NOTES

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

1. Joe Alex Morris, Those Rockefeller Brothers, Harper and Brothers, N.Y., 1953, p. 16.

2. Ibid., p. 180.

3. Ibid., p. 171.

4. Fortune, February, 1955, p. 140.

5. Ibid.

6. Morris, p. 34.

7. Nevins, II, p. 424.

8. New York Times, May 21, 1960; 25:8.

9. Ibid., p. 48. Most of the many magazine articles on the brothers, and some later books, draw heavily upon or are modeled on the Morris book, to which I am greatly indebted for information. Some of the magazine articles on the brothers collectively or individually have appeared in Fortune, February and March, 1955; The Economist, June 6, 1959; U.S. News & World Report, February 1, 1960, and April 1, 1963; and the New Yorker, January 9 and 16, 1965. There was also William Manchester, A Rockefeller Family Portrait, Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1959, much of which appeared originally in Holiday magazine. The brothers make good periodical and newspaper "copy."

10. Baran and Sweezy, p. 34.

11. Lindahl and Carter, passim.

12 Morris, p. 162.

13. Ibid. What "progress" and "fair" mean depends upon one's own interpretation.

14. Ibid., p. 166.

15. Ibid., p. 169.

16. Fortune, March, 1955, p. 116.

17. Ibid.

18. Morris, p. 33.

19. Ibid., pp. 109-10.

20. Ibid., pp. 180-81.

21. Moody's Industrial Manual, June, 1966, p. 1609.

22. Foundation Directory, 1964, p. 424.

23. Morris, p. 144.

24. Ibid., p. 136. The vexed later relations of Rockefeller with the Merritts were recounted by Gates in a pamphlet, The Truth About Mr. Rockefeller and the Merritts, New York, 1911.

25. Nevins, II, p. 401.

26. Ibid., p. 199.

27. Ibid., p. 166.

28. Ibid., p. 200.

29. Raymond B. Fosdick, John D. Rockefeller, Jr.: A Portrait, Harper, N.Y., 1953, p. 144 .

30. Flynn, God's Gold, p. 458.

31. Nevins, II, p. 202.

32. Ibid., p. 203.

33. Ibid., pp. 200-12.

34. Flynn, God's Gold, pp. 310-11.

35. Nevins, II, p. 274.

36. Ibid., p. 391.

37. Fosdick, p. 122.

38. Raymond B. Fosdick, The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation, Harper and Brothers, N.Y., 1952, p. x.

39. The Rockefeller Foundation, Annual Report, 1950, p. 306. Securities were carried in this report at a ledger value of $152,241,857.35 but were also stated to have a quoted market value of $270,711,218.38, which gave the entire fund at the time a market value of $276,572,693.16. Increases in market value add to the dollar worth of holdings even though grants are made out of principal.

40. General Education Board, Annual Report, 1950, p. 58. Securities then carried at $19,012,162.04 had a market value of $20,396,565.63, giving assets a slightly higher total than stated in my text. The Board, in a Review and Final Report, 1902-64, marking the termination of its activities, reported a total expenditure in its career of $324,632,958. Of this, $129,209,167 was an original gift from John D. Rockefeller; $128,848,570 was income from investments; $50,703,024 was capital gain; and $15,872,197 represented other receipts of principal and income. Grants consisted of $208,204,853 to universities and colleges; $62,675,363 to all levels of Negro education, including collegiate; $25,799,262 to "science of education"; $8,433,541 to non-Negro public education; $6,669,255 to miscellaneous educational activities; $2,642,690 to fellowships and scholarships; and $10,207,994 to administration.

41. Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Annual Report, 1954-1955, no page number.

