Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3084

Morley Correspondence to, from and about Felix Morley

1957-1962

 

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

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 2586

Letter from Felix Morley,

Gibson Island, Maryland,

with enclosed carbon of his letter of same date to Pierre F. Goodrich, Goodrich, Campbell and Warren, Electric Building, Indianapolis, Indiana

June 9, 1957

 

Dear Mr. Heath:

The enclosed copy of letter to Mr. Pierre F. Goodrich, an old friend of mine, will explain why I have not acknowledged any of the communications from you which I found on my desk on my return from Europe. I wish I could have attended the reception in New York, which by coincidence was the very day I got back from Europe. I also greatly enjoyed your review of PROGRESS AND POVERTY and am amused by its coincidence with my comments on Henry George in GUMPTION ISLAND. But you make a mistake in regarding me as the literary member of the family. It was my brother Christopher who died prematurely the end of March, who wrote WHERE THE BLUE BEGINS.

      I shall be in California all of June but am wondering whether, sometime in July, you could arrange to drive down here for dinner and an evening chat at our Gibson Island home. If there is a Mrs. Heath, she would be as welcome to both of us as yourself. Please let me hear about this in due course for I am most anxious to make your personal acquaintance.

Sincerely,

/s/ Felix Morley

Enclosure

__________________________________

Dear Pierre:                               June 9, 1957

I have just returned from a two-months visit to Europe and want to acknowledge your letter of April 15, even though I know that Isabel has told you why I haven’t written sooner.

      Mr. Spencer Heath has also sent me a copy of his letter of May 20 to you. I do not know Mr. Heath personally, but hope soon to rectify that omission, because I am strongly impressed both by the spirit and the intelligence of his activities so far as I am familiar with them. I imagine he would be the last one to claim he has found all the answers, but he is certainly raising some of the questions that have got to be answered unless we are all going to perdition together in a jeep.

      The Suez episode, as it was easy to see both in Paris and in London, has been something of a historical turning-point. It has been of great influence in furthering the movement for a truly federated Europe, the subject that interested me most on this trip. In Zurich I spent a couple of days with Hunold and indeed saw several other mutual friends in Germany and elsewhere. I only wish we could get together for a good talk sometime soon.

      This week I have to go out to California, for the Institute at Claremont Men’s College, and will be on the West Coast for the remainder of June. With all this traveling, I cannot go over again for the Mont Pelerin Conference in September. Will you be there?

      Further, is there any chance of your being in Washington during July or August, or shall I have to come out to Indiana to see you. There is a slight possibility that I might be able to stop off, breaking my flight back from California. If you think well of this idea, drop me a line in care of President George C. S. Benson, Claremont Men’s College, Claremont, California.

Most sincerely,

Felix Morley

__________________________________________________________

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 1637

Carbon of a letter to Dr. Felix Morley,

Gibson Island, Maryland

September 3, 1957

Dear Dr. Morley:

Russell Kirk has been kind enough to send me Volume 1, Number 1, of the new magazine of discussion, Modern Age. He has written me very interestingly about it, and also seems to be much taken with the paper I read before the Annual Meeting of The Christian Freedom Founda­tion (I think I sent you a copy of it).

      Almost the first thing I saw in the new magazine was your “American Republic or American Empire.” This article impresses me profoundly. I have long entertained similar conclusions, but have never seen in any one place so many supporting facts and clear arguments. You have thrown light on the whole dark picture — reluctantly, it seems and without heat or hysteria. The big question, of course, is how the matter can be resolved. My own well matured conclusion is that no political solution is possible. The state of affairs is not one which can be resolved; it can only be outgrown. And then the question is, How?

      The three of us — three generations, in fact — certainly had a delightful afternoon and evening with you on the 21st.

(This letter is being completed from this point on after my return from and absence in Virginia until yes­terday. Please excuse the delay.)

      I hope you have found my Citadel, Market and Altar of interest on further reading. Favorable comments keep coming in, among them a further recent letter from Dr. Jordan, in which he recommends the attention of Citadel, Market and Altar to a number of his former associates on The National Industrial Conference Board; also a very nice letter from Dr. William Ernest Hocking. I shall be very happy indeed if the volume marks out a substantial beginning of a sound and vital philosophy in support of free enterprise capitalism.

