Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Law and Economics

Harvard. Principles of Law for Economics. Course description, enrollment, final exams. Wyman, 1902-1903

 

In addition to a course in accounting that was introduced into the undergraduate curriculum at Harvard for students expecting to go on into business, the following course taught by a young Law School lecturer, Bruce Wyman (b. 15 June 1875; d. 21 June 1926) was offered to provide future businessmen an overview of commercial and trade law. In the announcement for the previous academic year students expecting to go to study law had been explicitly not encouraged to take the course.

______________________

Earlier posts concerning
Prof Bruce Wyman

https://www.irwincollier.com/harvard-law-and-economics-syllabus-and-exams-wyman-1901-1902/

https://www.irwincollier.com/harvard-course-with-a-snapper-problem-1910/

______________________

Obituary of Bruce Wyman (1876-1926)

PROF BRUCE WYMAN DIES AT WABAN HOME
Well Known as Authority on Railroad Rates
Taught at Harvard Law and Wrote Many Text Books

NEWTON. June 21—Prof Bruce Wyman, internationally-known authority on public service corporations, railroad rates and restraint of trade, died of heart disease today at his home, 15 Winnetaska road, Waban. He recently had celebrated his 50th birthday anniversary.

Born in Hyde Park, June 15, 1876, the son of Ferdinand A. and Harriet Ann (Bruce) Wyman, he prepared for Harvard at the Chauncy Hall School, Boston, being graduated with the highest possible honors. He was equally distinguished at Harvard, from which he was graduated in 1896. He continued his studies, receiving his master of arts from Harvard the next year and was graduated from the Harvard Law School in 1900.

Prof Wyman made an enviable record during the eight years at Harvard and was once made a member of the faculty of the Law School, making a specialty of public carriers and the laws pertaining to them. He held his position at Harvard until 1914, when he voluntarily resigned following testimony before the Public Service Commission at a railroad hearing that he was retained by the New Haven Railroad.

Wrote Many Books

He did not stop his scholastic work, however, but became a lecturer In the Chicago Law School and Blackstone Institute, and later became affiliated with the Portia Law School of Boston, teaching there for nine years and also serving as its secretary.

His scholarly labors also included the writing of a great mass of papers on his field and he published many books, some of them becoming text books at various schools and universities. Among his books are: “Restraint of Trade,” “Mortgage Securities,” “Administrative Law,” “Railroad Rate Regulation,” “Public Utilities,” “Control of the Market,” “Public Service Corporations.”

Prof Wyman also carried on a considerable practice in Boston and Washington. His office in Boston was at 291 Washington st. From 1900 to 1908, he was engaged in general work, but from then on he entered more and more into a consultive practice. He was retained by the New Haven Railroad for years, having charge of all claims filed before the Interstate Commerce Commission in reference to the road. The New York Central and many other railroads also retained him. He was also counsel for the National Civic Association and an investigator for the Directors of the Port of Boston. As an outstanding authority in his field, Gov Eugene Foss called him into consultation and game him an active part in the framing of the Public Service Commission Act.

Funeral Tomorrow

Prof Wyman was married June 30, 1902, to Ethel Andrews of Cambridge. Before moving to his late home in Waban he lived at 16 Quincy st, Cambridge. He was a member of the Phi Beta Kappa and the Theta Delta Chi Fraternities, was a Republican in politics and an Episcopalian in religion. He was also a member of many social organizations of Boston, Newton, Cambridge, New York and Washington.

He is survived by his wife; a son, Andrews Wyman, who will be graduated from Harvard this week; a daughter, Rosemary Wyman, a student at Wellesley; a sister, Miss Martha A. Wyman of Somerville, and a brother, Walter F. Wyman of Arlington.

Funeral services will be held at the old Wyman home town of Littleton on Wednesday. Services will be conducted at the Littleton Unitarian Church and at Westlawn Cemetery.

Source: The Boston Globe (June 22, 1926), p. 23.

______________________

Course Description
Economics 21
1902-03

  1. *The Principles of Law in their Application to Industrial Problems. — Competition and Combination. , Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri. at 11. Mr. Wyman.

