Spencer Heath Archive

Item 2322

Carbon of letter from Heath to Lincoln S. Cain, Cain, Chesney, Lewis & Capeless, Counselors at Law, 28 North Street, Pittsfield, MA, together with Mr. Cain’s reply. Pencil editing of Heath’s letter is not fully legible.

July 26, 1950

 

 

 

Dear Mr. Cain:

The first form of property, first subject-matter of CONTRACT — of free cooperation among men — is Real Estate.

You believe in property, security, solvency. So do I,

I send you therefore, in story form, a look at our oldest and perhaps least honored institution from a somewhat fresh point of view — The Romance of Realty.

No charge; no return; no kind of obligation, either now or later.

But — I will greatly value your thoughtful consideration of the possibilities for planning that the story suggests,

And — It would be handsome of you to let me know briefly your impressions of this story as marking firm first steps towards the security and solvency for all.

And for this..I will thank you.

Very truly yours,

Spencer Heath

 

 

 

 

___________________________________

 

 

 

  CAIN, CHESNEY, LEWIS & CAPELESS

 COUNSELORS AT LAW

28 NORTH STREET

Lincoln S.Cain                       PITTSFIELD, MASS.

Abraham W.Chesney Rudolph A. Lewis RobertT.Capeless

                                            July 31, 1950

Mr. Spencer Heath

c/o Mrs. L. P. Blume

15 Arlington Street Pittsfield, Massachusetts

Dear Mr. Heath:

I have read all of the enclosed with consider­able interest. I think, however, that your next pamphlet should undertake to explain in some concrete measure how the organization of land owners, having abolished taxes, can then run the government as well as their land. The immediate net result, it seems to me, would be a super-government of land owners selling governmental services for their own enlightened benefit exclusively. Even if they did a more efficient job than our elected officials, their system would still not be an adequate substitute for democracy.

The give-away in your treatment is the reference to the fabulous profits the land owners would make. Would they not tend to become sated with the profits and obliv­ious to the desirability of selling as valuable services as possible for the sake of more profits? The result of that would be a form of selfish inefficiency, far worse than an inefficient democracy with its final appeal to an aroused electorate.

It is my faith that a large amount of govern­mental services are necessary and beneficial, that they do create wealth, and that the decision as to where they stop and whether or not they move into the field of ownership and operation of the means of production, including land, is for the broad base of all the people to decide, not a single group, and particularly not owners.

I find that I do not have the time to meet and discuss this with you.

Very truly yours,