      We were all greatly charmed by the woodland love­liness of your surroundings, as well as the gracious hospitality received from Mrs. Morley and you.

      With kind personal regards,

Sincerely,

SH/m Enc

 

_______________________________________________________________

__________________________________

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 2718              

Letter from Felix Morley,

Gibson Island, Maryland

October 6, 1957

 

Dear Mr. Heath:

I have been slow in acknowledging your letter of September 3. I wanted first to finish CITADEL, MARKET AND ALTAR, which I find very stimulating and thought-provoking, though in places rather heavy going. This may be in part my own deficiencies, or it may be my primary concentration on a rather serious book which I am endeavoring to complete. However I am not laying your book down and I am much impressed by Professor Hocking’s comment, because I have long admired him greatly.

      Your charming daughter was kind enough to ask us to her Virginia place recently, but it is very difficult for us to stay away from Gibson Island weekends. The end of this year we are giving up our Washington base and will concentrate down here altogether. It is a good place to work and it is perhaps especially lovely this time of year.

      After we get focused down here, it will be much easier to get away for trips elsewhere and I shall certainly hope to visit you at Elkridge, to say nothing of expecting the further pleasure of having you down here again. I would be interested to know how your charming grandson is getting on in the west.

      My article in MODERN AGE has aroused a good deal of correspondence. It does touch on a very important point.

 

Most sincerely,

(signed) Felix Morley

________________________________________________________________

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 2719

Carbon of letter to Felix Morley,

Gibson Island, Maryland

October 11, 1957

 

 

Dear Dr. Morley:

 

Many thanks for your letter of the sixth and comments on CITADEL, MARKET AND ALTAR. Besides Dr. Hocking’s comment, I have collected a number of other quotations as per the enclosed.

 

      That article of yours in MODERN AGE, I have read several times. It is most significant. It seems remarkably in parallel with Armaury de Riencourt’s THE COMING OF THE CAESARS which has been extensively reviewed and I am now beginning to read. He seems thoroughly to have worked out the significance of your current diagnosis for the “profound disease.” He is hopeless of legislation and urges the necessity to discover “the ways and means of reviving our moribund Culture” (our Anglo-Saxon heritage?) but gives no hint of how this can be done. I think he will find in CITADEL, MARKET AND ALTAR a high illumination of the necessary and available, though as yet unrecognized, non-political means — if or when it engages his serious attention

 

      My grandson flew out to Seattle on the 30th to take graduate work in anthropology at the University of Washington. He writes delightedly of the department there and its personnel and seems to be settled happily there with his two cousins, one on the faculty and the other a faculty wife. Thank you for inquiring about him. His mother has very happy memories of our visit with you and Mrs. Morley and hopes to see you again either at my place in Maryland or at her home in Waterford after you get concentrated down on “Gumption” Island.

 

Cordially yours,

Spencer Heath

SH/ams

Encl.

 

_______________________________________________________________

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 1687

Carbon of a letter to Dr. Felix Morley,

Gibson Island, Maryland

1959

 

 

 

Dear Dr. Morley:

I have just finished reading your article on “Individuality and the General Will” and want to tell you how much I admire its clear discrimination. It throws much light on the sources of our current academic confusions. I like your substantial identification of social contract with the common law, as understood by Dr. Pound, and as the counterpart of natural law in the scientific sense. Also your attribution of authoritarian tyranny to every kind of attempt to enforce some hypothetical general will. And your paper so well illuminates the middle ground, sought by the American Founders, between its coercive enforcement by a central authority or by an equally coercive authority democratically diffused.

      Experience does not show that this middle ground can be maintained. Dr. Judith N. Shklar’s scholarly critique of all political thinking (After Utopia; The Decline of Political Faith, Princeton, 1958) concludes on a note of despair and calls for a new and “genuinely radical political philosophy.” If you have not done so, I am sure you will enjoy reading it.