This course considers certain rules of the law governing the course of modern trade and the organization of modern industry. The commercial law is thus taken up at large in its application to the conduct of modern business. The aim of the course is to give to students who mean to enter business life some contact with the law and some understanding of the legal point of view. At the same time the problems brought forward are actual and the rules of law discussed are specific, so that the instruction may prove of service in a business career. As the course deals with adjudication and legislation on questions of first importance in the economic development of modern times, it may also be of advantage to those who wish to equip themselves for the intelligent discussion of issues having both legal and economic aspects.

In 1902-03 five principal topics will be discussed: Competition — Combination — Incorporation — Consolidation — State Control. In Competition the first issue is the extent to which competition is allowed: in some cases competition is free, in other cases it is unfree. Competition is legal unless there is franchise. The second issue is the methods by which competition is permitted: in some cases competition is fair, in other cases it is unfair. Fraud, Disparagement, and Coercion are not legal. In Combination in Restraint of Trade, the division is between a suppression of competition and a regulation of competition. For example, the railroad pool is illegal, the factors agreement is legal. Thus it is seen that a combination which involves unreasonable restraint and unfair competition is illegal, while if it involves reasonable restraint and fair competition it is legal. Here are examined the corner and the strike. In the Corporation only the main principles involved are taken up: the organization of the corporation and the administration of the corporation. In the treatment of the Consolidation all the previous discussion is summoned up. The public problems presented by the reorganization of the industrial system, now going on so fast, is one question; what regulation of combination there should be, is the other. The most stress is laid upon the last topic — State Control. The proper regulation of the public callings — the railroads and the like — is discussed at much length; so also is the proper police of the private callings — the factories and the like.

The conduct of this course will be by the reading and discussion of cases from the law reports. The cases selected cover the whole field of the industries and the whole course of the trades, so that both fact and law involved are informing. Course 21 is designed for Seniors and graduate students who intend to enter business. If any others wish to take the course they must obtain written consent of the instructor.

Source: Harvard University. Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Division of History and Political Science  [Comprising the Departments of History and Government and Economics], 1902-03. Published in The University Publications, New Series, no. 55. June 14, 1902.

______________________

Course Enrollment
Economics 21
1902-03

Economics 21. Mr. Wyman. — Principles of Law in their application to Industrial Problems.

Total 58: 4 Gr., 33 Se., 13 Ju., 2 So., 6 Others.

Source: Harvard University. Annual Report of the President of Harvard College, 1902-03, p. 68.

______________________

Course Examinations
Economics 21
1902-03

ECONOMICS 21
Mid-Year Examination
1902-03

Answer eight questions. Give reasons with care.

