Tag: Wilder Lane

 

 

What is the natural habitat of wing-nuts and fanatical partisans of zombie economic ideas? While Economics in the Rear-View Mirror specializes in the collection and curation of artifacts bearing on the general academic environment within which economists have been trained in the United States since about 1870, there are moments when a field trip to the lunatic fringe is warranted. It is there where we can observe the margins of the chattering class, working politicians, and wealthy businessmen as they poke their noses into curriculum decisions and professional debates regarding the scope and methods of economics. As the vaudeville comedian Jimmy Durante cracked, “Everyone wants ta get inta da act.”

Executive summary:

Members of the M.I.T. Corporation hostile to Paul Samuelson’s textbook and even the President of M.I.T. appear to have found a kindred spirit in Rose Wilder Lane whose anti-Keynesian review of Lorie Tarshis’ textbook was published in 1947 by the Franco admirer and later John Birch activist Merwin K. Hart.

This post began innocently enough when I selected an exchange of letters concerning the teaching of the principles of economics at M.I.T. in general and the new textbook by Paul Samuelson in particular. The famous controversy involved members of the M.I.T. Corporation, the M.I.T. Administration, and the M.I.T. department of economics and social science and has been most ably presented by Yann Giraud and Roger Backhouse and in the literature they cite.

Yann Giraud. Negotiating the “Middle-of-the-Road” Position: Paul Samuelson, MIT, and the Politics of Textbook Writing, 1945-55. Paper included in MIT and the Transformation of American Economics, Annual Supplement to Volume 46, History of Political Economy edited by E. Roy Weintraub. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2014, pp. 134-152.

Earlier draft: The Political Economy of Textbook Writing: Paul Samuelson and the Making of the first Ten Editions of Economics (1945-1976). Working Paper 2011-18 of Université de Cergy Pontoise (France).

Giraud’s blog: https://ygiraud.wordpress.com

Also: Roger Backhouse’s Becoming Samuelson (Oxford University Press, 2017), chapter 26.

This post provides a few letters from four of the individuals involved in the Samuelson controversy to provide a taste of that discussion. What caught my eye and what I call the reader’s attention to in this post is the repeated reference to an unnamed critical review of another unabashedly Keynesian textbook, The Elements of Economics by Lorie Tarshis of Stanford University. It is worth noting that Samuelson’s textbook was already receiving incoming fire from members of the M.I.T. Corporation before that review was published in August 1947, so the attack on Tarshis was merely adding water to the Anti-Samuelson mill. The head of the economics department, Ralph Freeman, notes in his defense of Samuelson that the organization that had published the Tarshis review was known to have “a fascist flavor” and was run by a man named Hart who was “involved in some way in a treason charge during the war”. Seeing the words “fascist” and “treason”, I could not resist donning my investigative garb to uncover the back-story of the man Hart, his organization and the anti-Tarshis screed by the author unnamed in the letters. But first I share the sample letters from 1947 in the Samuelson controversy at MIT.

Dramatis Personae

Walter J. Beadle (Vice President, Treasurer and member of the Board of Directors at Du Pont and life member of the M.I.T. Corporation, 1943-88)

Lammot du Pont II (President of Du Pont (1926-40), Chairman of the Board of Directors and former member of the M.I.T. Corporation (1928-33))

President of M.I.T. Karl T. Compton  (b. 14 September, 1887; d. 22 June, 1954)

Head of M.I.T.’s department of economics and social science, Ralph Evans Freeman (b. 23 July 1894; d. 12 May 1967)

Source (DuPont officers): “DuPont Officers Reelected, James New Treasurer Aide” in The Morning News (Wilmington, Delaware) April 22, 1947, p. 12.

Fun Fact:

The great-great grandfather of Lammot Du Pont, the chairman of the Board of Directors at Dupont in 1947, was Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours, a disciple of the Physiocrat author of the Tableau Oeconomique, François Quesnay.

The genealogical line from the Physiocrat du Pont de Nemours to the Chairman of the Board of Directors of DuPont in 1947.

Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours (b. 14 Dec 1739; d. 7 Aug 1817)

Éleuthère Irénée du Pont de Nemours (b. 24 June 1771; d. 31 Oct 1834)

Alfred V. du Pont (b. 11 Apr 1798; d. 4 Oct 1856)

Lammot du Pont I (b. 13 Apr 1831; d. 29 Mar 1884)

Lammot du Pont II (b. 12 Oct 1880; d. 24 Jul 1952)

 

Image Sources: Pierre Samuel Du Pont de Nemours (Wikipedia Commons); Lamott Du Pont II in Du Pont: The Autobiography of an American Enterprise. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1952. (Lammot Du Pont, p. 86).

_______________________

Beale to Compton
(original)

Walter J. Beadle
DuPont Building
Wilmington 98, Delaware

September 15, 1947

Dr. Karl T. Compton, President
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Dr. Compton:

When you were on vacation, Mr. C. E. Spencer, Jr. sent me a copy of the Economic Council Review of Books for August 1947. Since this seemed to point up better than anything I have read the general problem in connection with teaching of economics in this country, I sent it to Jim Killian in advance of our luncheon meeting and he in turn passed it on to Professor Freeman.