      I hope the world-political situation has not been discouraging to you, in view of the long-term movements in history which constitute the general trend.

Wishing you many happy new years,

 

____________________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 2934

Penned notes on 2 different notepad paper sheets

for a letter to Felix Morley.

Not sent.

January 6, 1960

 

 

Deeply appreciating your kind imputation of importance to my eighty-fourth anniversary. Vastly your junior in lore and learning concerning federalism and Roman republicanism vestibule to empire

My trust is in a gradual re-emergence of a viable proprietary public authority, proprietary and viable, in lieu of political and coercive public administration

/Second sheet:/

Deeply appreciating your kind imputation of importance to my eighty-fourth anniversary and recognizing your vast seniority in lore and learning concerning federalism and Roman republicanism, my own trust is in the present growing but not yet widely observed re-emergence of proprietary, profitable and thus viable, in lieu of political coercive and thus eventually lethal public administration

_____________________________________________________________________

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3084

Letter to Heath from Felix Morley,

Gibson Island, Maryland

May 29, 1960

 

 

Dear Mr. Heath:

      It seems to me, following our meeting Thursday, that we are all set to proceed, in an informal working collaboration that should prove beneficial to both parties. The first step will be preparation, by Spencer, of the Land Tenure Study outline, in a form which will permit the Institute for Social Science Research to accept it as a future publication.

      I have been wondering whether Spencer himself might not author this study, even though he might not be able to do much on it before completing work for his degree. We could readily give him a staff position for that purpose.

      It also happens that my older daughter, Loma J. Morley, is immediately available as a researcher, for which she is highly qualified. She has been doing political analysis, some of it overseas, for C.I.A, since its inception and at a rather high grade. But the secrecy and tendentiousness of this work has become increasingly irksome to her. She has left government service and is now on a temporary job which she could give up anytime for a more interesting prospect.

      I have said nothing to her about this thought, which only came to me after our lunch. But it would be quite feasible to appoint her as an Interne, to work up the material from Spencer’s outline. Only this would require rather prompt action as Lorna has lines out for permanent work which would prevent this possibility.

      If the idea sketched here seems promising to you, give me a phone call to discuss it a little. Then I could arrange to have her visit you and Spencer for a conference, coming along myself to speak for the Institute if desirable.

      Along with your excellent study I enclose a recent memorandum from Gerald Barradas, whom you very likely know — and a pamphlet by someone with the delightful name of Szmak which has just arrived in the mail and which I think you will find amusing.

      With high hopes for our collaboration, and Best Wishes —

Sincerely,

/s/ Felix Morley

_______________________________________________________________________________

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3084

Letter from Heath to Felix Morley,

Gibson Island, Maryland

May 30, 1960

 

Dear Dr. Morley:

I have again to thank you and Mrs. Morley for your generous hospitality and the fine opportunity afforded for discussion with you and your American Enterprise associates looking towards some practical cooperation in the ideological field.

      My grandson has just completed a letter, which we have been over together, and which I think outlines reasonably well what may become an extremely important item of research. The original is going to you and a copy to Mr. Baroody and Mr. Johnson.

      I think this letter pretty well pinpoints the general field and type of research as it was discussed by us at our recent meeting. The scope of the project as now outlined, however, would seem to require resources of a foundation much less modestly endowed than our own. We would not like to undertake a project that we could not follow through or that would involve more than a specific amount for its completion. However, we want to get going on something definite, and are wondering what your own thoughts may be concerning this.

      Thanking you once more for all of us for a delightful afternoon and looking forward to hearing from and perhaps seeing you again before very long.

Cordially,

Spencer Heath

SH/m

_______________________________________________________________________________

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3084..

Letter from Spencer MacCallum, The Science of Society Foundation, Roadsend Gardens, 1502 Montgomery Road, Elkridge 27, Maryland, to Felix Morley, William Baroody and Thomas Johnson, The American Enterprise Association, 1012 14^th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

May 30, 1960

 

Gentlemen:

 

Following our meeting last Thursday, at which I was asked to write up my impressions as to a possible collaboration between the Institute for Social Science Research and The Science of Society Foundation, I have prepared the following letter.