42. Ibid., 1960, pp. 10, 23.

43. Fosdick, The Story . . . , pp. 45.

44. Ibid., p. 3.

45. Ibid., p. 2.

46. Ibid., p. 7.

47. Ibid.

48. Flynn, God's Gold, p. 296.

49. Nevins, II, p. 409.

50. Flynn, God's Gold, p. 293.

51. Fosdick, The Story . . . , p. 6.

52. Manchester, p. 10.

53. Nevins, I, pp. 386-87.

54. Ibid., p. 387.

55. The tension observed to exist between Big Business and the intellectuals derives in part from attitudes toward the Constitution. The intellectuals as good students absorbed a great respect for James Madison and the Founding Fathers in the course of their public school career. Businessmen, on the other hand, have shown a marked tendency to twist the Constitution in the service of their own needs. In so doing business people did only what many other groups did or tried to do. Owing to their greater power they were better able to get away with inroads on the Constitution and to make them deeper. Hence, other reasons apart, there is widespread distrust of business people, successful exponents of a self-servingly flexible Constitution, by intellectuals seriously committed to the spirit of the Constitution. To get off this public reprobation for being "anti-business," intellectuals manifestly should take the Constitution less seriously.

56. Nevins, I, p. 386.

57. That the socialist critique of capitalism is vastly overdrawn out of emotional zeal can easily be shown in hundreds of items. As an instance, socialists and communists long contended that racial antipathy was fostered in the United States by capitalists in order to divide the working class and thus impede the benign revolution. Yet a large number of precise recent studies shows a preponderance of the educated and the heavily propertied supporting the Negro claim to full social equality, while among the white working class and the lower middle class the stiffest opposition to Negro claims is registered. Many large labor unions simply bar Negroes, thus preventing their employment in certain lines of work. What the capitalist attitude really was to the Negro represented merely an opportunistic accommodation (as now toward labor unions) with noncapitalist agrarian southern whites, whose political support was wanted for capitalist legislative schemes.

58. The similarity in form but difference in specific content between pro-socialist and pro-capitalist arguments is interesting. The modes of thought in each case are those of the synthesizing English and French classical economists. Pro-capitalist elements, for example, never tire of depicting communism as a cohering, monolithic international structure, operated from a single center. But socialists have long held to the view, which Baran-Sweezy subscribe to, that capitalism is an interlocked, international, basically monolithic entity, operated under identical rules in all its parts. Both arguments are thoroughly unsound. So-called socialism and so-called capitalism are significantly different from country to country. As to capitalism the differences are spelled out for different countries in Andrew Shonfield, Modern Capitalism, Oxford University Press, N.Y., 1965. Similarly, socialists argue that capitalism impedes all progress toward the solution of world problems, while capitalists claim that capitalism is identical with progress. Both arguments are false. Indeed, there is a similar degree of falsity and accuracy in the arguments pro and con of the proponents of each purely abstract system. The intellectual problem is to select from each side what is objectively valid. Many criticizable features of the politico-economic system have no necessary connection with capitalism as such--for example, the tax structure, which differs in rates and modes from country to country. The depletion allowance and various of the other tax loopholes written into the law with the consent of Congress and the president, while sought and obtained by various individual capitalists for their own benefit at the expense of fellow citizens, are not prescribed for or required by capitalism. If all the tax loopholes were eliminated, capitalism would not only continue but would probably give a more balanced account of itself. A pure capitalist would want a strictly equitable tax law. The tax laws derive from individual greed, not capitalism. And Stalin's concentration camps had nothing to do with socialism.

59. Morris, p. 36.

60. E. J. Kahn, Jr., "Profiles: Resources and Responsibilities--II," New Yorker, January 16, 1965, p. 61.

61. Morris, p. 42.

62. Ibid., p. 28.

63. Ibid.

64. E. J. Kahn, Jr., "Profiles: Resources and Responsibilities--I," New Yorker, January 9, 1965, p. 37.

65. Ibid.

66. Ibid., pp. 38, 40.

67. Ibid.

68. Ibid., p. 46.

69. Morris, pp. 57-58.

70. Kahn, II, p. 41.