On the chance that you have not seen this review, I attach a copy of it which has just come to me from Mr. Lammot du Pont. I enclose also Mr. du Pont’s letter of transmittal dated September 12^th which I am sure will be of interest to you. As I told Jim at our Boston meeting, I acquainted Mr. du Pont with the developments in connection with the teaching of economics at M.I.T. because I know of his very sincere interest in the Institute as a life member of the Corporation.[sic, not listed as a Life Member At MIT’s website]

I hope that your vacation proved to be a very enjoyable and refreshing one.

With kind regards, I am

Sincerely,
[signed] Walter
Walter J. Beadle

WJB:k
enc.

Source: MIT Archives. Office of the President Box 192, Folder 9 “Samuelson, Paul, 1942-1947”.

_______________________

Lammot Du Pont to Beadle
(copy)

LAMMOT DU PONT
Du Pont Building
Wilmington 98, Delaware

September 12, 1947

Mr. Walter J. Beadle;
B u i l d i n g.

Dear Walter:

Your file is returned herewith, and there is also enclosed a leaflet of the National Economic Council, giving a review of college textbook, “The Elements of Economics,” by Lorie Tarshis. You can get an idea of the nature of the review by reading the few paragraphs on the first page, which I have marked.

I take it that this textbook is an aggravated example of what the M.I.T. professor [Paul Samuelson] has done in a milder way. You will note on page 7 a list of the colleges which have adopted this textbook, and I am pleased to note that M.I.T. is not among them. Will you use your judgment as to sending this copy of the review to Dr. Compton as an illustration of what can happen?

Recently, I was talking with an Economist, who is a professor at a well-known university in the east. I have entire confidence in this Economist’s truthfulness and accuracy, but maybe I did not understand him exactly right. The gist of what he told me was as follows:

At this university there are 11 professors in the Department of Economics. Of these, 7 are Leftist. Four, including himself, are what I would call “sound.” There are two vacancies among the 11 professorships, and it is indicated that they will be filled only with men who meet with the approval of the present 9 incumbents. This is called “a democratic process.” With the odds 7 to 2, it is a foregone conclusion that another Leftist will be added.

In addition to the above, my friend tells me that he has been advised by a man acting as Assistant to the President of the University, with respect to faculty appointments, that he, my friend, had better withdraw from the University, or look for a position elsewhere. My friend informs me that he does not intend to withdraw, and does not think they can oust him. He believes that it is his duty to remain at the University and do what he can to expound to students sound economics. The University is among those listed on page 7 of this leaflet.

I am not urging that you send this review to Dr. Compton, or that you send him this letter, but if you care to do so, you have my permission, for I don’t think I have violated any confidence in what I have written.

Yours sincerely,
(s) Lammot du Pont

LduP/MD

Source: MIT Archives. Office of the President Box 192, Folder 9 “Samuelson, Paul, 1942-1947”.

_______________________

Compton to Beadle
(copy)

September 18, 1947

Mr. Walter J. Beadle
du Pont Building
Wilmington 98, D.C. [sic]

Dear Walter:

Thanks ever so much for sending me the copy of the Economic Council Review of Books for August, which discusses the book by Professor Tarshis of Stanford University.

My brother Wilson showed me a copy of this while we were together at our family camp, and I had made a memorandum to send for a copy for my own use. It seems to me to be an exceedingly effective statement.

Incidentally, have you noticed the comment among the book reviews in the September issue of Fortune with reference to another book by one of Samuelson’s students [Lawrence Klein]?

I am just getting squared away after return from vacation and the process is somewhat delayed because I got mixed up in a fire and am still somewhat bandaged up,–nothing permanently serious, however.

With best regards,

Very sincerely yours
[unsigned]
President

KTC/L

Source: MIT Archives. Office of the President Box 192, Folder 9 “Samuelson, Paul, 1942-1947”.

_______________________

Compton to Freeman
(copy)

December 15, 1947

Personal

Professor R.E. Freeman
Dept. of Econ. and Soc. Sci.

Dear Ralph:

Apropos of the discussions which we had some weeks ago about Professor Samuelson and the textbook on economics, I have accidentally run into several interesting discussions recently concerning the Keynesian theories of economics on the part of several groups of top economists. From these I gained the impression that Keynes’ theories were brilliant and stimulating but inclined to be based more on a logic derived from a limited set of postulates than on actual test from all the factors involved. The comment was made that Lord Keynes himself was sufficiently flexible to modify his views when the facts indicated to him that this was necessary, but that many of Keynes’ disciples have been so wedded to the beautiful logic that they have had a tendency to base their faith on this logic rather than on an objective evaluation of factors by which the conclusions might be tested.

The work of the American Economic Council [sic], (I am not sure that I have the name just right), was described as especially valuable and effective because of its objective search for facts, as opposed to argument on theory.