It should be noted first that any activity we engage in must be strictly within the scope of and in no way inconsistent with the stated purposes of the Science of Society Foundation as set forth in its Charter. The project outlined here falls clearly within Purposes 3 and 4 of our Charter.

For carrying out the work, your suggestion of finding a capable young man of proven ability who nevertheless “has yet to make his reputation” seems a good one. When a suitable person has been found, the Science of Society Foundation would expect to set aside for him, through and under supervision of the Institute for Social Science Research, a specific sum of money within which to operate to the completion of the project.

In the following pages, I have outlined first the general picture we think would emerge from a careful examination of Anglo-Saxon origins — public administration based upon private arrangements of land tenure.

Then I have suggested very sketchily what kind of a contemporary study might logically follow this first historico-anthropological study, the second study relating the first one to profoundly important recent develop­ments in industrial and commercial real estate, and mak­ing explicit the practical implications of both for the present plight of our municipalities.

Social programs have commonly lacked historical depth, and basis in sound principle. The proposed first study of Anglo-Saxon origins would, I think, go far toward making our work exceptional in this respect.

Impressions of Anglo-Saxon Polity

Before Intensive Examination

The Social organization of pre-Norman English society has never been satisfactorily understood.  The backbone of the English Common Law dates from the period. When Europe was at the nadir of its so-called “dark ages,” England was enjoying in the Alfredian Renaissance a flower­ing of culture and learning that made it the light of Europe.

Anglo-Saxon England has been described in terms of traditional kingship — sovereignty much as existed on the Continent. Yet there are some puzzling aspects to this picture even beyond the lack of agreement in the litera­ture. For all the developed town life and the necessary provision for public administration of the times, there seems to have been no regular or systematic taxation — certainly not enough to support the public operations of the nation. Taxation was imposed pro tempore in the time of the Danes, and later rescinded — or at least the attempt was made — by Edward the Confessor who presumably reflected a prevalent attitude toward taxation when he declared it “con­trary to the law of Cod and of nature and unbecoming to men” — or words to that effect.

The non-institutionalized nature of taxation during the pre-Norman period suggests that here might have been some­thing different from the conventional rise and fall of kingships that we have associated with public affairs in our classical tradition inherited from the Mediterranean. Coupled with what we know of the free institutions of the Germanic peoples and the isolation of England from Continental traditions of the Empire, it suggests the possibility that here in this corner of the world, Eng­land in semi-isolation may have built on the Germanic beginnings and developed a form of polity adapted to city and town life that was as different from sovereignty as we know it as the early barbarian institutions had been from contemporaneous Rome.

In pre-state, or tribal, societies, social structure is defined in terms of a kinship system. Society is co­extensive with the reach of its kinship system. Property is also frequently well developed at the pre-State level assumes its greatest importance in the settled commun­ity as a social mechanism for arbitrating the use of land. It is, however, bound up in and defined by the kinship sys­tem with which it acts as an auxiliary principle of social integration or cohesion. The normal pattern is for the title (distributive function) of the lands of a lineage or extended family to be vested explicitly in one individual, the head of that kin group, whose sanction on behalf of the kin group whom he represents is required to validate any disposition of lands within the group. Thus the two main principles of primitive community organization are kinship status and, auxiliary to it, the convention of property.

It has been suggested that the kinship structure of the Germanic settlers of Britain was shattered or at least greatly weakened by their marine migration, in which boat crews were recruited from different areas, and that in newly settled Britain the institution of property developed correspondingly to compensate the loss in kinship organization, resulting in a growth of a voluntary form of feudalism characterized by consensus and primitive contract. The Germanic reckoning of kin bilaterally instead of by the more conventional unilineal systems doubtless facilitated the disruption of the kin­ship organization. For the absence of unilineal corporate groups would make vastly more difficult any reconstitution of kinship affiliations as they existed before the migra­tion.

The transition may have come about by the crew cap­tains or migration leaders forming comitatus-like bonds with retainers to improve and fortify land in the new country to make it attractive for settlers, who in turn were glad to pay rent in the form of gifts, more or less regularized by custom, for the privilege of living in such a place made advantageous by its provision for leadership in defense and other services.

