trying to draw cut of Dus­kin as much as I could about his educational plans and ideals and he was at least appreciative

                                   /Breaks off here/

________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Penned note to Heath from F.A. Harper

June 27, 1961

 

Dear Spencer:

 

Thanks for the call and further information about the Emerson College setup.

 

The addresses you wanted are:

 

Edward Dewey, Director

Foundation for the Study of Cycles

East Brady, Pennsylvania

 

Prof. Wayne K. Hodder

1237 East Woodland Lane

Glendora, California

(Cal Tech)

Cordially,

-Baldy

________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Copy of letter to F.A. Harper, Burlingame, California, from Virgil A. Harris, which Harper then sent to Heath

June 28, 1961

 

Dear Mr. Harper:

      My best recommendation for you to learn about Emerson College is to go there and talk to the founder, the instructors, the students, and local observers. I have not done this myself. My only knowledge concerning the college is my son’s reaction plus a one-day visit with the secretary in Los Angeles. My initial impressions are: “BRAVO”, “Hurray for such courage”, “I would like to join them”, and “How can I help?”

      If the college does have any specific “ideological position” it could be one of quiet rebellion against the autocratic administration of some of our school systems. Typical of this reaction is the recent remark of a contemporary student friend of my son’s after spending last year in a Colorado college: “They feed it to you and expect you to regurgitate it upon demand.”

      They need financial assistance and obviously have the good old American courage to honestly ask for it and to tell you what it’s being used for. I’m told that the instructors largely are donating their abilities and time until the financial picture improves. Business affairs are handled by a secretary and a so-called Board of Directors composed of the instructors. Students are screened by personal interview and accepted primarily on their show of “straight questions” whether they have the tuition or not.

      Your letter did not indicate what use you planned to make of the information but you are free to quote my first impressions if you like. My wife and I are grateful our son has found a niche which has fired his enthusiasm for learning.

      My son and I thoroughly enjoyed a delightful evening with Mr. Heath. Please express our regards to him.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Virgil A. Harris

 

_______________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3061

Penned note from F.A. Harper to Heath and Spencer MacCallum with a confidential enclosure about the Institute for Humane Studies

October 1, 1961

 

 

Dear Spencers:

 

The enclosed is quite self-explanatory.

 

Going to be at Elkridge on or about October 19 if I should make a possible trip about then?

                            -Baldy

____________________________________

 

October 1, 1961

Dear Spencer and Spencer

 

CONFIDENTIAL

It is now all but a certainty that by the end of October there will have been incorporated:

INSTITUTE FOR HUMANE STUDIES

with a Board of three who know almost precisely the kind of an operation that is needed. They are going to give it an honest try, from a Board foundation which combines talents beyond my best of expectations to assemble.

Not a single staff member has yet been identified. The Board will have — and should have — a free hand in that respect, after due deliberations. It will move slowly and cautiously, because of a design and purpose that cannot really be blueprinted in advance by anyone; which can only be done step by step, with combining of wisdom with experience. LET US NOT MUFF THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SET IN OPERATION A CHANCE FOR OUR FRIENDS OF RARE TALENT FOR THE CAUSE OF LIBERTY TO HAVE A CHANCE TO UNFOLD AND PRODUCE TO A MAXIMUM.

The immediate need is for ideas that can be put into the By-Laws and policies of the organization, that will make its operation from the start as sound as possible. Due to the necessities of the situation (unfortunate, but present under the tax and other laws we now have), the operation will be formalized into a legal corporation. I am designing the Articles of Incorporation, however, to maximize its freedom of scope and activity; to minimize the restrictive handles of law or supervision by government. All these other specifications will be left to the By-Laws and especially to the policies of the Board, which then are a maximum of flexibility and a minimum of outside control.

For instance, I want to see this operation designed to a maximum according to the specifications of a truly liberal society of free persons, within the scope of a professional society in miniature. I believe, for instance, that there should be no manager in fact or in effect, in the usual sense of the word; that there will be a maximum of reliance internally on voluntary processes of work; that no staff member will have authority over any other; that the cooperating individuals will be remunerated by the Board as nearly as possible according to their production of this unusual product for which there is no direct market price in the usual sense.

To this end, what ideas do you have as to policies and methods of operation at the outset that will maximize freedom of operation internally? Perhaps it is so simple that we can hardly see it, but at the same time we must take as a given fact an organizational unity, under a Board, and a source of limited funds which must be used this way or that.

Please send all ideas at once, and subsequently as fast as they occur.

-Baldy