At a meeting with Harold Moulton some weeks ago I asked his opinion of Samuelson and he replied that Samuelson is a very brilliant young man but that he is a “dogmatist”. In this connection Moulton dug out the enclosed reprint which he thought might be helpful to us in our evaluation of economic research methods. I thought you might be interested in this, though you have perhaps already read it. Please return it at your convenience,

Very sincerely yours,
[unsigned]
President.

KTC/L

Source: MIT Archives. Office of the President Box 93, Folder 7 “Freeman, R.E. 1940-1944”.

_______________________

Freeman to Compton
(original)

Personal

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of
Economics and Social Science

Cambridge, Mass.
17 December 1947

Dr. Karl T. Compton
Room 3-208
M.I.T.

Dear Dr. Compton:

Many thanks for your comments regarding Keynes, Samuelson et al. I was interested in Moulton’s brochure which I am returning herewith.

A good deal of misunderstanding has arisen because of a failure to distinguish between Keynesianism as a conceptual apparatus and Keynesianism as a policy. It is the former which has been adapted by the younger economists of this country such as Paul Samuelson—and many of the older ones as well. I use the word adapted, because some of the ideas of Keynes have been rejected. On the policy level two Keynesians may arrive at quite different conclusions.

The charge that such thinkers base their faith on logic rather than on facts, is to my mind unjustified. The classical economists built up their whole system on the assumption of full employment. The modern approach is not only to question this assumption but also to try to understand why our economy so often fails to provide full employment.

It has been a common belief in the past that because the rate of saving was assumed to vary with the interest rate, there could be no under or over savings—that changes in the interest rate would provide the necessary correction. A study of the facts indicates that this position was erroneous. Much of “modern economics” is concerned with the implications of under-saving and over-saving.

I have taken the liberty of enclosing a recent bulletin of the United Business Service for which I write the first page every week. This brief article designed for popular consumption entitled “How Inflation Could Be Halted” illustrates the use of the savings concept in analyzing current problems. Incidentally, Moulton in the latter part of the pamphlet you sent me indicates that he has incorporated into his thinking the Keynesian approach to the saving process.

It is significant, I believe, that the new approach to economic problems has developed as our knowledge of the facts of the economic process has become more extensive. Today we know vastly more about what is going on in economic society than we did a half or even a quarter of a century ago. The young men who have been and are now the main fact gatherers are in overwhelming numbers using the Keynesian concepts as tools of analysis.

The “American Economic Council” [sic] to which you refer in your letter is I believe an organization with a Fascist flavor which is of course opposed to the “new economics.” If I have identified the organization correctly, it is a front for a man named Hart who was involved in some way in a treason charge during the war. It recently issued a review of a book by Tarshish [sic]—a review which was grossly unfair to the writer.

I am not sure what Moulton means by referring to Paul Samuelson as “dogmatic.” Paul certainly is capable of supporting his views with factual data and reasoned arguments. Moulton’s effort to defend a recent Brookings publication—“A National Labor Policy”—against the criticism of Wayne Morse was not an effort which would inspire confidence in Moulton’s own objectivity.

I don’t know whether Bob Caldwell passed to you the information that Paul will be presented with the John Bates Clark Medal at the coming meetings of the American Economic Association in Chicago. This medal is being presented for the first time by the Association to the living economist under 40 “who has made the most distinguished contribution to the main body of economic thought and knowledge.” The name of the recipient of the award will not be published until December 28.

Probably you will agree with me that we don’t need to worry too much about what the economists of the country think about Paul Samuelson.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Ralph
Ralph E. Freeman

 

Source: MIT Archives. Office of the President Box 93, Folder 7 “Freeman, R.E. 1940-1944”.

_______________________

Compton to Freeman
(copy)

December 19, 1947

Professor Ralph E. Freeman
Department of Economics and Social Science
M. I. T.

Dear Ralph:

Thanks ever so much for your letter and the enclosed copy of United Business Service.

One way or another I seem to be getting some elements of an education in economics, long deferred. At least no one can criticize my own education in this field on the ground that it has not brought contact with plenty of divergent points of view.

I was glad to have your distinction between conceptual apparatus and policy in reference to the influence of Lord Keynes.

I am delighted to know that Paul Samuelson is to receive the John Bates Clark Medal. That, coming from the American Economic Association, is certainly an honor and should be a reassurance to some of our “worriers”.

With many thanks,

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned]
President

KTC/h

 

Source: MIT Archives. Office of the President Box 93, Folder 7 “Freeman, R.E. 1940-1944”.

_______________________

Back to the Chase

Thanks to my reading of Giraud and Backhouse, it didn’t take much effort to establish the identity of the unnamed reviewer of Tarshis, none other than the libertarian diva, Ms. Rose Wilder Lane (b. 5 December 1886; d. 30 October 1968). Economics in the Rear-View Mirror has posted the story of Rose Wilder Lane’s 1946 report for the Foundation of Economic Education on Milton Friedman and George Stigler’s famous pamphlet on rent-control, Roofs or Ceilings. Lane was certain that Messrs. Friedman and Stigler were communists in deep disguise…really. Interested readers can find out more about her together with the complete text to the third printing of her 1947 review of Tarshis in the rich paper with its document-filled appendix by Levy, Peart and Albert (2012).