In time these land-owning interests may have peaceably federated to advance their common interests, which were identified with the interests of the population. For land became valuable in proportion as settlers bid it up, attracted by the promise of security — “quiet possession” — and the opportunity to turn their hand to farming, trade and other productive pursuits. The landlords might collectively have hired or otherwise engaged one of them­selves to look to the security of the lands of all of them. Such an arrangement is suggested by the later im­portance of the witan-gemote. composed of land owners to whom the king stood in relative subordination almost as a sheriff engaged by them.

Under such arrangement, the public expense would be met by the normal income of rent from land, rather than by compulsory levies. The level of this income would reflect the desirability of the place as a place in which to live — the more primitive the conditions, the lower the productivity and necessarily the lower the rent reve­nues, and vice versa for successful administration. This picture of public finance is strongly supported by a reso­lution adopted in council by the witan (the reference, unfortunately, has been lost) that no lord should take from his tenant any greater rent than the tenant was will­ing to pay.

Under such an arrangement, it might further be expected that localities would show a maximum degree of autonomy and independence in local affairs. This indeed has been the historic pattern of England, each locality proud of its own customs and traditions.

This arrangement of public affairs as outlined would have been as rude as were the times, and imperfect as all advances are in their beginnings. It would be surprising indeed if any persons of that time understood the principles involved. It is frequently observed in anthropological field work that the least likely place  of all to look for understanding of the social function of institutions is among those most dependent upon those institutions.

Given this lack of sophistication with respect to their own institutions, it would be surprising if the inroads of the Danes, calling for sustained military organization, combined with subversive influences from across the Channel — the importation of the Classical image of kings — had not weakened England even before the Norman invasion took place. The new learning, ecclesiastical and otherwise, which came into England reflected the old ways of Mediterranean countries, rich with the imagery of empire. The final Heptarchy is suggestive of rival princes on the Continental pattern.

Nor is it surprising, considering that we traditionally see Anglo-Saxendom through the overlay of four centuries of Norman occupation, and considering our own thorough commitment to classical sovereignty — albeit we prefer Demos to Caesar — that such important early institutions in England should have been overlooked or misconstrued.

This study as we conceive it, would be a historical research into English origins, mainly from the point of view of social anthropology. To understate the case, it would be a timely study, in view of the fiscal plight of our own modern communities. But at present thinking, we would save any consideration of practical morals that might be drawn from the example of early England until they could reasonably be justified by a careful, inde­pendent study of the Anglo-Saxon social organization from original sources.

We envision a study of professional quality at least comparable to that maintained by the journal, American Anthropologist. The person selected for the assignment should preferably, but not necessarily, have a Ph.D. degree and be familiar with Anglo-Saxon languages.

I think such a study would generate considerable pro­fessional interest because it uses a new approach to a question of established interest that has never been satisfactorily handled.

A following study could relate the development of these institutions with a rapid series of developments that have occurred in the United States in the past 60 years — and at an accelerated rate since the second world war. This has been the emergence of situations in which contract operates effectively not only as a relation be­tween individuals but in a collective or community context to provide for normal community functions in lieu of systems of compulsory levies under one or another form of sovereignty. These developments have taken place so far in small, special-purpose communities, first in the hotel as a residential community — with high rate of turnover — then extending out-of-doors to small business and industrial communities such as shopping centers and industrial estates. More than 90% of the 5,000 shopping centers and industrial parks in the United States today have been developed since the war. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of these entirely free-enterprise com­munities, which maintain their own streets, utilities and other services, including police and fire protection sys­tems, is their trend to generalization — that is, away from their special-purpose character. Increasingly, we have office buildings, residential units and hotel facilities, manufacturing, shopping and research combined in large real estate complexes under one plan of development and one ownership and administered entirely in accordance with private agreements instead of by legislation.

