Spencer Heath Archive

Item 2984

Two typed letters to Heath from F.A. (“Baldy”) Harper, Box 72, Burlingame, California, advising Heath on his efforts to get tax exemption for the Science of Society Foundation

February 18 and March 1, 1960

 

 

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

 

af

 

Mr. Spencer Heath

312 Halesworth

Santa Ana, Calif.

 

_________________________

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 and in finances, a family

   setup. The smaller — as per cent of total — family

   participation and remunerative benefits can be proved to

   be, the better your chances. Facts are best; explanation of

   intent and any supporting evidence therefore 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,

 

                                      (Signed) Baldy

                                   F. A. Harper

af

 

Mr. Spencer Heath

The Science of Society Foundation                            

1502 Montgomery Road

Elkridge 27, Maryland