David M. Levy, Sandra J. Peart and Margaret Albert. Economic Liberals as Quasi-Public Intellectuals: The Democratic Dimension in Marianne Johnson (ed.) Documents on Government and the Economy Vol. 30-B (2012) of Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, pp. 1-116.

Especially the transcription of the Rose Wilder Lane review of the textbook The Elements of Economics by Lorie Tarshis published in Economic Council Review of Books, Vol. IV, No. 8, August 1947), pp. 49-64.

More about Merwin Kimball Hart can be found at:

Sandra J. Peart and David M. Levy. F. A. Hayek and the “Individualists”, Chapter 2 in F. A. Hayek and the Modern Economy: Economic Organization and Activity, eds. Sandra J. Peart and David M. Levy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), especially pp. 30-37.

_______________________

But wait, there’s more

For those wanting to learn even more about the publisher of the National Economic Council’s Review of Books, Mr. Merwin Kimball Hart (b. 25 June 1881; d. 30 November 1962), U.S. government files are available at archive.com that were obtained through Ernie Lazar’s FOIA applications. There you will find around six hundred pages of F.B.I. investigative reports, letters, and newspaper clippings regarding the Merwin Hart case that are easily consulted on line.

The tidbit that I find that ties this post together is the clear evidence that Lammot Du Pont was a financial supporter of Hart’s National Economic Council precisely at the time that he and the Du Pont vice-president and lifetime member of the M.I.T. corporation were on a crusade against Paul Samuelson’s textbook.  “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

 Links to the Merwin Kimball Hart files

Hart, Merwin K.—NYC 100-21056 (243 pages)

14 page New York City F.B.I. investigative report November 17, 1942
6 page Albany F.B.I. report Jan 22, 1943 on Utica background of Merwin K. Hart

Hart, Merwin K.—HQ 100-128996, Misc. Serials (278 pages)

[note:it is necessary to view the file in single-page mode, when in double page mode only the odd numbered pages are displayed.]

Hart, Merwin Kimball, HQ 100-128996, 139-142 (58 pages)

Hart, Merwin K.—Army Intel Report (48 pages)

A selection from these FOIA files now follows:

_______________________

A Memorandum for the Director of the F.B.I. (February 8, 1940) prepared by E. A. Tamm

The FBI report refers to a woman informant working within the New York State Economic Council.

“From what can be gathered from the informant the Council was apparently originally engaged in a fight against Communism. It then became involved in the fight to support the Franco rebellion in Spain, and has now passed into not only opposition to the present Federal administration but has gone further and become actually opposed to the existing form of government in this country. The inner circle of the NYSEC in one way or another is now considering setting up an independent union movement to combat the CIO and other so-called radical unions, and to set up what would amount to company-controlled unions.

The informant advises [deletion of 2/3 line] Hart, John Eoghan Kelly, Jane Anderson, and various Catholic priests, she is convinced of the existence of a plot, presumably centering around the Council and directed by Catholic church leaders to reestablish the Holy Roman Empire with certain nations so aligned as to make it possible for the Catholic church to control the balance of power through its control of the government of Spain.” Page 3 of memo

[…]

“Hart is general manager of the Cream of Wheat Corporation, and his home is understood to be at Utica, New York…The informant expresses her belief that Hart is a sincere, fiery patriot who honestly believes the country is in serious danger from a “red menace.” However, she stated he is being used by certain Fordham University clerics who decide on certain action in conferences with John Eoghan Kelly, Allen Zoll and similar persons, and then prevail on Hart to make such contacts, presumably Protestant, as will facilitate the promotion of the action desired.

“Hart has written a book entitled ‘America—Look at Spain’, and from purported copies of correspondence exhibited by the informant it would appear that this book was partly edited by the Catholic clergy in so far as that portion of it which treats the Catholic church is concerned. Hart has visited Spain, Germany and Italy and has made an intensive study of conditions in these places. He has communicated with the Bureau in the past relative to cooperating on matters pertaining to the national defense. By letter dated April 10, 1939 he wrote the Bureau requesting a copy of the report on the German-American Bund investigation, and was advised that same was not available, and his letter was referred to the Department.

It is impossible to fully set out all the connections that Hart may possibly have, but it is probably safe to say from those he is known to have that he is connected at least with every group of any prominence in the United States whose aims are anti-administration or anti-Communist.” Page 5 of memo.

[…]

“DuPonts of Wilminton, Delaware:

            The informant advises that these persons were at one time strong financial supporters of the NYSEC but have not contributed recently.” Page 21 of memo.

 

Source: Memorandum for the Director of the F.B.I. (19 February 1940) in the Ernie Lazar FOIA Collection at archive.org. Federal Bureau of Investigation, N.Y.C. Hart, Merwin K.—HQ 100-128996, Misc. Serials.

