Spencer Heath Archive

Item 2870..

Montgomery Correspondence – to, from and about George S. Montgomery, Jr., 488 Madison Avenue, New York 22, NY

1954-1960

 

 

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

 

 

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 1531

Letter to George S. Montgomery, Jr.,

112 East 36th Street, New York, New York

September 13, 1954

 

 

 

Dear Mr. Montgomery:

My very many thanks to you for publishing your fine exposé of the alien-minded academic conspiracy that has so far perverted the minds of the current generation against their traditional American ideals.

I refer, of course, to your Return of Adam Smith. I have just finished it with the profound hope that it and others similar will trail-blaze America back out of the present collectivist quagmire to the high ground of freedom and productivity that made her so rich and strong.

Anciently and until after Adam Smith, there was no large-scale administration of private property — only a primitive, small-scale productivity. All large accumulations were by political or similar coercion, and were consumed for the most part in debauchery and display by the tax-taking and landholding political powers. Popular resentment against them was sound.

After the time of Adam Smith this resentment was carried over against the land and capital owners who, now entirely separated from government, administered large savings productively and thereby for the enrich­ment of all.

The false notion based on Ricardo’s exclusively agricultural theory that non-political land holders automatically impoverish capital and labor by accepting the

so-called “unearned increment,” or rent of land, is per­haps the chief root of the whole string of propaganda fostered by J.S. Mill and his classic “Liberals” and their inevitable collectivist successors. Their pro­paganda has destroyed in the academic mind all notion of the legitimacy of the natural rewards earned by the contractual administration and distribution of properties and products, including primarily the non-political ad­ministration of land. This fundamental hang-over fallacy came to its completest exposition in the writings of Henry George and his high-pressure American disciple, the Rev. Dr. McGlynn.

As I have enjoyed the keenness of your exposé at the academic level, I take it you may find similar in­terest in my critical analysis of the primary fallacy out of which the subversive and supposedly intellectual warfare against property and its contractual, as against its political, administration has grown.

Accordingly, I enclose herewith my “Progress & Poverty Reviewed and Its Fallacies Exposed,” together with a supplemental booklet, “The Trojan Horse of ‘Land Reform’” and, separately with my further compliments and for your convenient reference, this principal work of Henry George.

Expressing again my admiration for your work, I am,

Very sincerely yours,

SH/m

Enc:  “Progress & Poverty Reviewed”

“The Trojan Horse of ‘Land Reform’”

Progress & Poverty under separate cover

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 2408

Carbon of first page (second is missing)

of letter to George S. Montgomery, Jr.,

488 Madison Avenue, New York 22, NY

July 1, 1955

 

 

Dear Mr. Montgomery:

 

Ever since reading your Return of Adam Smith, and reflecting much upon it, I have had you in mind with a view to your more or less active cooperation in advancing a sound understanding of our free enterprise and free society along the lines so admirably laid down by Adam Smith.

 

     There is, of late years, a growing, substantial opposition to the totalitarian drift. Since my retirement from active business, I have been strongly in sympathy with this negative opposition, but this alone has not satisfied me. I have been forced to recognize that this at its best could only defer, in the long view, the self-enlarging role of government.

 

     As a research engineer, I have long believed that we could discover a positive technology in which the contractual and non-coercive processes of free enterprise could be extended beyond those individual services that can be separately provided and enjoyed and into the administration of those services and commodities which can be had only in community form. Adam Smith laid it down (Wealth of Nations, Modern Library edition, page 248) that the land-owning interest is the one and only portion of society whose private advantage is directly and immediately  dependent upon the public advantage. Following this, and noting with what disastrous results Henry George (and land nationalizers generally) went off on a wholly different tangent, I have developed a positive view looking to the evolution of proprietary community administration to displace by its own natural growth the customary political mal-administration of which we have so much to complain. I have found the virtues of society more interesting than the vices of government.

 

     To publicize this through my remaining years by good employment of some substantial financial resources of my own, is my single remaining objective. I want your sympathy and friendship, and your professional assistance and

 

                                      /Second page missing/

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 2416

Letter to George S. Montgomery, Jr.,

103 E. 37^th Street, New York City

September 6, 1955

 

 

Dear Mr. Montgomery:

 

It was indeed a pleasure to meet you last Tuesday and to learn more of your excellent opposition to the current political maladministration in our national and international affairs — in all of which I most heartily concur.

 

     It is my intention, through the Science of Society Foundation, to invite attention to, and promote better understanding of, our free enterprise system of proprietary administration of private goods and services in all its continuing developments and with particular reference to its profitable extension into the field of community administration. As one example of this, I enclose copy of a letter to Dean Pound(and several other philosophical jurists) inviting his attention to the non-coercive alternative of proprietary administration — proprium as against ex-proprium — that seems to be in process of evolving in our midst.

