Spencer Heath Archive

Item 1759

Copy of a penciled letter from Heath at Elkridge to Spencer MacCallum.

November 9, 1957

 

 

 

 

Dear Spencer:

 

     It surely is high time for me to be saying “Hi” to you. Mighty glad all seems fine with you and hope it stays that way. Have carried on here much as per schedules you left. I was in New York a week or more after you left. Saw most of the people there. Sold three books from the book table at the Unitarian Church. John Chamberlain is writing a review for the Christian Register. Mr. Kring guaranteed (twice) he would have it published if John wrote it. John was very willing but has been dilatory. Had a very nice long visit with Mr. ________, and very friendly. He agreed at once that his kind of publicity would be too broad and general for economical results until perhaps after the book has attracted more attention among well known people and come under discussion among the learned or the learned societies. Mr. S. would like to keep in touch with the progress in that direction and I promised he should. Another firm in Mr. S’s line wrote to the same effect on their own, saying they had studied the book and thought it should be aimed first at a restricted public — just as Mr. Solomon told us. I called Mr. S. two or three times. He was very friendly but too hard pressed to see me before I left New York. Rabbi Pool, too, was cordial but all taken up with Jewish New Year. Wanted me to see him later on and has since written to me. Mr. ______ (and Miss Hering) are preparing a special list to be sent the fine new circular –inside of the jackets. Politzer has designed this — and a fine job of it, your father says, but between us we improved it a lot and the second (revised) proof is due for O.K. right now. Dr. Petro got me in touch with Prof. William Miller Political Science, New York University as a prospect for review in the Law Journal. Had lunch with him at Faculty Club and he seemed much interested. Took the book with him to Princeton, where he lives. He’s a part-time professor at NYU — and will report to me.

 

     Had Dr. Underhill to lunch and nice visit. Miss Watson has been quite ill and working part-time while convalescing. Had tea with her and a friend caring for her, — and a phone message or two. A few days ago she wrote me very cordially and enclosed copy of a review written by Dr. John Westhof of Edmund, Oklahoma, which she says will appear in Christian Freedom soon. I am enclosing a copy for you.

 

     Mr. Schlese /sp?/ couldn’t find the record of my television interview — didn’t think he ever had it. I don’t know what became of either of them.

 

     Had a good visit with Mrs. Crain by phone; also with Miss Phelps in person. Mr. James T. Williams was out of the city all the time I was there. Nice visit with Rothbards by phone but no get-together arrangement so far. Went to see Helena Monbo again. She’s propagandizing CM&A among her top bosses. Plans to drive down here with her brother for a visit.

 

     The Drs. Podea returned to New York and I had another nice visit with them.

 

     E. Ruth Johnson, of The Churchman, living in Florida now.

 

     E. Ruth Pepper married.

 

     Have sent book to Lilly Rona.

 

     Dr. Daniels away all the time. Back in November.

 

     Tried 3 or 4 times to get Robin Lanier to ask about Dwight MacDonald. No answer any time.

 

     Also Mr. Thayer Lindsley, mining engineer (very rich Mr. Kring says) very much interested in CM&A. He had me send two copies to Mr. Anderson, new Secretary of the Treasury, for him (he was leaving for England for a month or so. Secretary Anderson acknowledged gracefully and said he had put one of them in Mr. Eisenhower’s hands as requested.

 

     I will have a lot to do in New York soon as I get there again. Also in New Haven and Danbury (Mrs. Rona). She wrote Dr. Opitz she was not up to a review for Freeman. He is trying to get Prof. Hobbs now. Anita Stead was housebound with flu for 2 or 3 weeks but has been carrying on nicely ever since — sending out books, keeping up files and cards etc.

 

     Have read Seebohm’s book you sent. He makes a good case for servile feudalism as the ground whence “free” institutions evolved. But he does not distinguish, at least not clearly, between rent and taxes and that the very widespread practice of “commendation” in early medieval times was not a descent into slavery but an attempt to escape some of the rigors of the general system of taxation. He recognizes that there were free village communities but treats the servile system alone as the origin and not as a corruption of free institutions. He, of course, is right in that the political sovereignties of his day did derive from slavery and servile feudalism. And he of course thought of political institutions of modern times as being “free” institutions. But Seebohm shows every evidence of sincerity and desire to be fair to those, such as von Maurer, who had taken the other side of the question as he so well puts it in his Preface. This Preface is so fine and so rich in references to the opposition I am having Anita copy it completely to put into my reference and revision copy of CM&A.

 

     Well, Cherio for now — and what is all the news about you.

 

                                 As always,

 

                                      P.D.

 

    

     Don’t forget that data for Foundation minutes.