_______________________

From an investigative report dated July 2, 1942

“…On January 27,1940 Confidential Informant [deleted] was interviewed by Assistant Director E. J. Connelley regarding any information informant might have concerning MERVIN K. HART. Informant informed [ca. 2 lines deleted] whose offices are located in Room 417, 17 East 442 Street, New York City. Informant advised that she met subject HART through [deleted] who was an acquaintance of HART as a customer of the bank [deleted] started to work for HART [line deleted] HART advised informant that he had just returned from Spain where he was in touch with the Nationalist Leader and believed that they were saving the world form Communism. He wanted to write a book to show that the same thing might occur here in the United States.

She advised that HART had published a book entitled AMERICA LOOKS AT SPAIN which was published by Kennedy and Company. HART advised informant that in this book he wanted to show that Communism was overthrowing the world and that something must be done about it in this country. In connection with the luncheon held for MARTIN DIES, which was mentioned previously, [one line deleted] this luncheon for Dies was given by the New York State Economic Council at the Bellmore Hotel, New York City. Informant advised that JAMES WHEELER-HILL, Second in Command of the German-American Bund, was there along with [deleted] The luncheon was open to the public. She stated that the presence of [deleted] and JAMES WHEELER-HILL did not mean that they were connected with the Economic Council as tickets were on sale to the public; however, informant said that the people actively working for HART considered [deleted] and WHEELER-HILL as martyrs fighting for a cause.

Informant said [deleted] he formed the American Union for Nationalist Spain and, in that connection, was constantly in touch with various religious leaders. Informant, continuing, said that the Council is financed through subscriptions and donations made by the Texas Company and by Lamont [sic] Dupont. According to informant, HART’s most intimate associate is Captain JOHN T. TRAVER, the head of the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies.

 

Source: Ernie Lazar FOIA Collection at archive.org. Federal Bureau of Investigation. NY File No. 100-21056. Report date: 2 July 1942.

_______________________

From November 17, 1942 FBI Internal Security Case Report
Merwin K. Hart

…Confidential Informant [deleted] stated that she first met HART during the winter of 1938-1939 at a party at the home of [deleted] of the famous [deleted] of China. HART at that time had just returned from Spain. [Deleted] had just returned from Munich and was disgusted with the Chamberlain appeasement policy. She thereafter disliked HART’S theories from the start. For quite some time HART continued to send her a copy of his Economic Letter, which she said she tore up and refused to pay any attention to it. According to [deleted] HART has constantly criticized the ROOSEVELT administration; is violently anti-Communistic; has said that HITLER has done some good things for Germany; that the German American Bund is a harmless organization; and that the Franco Policy is satisfactory. She said further, however, that since December 7, 1941 HART has been openly advocating unity withi9nAmerica. He confines his criticism now only to Government spending and then only to expenditures which are not for the war effort. However, she believes he is still a Fascist in his theories of Government but is smart enough to hold his tongue now. She said that a while ago he was so anti-Communistic he was literally seeing “a Communist under every chair.” She believes he might still be regarded as dangerous in that his constant criticisms creates a disturbing element. She does not believe that he is subsidized by foreign funds. She said further that HART had told her in the past of attending some Bund meetings simply to find out what went on in the meetings. [Deleted] was of the opinion that HART’S theories are too extreme, and that HART has been and in her opinion still is against labor agitation…”

 

Source: Ernie Lazar FOIA Collection at archive.org. Federal Bureau of Investigation. NY File No. 100-21056. Report date: 17 November 1942.

_______________________

Memo for J. Edgar Hoover Jan 26, 1944.

 

Item in summary table of correspondence with Merwin K. Hart:

From Lammot du Pont to M.K.H. 1/2/42. Encloses check for $4,000. “Subscription to the work of the organization for 1942”

Source: Ernie Lazar FOIA Collection at archive.org. Federal Bureau of Investigation. NY File No. 100-21056. Memo to Hoover (26 January, 1944).

_______________________

Newspaper clipping, syndicated columnist Marquis W. Childs

Marquis W. Childs. The State of the Nation.
[FBI time stamp: Jan 15, 1948]

Washington.

The self-appointed thought police are on the loose again, their attack this time is directed against a textbook on economics used in many of the leading universities of the country.

The attack began with the National Economic Council, whose head, Merwin K. Hart, has been one of the principal American supporters of Spain’s dictator, Franco. It took the form of a so-called review of the book—“The Elements of Economics” by Prof. Lorie Tarshis of Stanford University.

The review twists the meaning of the book to try to show that its author supports the government spending theories of the late Lord Keynes. Therefore, the review concludes, the book must be subversive and un-American.

Wide circulation of this review through the mails was only the first step. In Arkansas, an American Legion post and something called the Arkansas Free Enterprise association have taken the next step. They have demanded an investigation of the textbook, used in economics classes at the University of Arkansas.

President Lewis W. Jones of the university replied that he thought the sanest procedure would be to submit the book to an impartial group capable of judging it, such as the American Economics [sic] association. He added that he saw nothing subversive in the text, which he considered a thoroughly objective study of the economic system.