 

     I will be in New York again very soon and hope to take up with you immediately /the/ formal organization of the Science of Society Foundation.

 

Sincerely

 

 

SH/m

ENC: Copy Pound letter 6/20/54

 

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 1938

Extract from carbon of letter to George S. Montgomery, Jr.

488 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 22

October 29, 1956

 

 

 

I have now incorporated this Foundation in Maryland, as you seemed to consider advisable for me to do. The two little pamphlets enclosed /”Notes on the Organization of Real Estate” and “Society and Its Services”/ indicate some of its beginning activities, and might interest you as pointing up the next almost certain step in the continuing evolution of free enterprise.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 1654

Extract from letter to George S. Montgomery, New York City

August 19, 1958

 

 

The situation vis-a-vis the two great parties seems to be shaping up for some dramatic change. I hope it will be in the direction for which you so firmly stand. For my part, I have little faith in any possible political remedies against the evils of political government. Society must heal its wounds by its own development and growth.

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 1682

Carbon of a letter to George S. Montgomery, Jr.,

488 Madison Avenue, New York 22, New York

1959

 

 

Dear Mr. Montgomery:

 

Many thanks for your kind letter of February 26th and for the gift of your Why Bertrand Russell is not a Christian.

 

I have read this little book of yours at one sitting and with exceedingly great interest, especially the veritable prose poem on pages 6-10, “The Magic Valley,” which is to me a thing of purest beauty and inspiration.

Bertrand Russell has been to me for many years the black sheep par excellence of scientific materialism both intellectually, except perhaps in mathematics, and morally in all his conceptions concerning the nature and the social organization of mankind, without necessarily making any reference to his crude notions and personal intransigency concerning sexual relations.

The rest of your book, though very competent both in substance and form, seems to me almost wholly negative, depending for its value and beauty on the worthlessness of what it exposes and deplores. I could not but feel a little guilty at the satisfaction that I got out of it. Yet after all, when evil is imminent or upon us we must resist lest we be destroyed. Here we have no option or alternative but are pro tanto enslaved, and in this we cannot worthily exult. For it is only in the remaining realm of freedom that any creative alternative, not to destroy but to transcend and supervene upon the evil, can be sought, chosen and exultingly pursued.

Please try to pardon the above somewhat hi-hat homily and take a glance or two at my own little screed, The Inspiration of Beauty, which I enclose, if you have the time.

Again with many thanks and cordial regards,

Sincerely,

Enc.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 2870

Letter to Heath at Science of Society Foundation, Roadsend Gardens, 1502 Montgomery Road, Elkridge 27, Maryland, from George S. Montgomery, Jr.,

488 Madison Avenue, New York 22, New York

March 17, 1959

 

Dear Mr. Heath:

It has been a great privilege and pleasure to read “The Inspiration of Beauty,” which you were kind enough to send to me. I don’t know whether you agree, but from my point of view I think that anyone who has not read any of your works should start out with this fascinating brochure. I think it gives a background for the understanding of your reasoning and conclusions in the field of noncoercive administration of general community services. This conception certainly deserves the highest praise that you have received from so many different quarters.

     You have laid your foundation of the intellect so deep and the pinnacles of your thought reach so high that I congratulate myself on observing to some degree, however slight, a parallel progress in my own thinking. The plateaus from which I find our gaze coinciding in point of time and space become all the more significant to me and leave me conscious of the greater heights that you have achieved.

    I have asked my son, who is twenty-eight years old, to give me his comments on your beautiful piece of writing.

     Your reference to the “wholly negative” at first blush seemed to me to /be/ of doubtful validity. However, I see that you have recognized that circumstances sometime require a defensive action which in one sense is negative but in another sense is essential not only to progress but to existence itself.

    Thanking you again for an inspiring half hour which will leave its reverberations permanently and with warmest regards,

Sincerely,

George Montgomery Jr.

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3094

Letter to Heath from George S. Montgomery, Jr.,

488 Madison Avenue, New York 22, New York, enclosing

referenced letter of same date to John Chamberlain

May 27, 1960

 

 

Dear Mr. Heath:

 

Your Suez Canal Plan is admirable and deserves all of the splendid comments that it has received from such worthy sources.

 

Under separate cover I have sent you copy of letter to John Chamberlain which will be explanatory. I am sure that you see the Freeman.

 

With every best wish,

 

Sincerely,

 

/s/ George S. Montgomery, Jr.