In such communities there is no need to collect the revenue in advance of public services, because the services themselves generate the revenue for maintaining and extending them. Thus a vexatious and often acute problem of muni­cipalities does not arise. The observation that in private business, we think we have to do services to get revenue from people, but in the public business we think we have to get the revenue in order to do things for people, does not apply within communities organized on the pro­prietary authority.

These modern developments in real estate administra­tion — this ad hoc growth of a technique of public administration by owners — suggest a possibly satisfactory explanation of Anglo-Saxon institutions in terms of private arrangements of land tenure. The principle is identical. It is not a re-ordering or reforming of political administration, but a self-sustaining alterna­tive.

As an anthropologist in the making, it is exciting to me to think that the Anglo-Saxons may have emerged beyond kinship and developed a consensus-type society adapted not merely to village community but to urban organization as well.

Very truly yours,

                        /s/ Spencer H. MacCallum

                        Secretary

                        THE SCIENCE OF SOCIETY FOUNDATION, INC.

________________________________________________________________

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3084

Letter to Heath, 1502 Montgomery Road, Elkridge 27, Maryland, from Felix Morley,

Gibson Island, Maryland

June 2, 1960

 

Dear Mr. Heath:

Before leaving for Chicago I want to acknowledge, however inadequately, your good letters of May 30 and the thought-provoking memorandum prepared by Spencer MacCallum, in his capacity as Secretary of the Science of Society Foundation,

It seems to me that we are making excellent progress, having moved from discussion of possible cooperation to the consideration of a definite project which could be published and distributed by I.S.S.R. if financed by S.S.F. I shall now try to carry progress farther by a few personal comments on this project, made without as yet consulting my colleagues on the board of the first-named foundation.

Let me preface them by saying that while no anthropologist I have been a rather close student of English Constitutional origins and that I am sufficiently familiar with Anglo-Saxon to have read Beowulf in the original. So, in a sense, I am able to check and supplement Spencer’s Memorandum. At first glance I thought it historically sound and this impression is confirmed by glancing through sources at hand.

(1) Maitland: Constitutional History of England, p. 155: “This theory that land in the
last resort is held of the king, becomes the theory of our law at the Norman Conquest

… we can say with certainty that before the Conquest this was not the theory…”

2. Ibid, pp. 58-59: “Legislation is no common event [before the Conquest}… Taxation is still more uncommon; of anything that can be called by that name we hear nothing until late in the day…. [Slowly the king] became the lord of all men, and we may almost say the lord of all land and lord of all justice … as easily a cause of weakness as of strength.” Parenthetically, isn’t that what’s happening to us today?
3. Ibid, pp. 94-95: “••• it but slowly enters men’s heads that the consent of a majority of an assembly, however representative, can be construed to be the consent of all men — rather the idea is that a tax ought to be a voluntary gift of the individual …”

(4) Stubbs: Constitutional History. Vol. I, Sect. 69:  “In the primitive German constitu­tion the free man of pure blood is the fully qualified political unit …. In the next stage the possession of land has become the badge of freedom; the free man is fully free because he possesses land; he does not possess the land because he is free.”

(5) — as a gentle warning —  Maine: Ancient Law, p, 246 (World’s Classics edit.): “,,, the element of Roman law in the various bodies of barbarian custom has been very imperfectly examined … a new source of error has been added … in that pride of nationality which has led German writers to exaggerate the completeness of the social fabric which their forefathers had built up before their appearance in the Roman world.”

All this leads me to conclude that the study proposed is well worth making and I think it would clarify principles of the utmost importance to any real solution of the mounting problems of our modern municipalities. Whether these studies should be separate or combined is another problem. I propose to discuss it with Baroody and Johnson as soon as I get back from Chicago and will then phone you relative to another conference before you start West. I trust Spencer would be with us.

Sincerely

                            /s/ Felix Morley

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3084

Letter to Spencer MacCallum, Science of Society foundation,

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

from Thomas F. Johnson, Secretary, The Institute for Social

Science Research, Continental building, Washington, D.C.