Here is a pattern of behavior that endangers fundamental American freedoms of speech and thought. The concept of thought police, whether amateur or professional, is repugnant to free Americans.

The American legion recently held here in Washington a counter-subversive seminar. Seventy-five representatives from Legion posts around the country attended the three-day session. They heard lectures by some so-called experts on Communism. It is interesting incidentally, that among these experts are several men who were once Communists. Having at one time embraced a totalitarian faith, they now make a profession of denouncing it.

Seven State Legion organizations have held or will hold such seminars, taking their cue from the National organization. Both Georgia and Indiana have just had two-day sessions on subversion.

If one is to judge from the speech made by Georgia’s Rep. James C. Davis at the meeting in Atlanta, it was given over entirely in the subversion of communism. They might well have devoted part of their time to such home-grown subversion as the Ku Klux Klan. It is a fairly safe guess that there are more Klansmen than Communists in Georgia.

Training Legionnaires to “spot and counter subversive activities, as National Commander O’Neil put it, is a hazardous business. The FBI gives its agents months of instructions in such matters, and they are told to avoid possible infringement of fundamental rights of speech and thought. Yet here we have amateurs turned loose after two days to do sleuthing on their own.

An example of what this can mean occurred in California at about the time the Legion was holding its counter-subversive seminar in Washington. Twenty-five men wearing Legion hats bearing the insignia of Glendale, Cal., Post No. 127 invaded the meeting of a Democratic club and demanded that it break up immediately.

A slight error had been made. The club was duly chartered by the County Democratic Central committee. In the midst of the indignation and the corresponding embarrassment that followed, State Legion Commander Harry L. Foster condemned the act.

“The rights of free speech and assembly,” he said, and it might be a good idea to frame these words in every Legion hall, “are part of our cherished Bill of Rights and we of the Legion should be the first to insist on these rights. Should there is an unlawful meeting, it should be reported to the duly constituted civil authorities for their action.

“Thought police on the Japanese model are an insult to American integrity. That is especially true when zealous guardians of pure thought seek to protect the young. If young men and women in college who have grown up under the advantages of the American system cannot use judgment for themselves, then the system has failed. The generation that fought the recent war does not need to be sheltered by meddling zealots. They are a lot more clear-eyed and clear–headed than most of their elders.

 

Source: Ernie Lazar FOIA Collection at archive.org. Federal Bureau of Investigation. N.Y.C. File No. 100-21056 page 179.  Copy from the FOIA file is partially illegible and the newspaper was not identified. A less edited version of the article was published in The Eau Claire Leader (Wisconsin), Sunday, January 18, 1948, p. 12.

_______________________

J. Edgar Hoover’s Memo
March 29, 1948

100-128996-94

Date: March 29, 1948

To: [deleted]

BY SPECIAL MESSENGER

Attention: Reading Center

From: John Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation

Subject: MERWIN KIMBALL HART, wa,
Mervin Kimball Hart
National Economic Council, Inc.
INTERNAL SECURITY-X

Reference is made to your communication of March 17, 1948 your [deleted] where you informed that [deleted] was en route to New York City at the invitation of the National Economic Council.

[paragraph deletion]

Biographical information, the accuracy of which is unknown, reflects that Merwin Kimball Hart was born on June 21, 1881, at Utica, New York. He graduated from Harvard in 1904, receiving an A. B. degree. In 1906 he was elected for a two year term to the General Assembly of the State of New York. Hart, by this time, was married to Catherine Margaret Crouse of Utica. He was admitted to the New York State Bar in 1911 and became a member of the law firm Hart and Senior. In 1914 Hart and several prominent businessmen in Utica organized the Utica Mutual Insurance Company. A few years later when the United States entered the war, Hart, although possessing defective eyesight, enlisted in the Army and when released in 1918 he had attained the rank of Captain in a non-combatant unit. After the war Hart devoted several years attempting to place the Hart and Crouse Company in Utica on a sound financial basis. This firm, which manufactures furnaces and heating equipment, was founded by Hart’s father and Hart’s wife’s father. The firm is presently owned by other persons. Following this, Hart became active in numerous movements to reduce expenditures in the State government of New York. Subsequently in about 1932 he organized the New York State Economic Council, now known as the National Economic Council, Inc., with offices in New York City and Utica, New York. His annual salary from the inception thereof was reported to be $10,000. The organization was originally financed by manufacturing and financial concerns located in the State of New York.

Hart was described by an old acquaintance as having come from one of the old established families in Utica, was a brilliant and well educated man was thoroughly patriotic and loyal, and taken part in numerous business enterprises, and was one time a member of one of the leading law firms in Utica. In this latter connection this informant stated it was not known whether Hart went to law school or that he ever appeared in court as a lawyer.

Another source stated Hart was very influential and respected in his own community, but had few intimate friends. He said Hart was known as the type who knew “everybody that counted” and acted in a formal and aloof manner. His personal unpopularity in Utica was attributed in part to the fact that he was too outspoken, tactless, bull-headed, and possessing a peculiar type of personality.