GSMJr:F

________________________________________________________________  

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3094

Carbon of a letter from George S. Montgomery, Jr.,

488 Madison Avenue, New York 22, N.Y. to John Chamberlain,

3400 North Brooksvale Road, Cheshire, Connecticut,

enclosed in his letter to Heath of same date

May 27, 1960

 

 

Dear John:

I have been reading many excellent messages from your pen, the latest being your Review in the May Freeman of Hayek’s “The Constitution and Liberty”. I hope I can find the time to get to this book.

I was particularly interested in your reference to Spencer Heath. I believe you know him personally and will agree with me that he has a remarkably incisive mind with some of the most practical solutions in a baffling area of politics and economics plus a most delightful sense of humor.

Looking forward to the privilege of more of your good work, and with best wishes,

Sincerely,

GSHJriF                         /s/ Geo. S. Montgomery, Jr.

 

 ________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3103

Letter from Heath to Bartlett, Poe & Claggett, Southwest Corner Calvert & Redwood Sts., Baltimore 2, Maryland, Att. Mr. Willian O. Doub. Penciled by Heath, “This letter showed to Mr. Doub but not delivered. S.H. Keep as record. Pay $268.71.”

August 31, 1960

 

Dear Mr. Doub:

Returning to Maryland early this week I find your letter of August 18th enclosing bill for services to The Science of Soci­ety Foundation, Inc. in its efforts to qualify for tax exemption.

When in 1956 this Corporation was formed expressly to estab­lish a tax-exempt agency through which I, as its principal foun­der, and others like minded, could devote ourselves and substan­tial funds to some certain scientific and educational purposes free from Federal taxation, the matter was discussed with a num­ber of interested persons in New York, among them Mr. George S. Montgomery, Jr. of the well-known law firm of Coudert Brothers, who at a second conference and after full discussion with three of us advised that we incorporate in the State of Maryland and under the guidance of legal counsel to assure that all neces­sary forms and requirements would be properly complied with.

Accordingly, we put the matter confidently into your hands and, upon incorporation, proceeded in good faith with what we believed to be scientific, educational and, above all, non-political activities as set out in our stated purposes and described in our application for tax exemption that was prepared and filed by our attorneys. It turned out that this application was filed prematurely and necessitated a further filing after the lapse of another year. This, however, was not done, resulting in a loss of some two years before an acceptable application was filed.

From the beginning and during all this time we were not advised that under a Case Ruling published in the Bureau of In­ternal Revenue Bulletin for January-June 1955 (Rev. Bul. 55-25l) our major activity, the publication in book form of a scholarly research report by one of our founders, so accepted and approved by highest academic authorities (see circular enclosed), would be specifically ruled out or that it was against the Government policy to permit the naming in our corporate Purposes of other books and their authors for their value to the activities and the chartered Purposes of our Foundation.  And, moreover, we were not advised in the beginning or at any time that the close family relationships among all of our trustees would be very prejudicial to our obtaining tax-exempt status.

Further, relying on our attorneys to keep our application for tax exemption properly in order, we carried on a full two years of the above ill-advised activities instead of properly qualify­ing ones which, had we then known what would be required, we could have carried on. This lack of information has been injurious indeed, for we then had funds which we were confident would become tax-exempt, and also an adequate personnel, neither of which are now available to us by reason of our present poor prospect of tax exemption and the long and costly delays during which I have paid income taxes amounting to almost five thousand dollars which, by reason of our failure to obtain tax-exemption, has now become a total loss not recoverable by me.

Furthermore, in the forming of our Corporation we were not advised of the necessity to include in our articles of incorpora­tion a provision for the disposition of all its properties to some other tax-exempt organization in case our foundation should ever be dissolved (Section 50lc). This omission alone would have disqualified us under our charter as it now stands.

In view of all the above, I am taking the liberty of returning your bill for five hundred dollars plus expenses of $18.71(prob­ably made out from your Office records without special considera­tion) with my request that you take into account not alone the time and attention you have given but also the heavy loss and dis­appointment suffered and perhaps fatal results to the foundation from so long acting under a charter that proved prejudicial and insufficient for its tax-exemption purposes and without informa­tion as to the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s previous rulings and practices in connection with the granting of tax-exempt status.

I make the above request with reluctance and the utmost dis­taste, for it has been my practice over many years to pay all just bills promptly and without question or delay and on at least one important occasion in the past (which your firm perhaps may have forgotten) when the services were highly efficient and valuable to me I have been happy to pay double the amount charged. I trust therefore that you and your associates will take this letter in the kindly spirit in which it is written to you and as conscience may guide.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Spencer Heath President

THE SCIENCE OF SOCIETY FOUNDATION, Inc.

 

                         

Enclosures:                 

Circular of ‘Distinguished Appreciations.”

Circular on “A free-Enterprise Solution for the Suez.”

Bartlett, Poe & Claggett’s bill for services