June 22, 1960

/Felix Morley, Chairman; Thomas F. Johnson, Secretary; William J. Baroody, Treasurer/

 

Dear Mr. MacCallum:

 

Dr. Morley, Mr. Baroody, and I have discussed in some detail the proposed project outline which you sent to us on May 30 and we believe it would be possible to have a well-qualified professor, or professors, in the field undertake a study substantially along the lines suggested. How­ever, as pointed out at our meeting at Gibson Island, we feel that such an undertaking should be associated with, or directed toward, some issue of current interest. For such a study to reach any significant audience, this is most important.

      The project, as you have outlined it, would be a major research
undertaking that we feel would take one and a half to two years and would
involve an investment of $50,000 to $75,000, including publication and
distribution. I note from Mr. Heath’s letter of May 30 to Dr. Morley that
he recognizes the magnitude of the task. Recognizing the resources that
would undoubtedly be required, if you feel that the Science of Society
Foundation would be interested in exploring further such an undertaking,
we would be happy to meet with you.

      It was most pleasant for Mr. Baroody and me to meet with Mrs. MacCallum, Mr. Heath, and you at Dr. Morley’s Gibson Island home. We hope to see you again in the near future.

      If we can be of any assistance, please let us know.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Thomas F. Johnson

Secretary

TFJ:js

_______________________________________________________________

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3084

Letter to Heath at Elkridge from Thomas F. Johnson, American Enterprise Association, Continental Building, 1012 14^th Street N.W., Washington, D.C.

September 16, 1960

 

Dear Mr. Heath:

 

     Thank you very much for letting me see the attached copy of “Solution for the Suez.” It seems a most sensible solution.

 

     It was certainly nice seeing you and Mr. MacCallum the other afternoon.

 

     Kindest regards,

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Thomas F. Johnson

Director of Research

TFJ:js

Enclosure

 

______________________________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3085

Letter to Heath from John M. Payne, Assistant to the President,

Claremont Men’s College, Pitzer Hall, Claremont, California

March 16, 1961

 

Dear Spencer:

 

I have just talked on the telephone with Felix Morley, who will be on our campus next week and addressing our convocation, Founders’ Day, Thursday, March 23, at 11 o’clock in McKenna Auditorium. Mr. Morley asked me to let you know especially hat he hoped to see you during his stay here.

 

After convocation, he will be having lunch with Dr. Benson and guests at the Faculty House and we shall be very pleased to have you join us then.

 

With best personal regards,

Cordially yours,

/s/ John

John M. Payne

Assistant to the President

 

Mr. Spencer Heath

Harvey Mudd College

Pitzer North

 

JMP:mm

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

Spencer Heath Archive

Item 3084

Letter from Felix Morley, Gibson Island, Maryland, to Spencer MacCallum

July 27, 1962

 

Dear Spencer:

 

Many thanks for Popular Government and for your kind letter of June 25, both of which should have been acknowledged earlier. But they arrived while we were absent on a trip to Hot Springs, where I was speaking at a business gathering. We drove back through Middleburg and thought of you and your family. Is it there that your grandfather is staying? If so, and had I known it, I most certainly would have wanted to pay my very deep respects.

 

He has been both an original and a profound thinker, a com­bination rare in any country and perhaps especially so in ours as the tide runs currently. What I value most about your generous gift is the poignant little inscription in his hand.

 

I shall think of him again, as indeed I do frequently, when we go out to Claremont, where I am scheduled to give some lectures, the middle of August. A couple of years ago, at a seminar there, he joined in the discussions of the younger men with obvious enjoyment, and great­ly stimulated them. I always enjoyed his somewhat puckish delight in elliptical observations, often coming on target the more precisely because circuitously.

 

Our daughter Lorna is spending a few days with us at this mo­ment, at the close of her vacation, which ends on Sunday. She told me that she greatly enjoyed her evening with you, which does not surprise me, and hopes to see you again soon in you are back in N. Y. for a stay now.

 

Isabel also asks to be remembered, and if it is in order please tell your grandfather how very much I treasure his inscribed gift, to me symbolic of a very unusual, gifted and ever memorable personality, whom it has been a great privilege for me to know.

 

          With sincere gratitude to you, and all Good Wishes,

 

                               /s/ Felix Morley