Hart was described as believing in the capitalistic system and particularly opposed to Communism and the New Deal Administration. It was said that the citizens of Utica generally considered him sincere and 100% American in spite of his unfavorable publicity. Some people, it was claimed who did not know him, might think him to be opposed to the country’s war aims at that time.

Information of a current nature regarding the National Economic Council, Inc., is not known. From various sources in the past it was described as being an organization of about 17,000 members drawn from throughout the State of New York. Its headquarters were said to have been located at 17 East 42^nd Street, New York City, with a branch office at Utica. A folder distributed by the Council in 1940 described as the Council’s purposes: 1. To curb Government spending; 2. To reduce oppressive tactics; 3. To oppose subversive groups; 4. To oppose stifling restrictions of private enterprises, and 5. To promote true recovery. The officers of the Council as listed in the folder are as follows: President—Merwin K. Hart; Treasurer—George D. Graves; Vice-President— [name missing] Chase National Bank, New York City; Chairman of the Finance Committee—William Fellows Morgan, New York City; Vice-Presidents—Elon Hooker—President Hooker Electrochemical Company, New York City; Thomas M. Peters, New York City; Alexander D. Falck, Chairman, Corning Glass Works, Elmira, New York.

A confidential source advised that early in 1940 the headquarters of the Council seemed to be a meeting place for groups of people who were apparently interested in setting up a totalitarian form of government. This organization was also said to furnish material to Reverend Charles Coughlin for his use. Starting in late 1939 it was reported that the Council devoted about 90% of its efforts to the distribution of propaganda on behalf of the Spanish Republican Government.

The answer to question “d.” is not known to this Bureau. Accordingly, appropriate inquiry is being instituted in an effort to ascertain the desired information. Upon receipt of the results of this inquiry I shall promptly advise you.

Source: Ernie Lazar FOIA Collection at archive.org. Federal Bureau of Investigation, N.Y.C. Hart, Merwin K.—HQ 100-128996, Misc. Serials.  pp. 187-189.

 

_______________________

WASHINGTON CITY NEWS SERVICE
[teletype]
File Time Stamp: August 14, 1950

MERWIN K. HART, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL, INC., SAID TODAY THE WORD “DEMOCRACY” IS CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH COMMUNISM AND SHOULD BE DISCARDED.

HE TOLD THE SPECIAL HOUSE COMMITTEE INVESTIGATING LOBBYING THAT THE U.S. IS A REPUBLIC AND THAT “IT IS TIME FOR US TO RETURN TO THAT CONCEPTION.”

THE TERM “DEMOCRACY” GAINED ITS CURRENT STATUS AFTER IT WAS USED BY GEORGEI DIMITROV AT A MEETING OF THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL IN MOSCOW IN 1935, HART SAID.

REPEATING WHAT HE SAID IN A SPEECH TO THE UNION LEAGUE CLUB OF NEW YORK IN 1940, HART TOLD THE COMMITTEE:

“I WONDER SOMETIMES IF ONE OF THE CAUSES OF OUR TROUBLE TODAY DOES NOT ARISE FROM THE FACT THAT WE HAVE BEEN OVER-DRILLED INTO BELIEVING WE ARE A DEMOCRACY, THIS, TOO, MAY BE ONE OF THE LATEST ‘INSIDIOUS WILES OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE…IT IS TIME TO BRUSH ASIDE THIS WORD WITH ITS ‘CONNOTATIONS.’”

HART WAS CALLED BEFORE THE LOBBY COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF THE EFFORTS MADE BY HIS ORGANIZATION TO INFLUENCE LEGISLATION IN WHICH IT IS INTERESTED. THE COUNCIL IS CLASSIFIED BY BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEN AS RIGHT-WING.

IN ONE OF SEVERAL PREVIOUS STATEMENTS MADE BY HART, WHICH WERE PUT INTO THE COMMITTEE RECORD, HE SAID THERE IS AN “EXTREMELY ACTIVE GROUP” ATTEMPTING TO CONVERT THE UNITED STATES FROM A REPUBLIC TO A DEMOCRACY—“THAT IS, FROM A REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF GOVERNMENT INTO A MOBOCRACY, GOVERNED EVENTUALLY BY A DICTATOR.”

ALSO PUT INTO THE COMMITTEE RECORD WERE NUMEROUS EXCHANGES OF LETTERS IN WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS AND GIFTS TO THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL WERE DISCUSSED.

THE LETTERS SHOWED THAT TWO OF THE ACTIVE CONTRIBUTORS TO THE COUNCIL ARE LAMMOT DU PONT AND IRENEE DU PONT, BOTH OF WILMINGTON, DEL. THE RECORDS SHOWED THAT IRENEE DU PONT GAVE THE COUNCIL $11,000 IN 1948 TO PAY FOR SUBSCRIPTIONS TO PAMPHLETS THAT WERE SENT TO COLLEGES, CHURCHES AND LIBRARIES.

HART SAID IN ONE LETTER TO FORMER U.S. SEN. JOESPH R. GRUNDY, OF BRISTOL, PA., THAT THE COUNCIL’S LEGAL STAFF HAD FOUND A METHOD OF HELPING ITS CONTRIBUTORS SAVE ON THEIR INCOME TAX PAYMENTS.

“MAY I SAY THAT WHILE UNDER A RULING OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT OUR NON-NEW DEAL NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL IS NOT ABLE TO OFFER THE DEDUCTIBILITY PRIVILEGE TO ITS CONTRIBUOTRS, YET WE ARE ABLE TO GET SUBSTANTIAL BENEFIT FROM THE FACT THAT A CONTRIBUTION MADE TO US OF MONEY TO PURCHASE SUBSCRIPTIONS AT $10 EACH TO OUR COUNCIL PUBLICATIONS TO GO TO EDUCATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS IS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THE INCOME TAX LAW,” HART WROTE GRUNDY.

HART’S LETTER SAID THAT FROM TIME TO TIME GRUNDY HAD SHOWN INTEREST IN THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL. THE FORMER PENNSYLVANIA SENATOR WAS INVITED TO MAKE A “FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL” CONTRIBUTION TO THE WORK OF THE COUNCIL.

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PRODUCED AT THE COMMITTEE HEARING TO SHOW WHAT GRUNDY’S REPSONSE WAS.

6/21—N122P

Source: Ernie Lazar FOIA Collection at archive.org. Federal Bureau of Investigation. HART, Merwin Kimball, HQ 100-128996, 139-142.

ADD 1 LOBBYING (122P)

THE HOUSE LOBBY INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE DISCLOSED THAT CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ABOUT ONE OF ITS SECRET MEETINGS HAD LEAKED OUT TO A LOBBY WHICH IT IS INVESTIGATING.

HARRY S. BARGER, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL, DECLINED TO TELL THE COMMITTEE HOW HE GOT INSIDE INFORMATION ABOUT THE COMMITTEE’S JANUARY 17 MEETING.

IN A MEMO FROM BARGER TO ERWIN K. HART, NEC PRESDIENT, BARGER SAID “A FRIEND OF MINE” SAW A REPORT OF THE MEETING. BARGER DECLINED TO NAME THE FRIEND AND ASKED THE COMMITTEE FOR A RULING ON WHETHER HE WOULD BE COMPELLED TO ANSWER.

CHAIRMAN BUCHANAN SAID THE PROBLEM WOULD BE TAKEN UP IN CLOSED SESSION.

IN BARGER’S MEMO, INTRODUCED AS EVIDENCE, HE WROTE HART THAT THE COMMITTEE HAD FOUND THAT $90,000 HAD BEEN CONTRIBUTED TO NEC “FROM THE DUPONTS,” AND THAT THE COMMITTEE THOUGHT NEC WAS “SOMEWHAT SUBVERSIVE IN CHARACTER.”

BARGER WROTE THAT “THE CIO AND KINDRED SPIRITS” WERE RUNNING THE COMMITTEE AND “THAT THE SETUP SHOULD BE VERY CAREFULLY EXPOSED IF AND WHEN REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COUNCIL ARE CALLED BEFORE THE BUCHANAN COMMITTEE X X X.”

REVELATION OF THE MEMO BROUGHT SHARP COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS, ESPECIALLY REP. CLYDE DOYLE, D., CAL., WHO DECLARED “I EMPHATICALLY RESENT” THE CHARGE THAT THE COMMITTEE IS UNDER DOMINATION OF ANY ONE.

BARGER SAID THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE COMMITTEE’S SECRET MEETING “WAS GIVEN TO ME IN CONFIDENCE” AND COULD HAVE COME FROM ANY ONE OF “THREE OR FOUR FRIENDS.”

“I DON’T THINK I SHOULD BE CALLED UPON TO NAME MY SOURCES ANY MORE THAN A NEWSPAPER MAN SHOULD BE,” HE SAID.

6/21—WM611P

Source: Ernie Lazar FOIA Collection at archive.org. Federal Bureau of Investigation. HART, Merwin Kimball, HQ 100-128996, 139-142.

_______________________

And no counterrevolution would be complete without the guns
Reported June 1950 in the Washington Post

It was brought out, however, that Hart warned subscribers in his economic council letter in January, 1948, to arm themselves with pistols and rifles to resist the Communist threat.

“We have one concrete suggestion to make to every citizen who is impressed by the potential danger,” he wrote. “Let him possess himself of one or more guns making sure they are in good working condition and that other members of his family know how to use them.”

After the letter was read, Hart explained it had been written after a trip to Europe. He said it seemed to him that laws against the possession of firearms discriminate against law-abiding citizens because Communists and others ignore them.

Washington Post clipping “circa 6/_/50, p. 5.

Source: Ernie Lazar FOIA Collection at archive.org. Federal Bureau of Investigation. HART, Merwin Kimball, HQ 100-128996, 139-142.