  1. The Bradford Gas Company was chartered to supply gas in Bradford; the Pudsey Gas Company in a similar way was engaged in the supply of gas in Pudsey. It appeared in evidence that the Bradford Company was about to furnish gas to a large mill inside the city limits of Pudsey. May the Pudsey Company have an injunction?
  2. The makers of Vance’s Infant Food advertise that “Vance’s Food is far more nutritious and healthful than Mellen’s Food; experience shows that babies grow fatter on Vance’s Food than on any other; the analysis by our expert Dr. Muspratt shows that Vance’s Food has 98 per cent. nutritive elements to 78 per cent. such elements in Mellin’s Food.” The proprietors of Mellen’s Food sue the proprietors of Vance’s Food, and in their statement offer to prove the superiority of Mellen’s Food to Vance’s Food in all respects. How will the case probably be decided?
  3. A travelling agent of the Globe Stove Works goes through the Southwest getting small dealers to sign contracts for stoves. The travelling agent of the World Stove Works crosses his track often. In several instances the agent of the World Company, acting under orders from headquarters, makes a special price to dealers that have bought from the Globe Works, and induces them to cancel their orders for Globe stoves and buy the World stoves. Has the Globe Company any remedy against the World Company?
  4. A biscuit company begins the sale of a product which they call the “Uneeda biscuit.” Another company later begins the sale of “Iwanta biscuit.” The makers of the “Uneeda biscuit” bring a bill against the makers of “Iwanta biscuit” for an injunction. They next institute a process to get registration of “Uneeda” as their trademark. What is the probable fate of each proceeding? Can they succeed in both?
  5. The National Harrow Company send broadcast the following circular: “We believe that we have the patents, and we have determined henceforth to sue any dealer handling these infringing harrows wherever they are found.” The infringing harrows referred to were those of the Davison Company. During the year following these circulars the business of the Davison Company fell off 50 per cent. In the year after that the Supreme Court decided in one of the suits which the National Company had prosecuted in good faith that their principal patents were invalid. The Davison Company now sue the National Company for damages done their business by the circulars quoted above. What decision?
  6. There are two ice manufacturing companies in a Southern city. The second makes a lease of all its plant to the first for ten years for a high rental; then the first leases this same plant to third parities to be used only as a storehouse; thereupon the first ice company increases its rate 50 per cent. according to the previous understanding with the second company. This situation lasts for a year, when a new third company constructs a new plant with modern machinery and puts its rates at 50 per cent. below the first company. The first company reduces its rates, and thereupon refuses to pay the full rental to the second company according to the terms of the lease. What rights has the second company against the first company?
  7. The Steel Workers Union declares a strike at the steel mills to get an increase of wages. A picket of six men is placed by the Union, two at each end of the block and two at the mill gate, to persuade new workmen that this is a just strike, and that therefore they should not seek employment. Can the employers have an injunction against their employees?
  8. A retail lumber association agrees not to buy lumber of any wholesale lumber dealer who sells direct to customers. A certain wholesale dealer begins to sell to customers direct in car load lots only. Thereupon the executive committee of the lumber association sends notices to all members, warning them not to buy any lumber of this wholesale dealer upon penalty of a fine to be paid in accordance with the by-laws. May the wholesale dealer sue the members of the association for damages caused thereby to his business?
  9. The makers of the Cow Brand of saleratus make an arrangement with jobbers that if the jobbers will not sell any saleratus below five cents per pound, the makers of the Cow Brand will grant those jobbers a special discount upon settlement of bills. The makers of the Bull Brand, an inferior quality, are thereby damaged, since the jobbers can make no sales of the Bull Brand under those circumstances. May the makers of the Bull Brand sue the makers of the Cow Brand?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Mid-year Examinations 1852-1943. Box 6. Papers (in the bound volume Examination Papers Mid-years 1902-1903).

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

ECONOMICS 21
Year-end Examination
1902-03

Answer nine questions.

  1. A, B, and C, who comprise all the stockholders in the Central Mfg. Co., execute a deed to X, in their names, describing themselves as sole owners of all the shares in the Central Mfg. Co., which deed purports to convey to X the mill owned by the corporation. The next day A, B, and C hold a corporation meeting, and vote to sell the same mill to Y; the proper officers of the corporation accordingly execute a deed in the name of the corporation to Y. Who gets the mill, X or Y? Both pay full value and neither has notice of the other.
  2. A general incorporation act provides that seven persons may, by subscribing their names to a memorandum of association, form a corporation. A and six clerks of A sign the memorandum. The capital stock is fixed at $200,000. At the subscription A agrees to take 994 shares and the others one each. The corporation agrees to take the factory of A at a valuation of $150,000, which is not unreasonable. The corporation, in pursuance of the bargain, issues to A $99,400 in paid up shares and $56,000 in first mortgage bonds. The business of the corporation is begun and one B subscribes to $100,000 of the shares, for which he pays $50,000. Later the business incurs debts to the amount of $90,000, which it cannot meet. Finally it fails, with $50,000 assets left. What shall be done?
  3. Bill in equity by a minority stockholder in a cotton manufacturing company, alleging (1) that the majority are about to expend half the capital in purchasing cotton at such a high price that it will be impossible to manufacture it at a profit; (2) that the majority are about to purchase a steamboat to run in opposition to the existing line of freight boats. Will the stockholders get an injunction in either (1) or (2)?
  4. A gets a mining corporation formed to buy of him a certain gold mine which he has bought for $10,000, — that is all he believes it to be worth; but he unloads it upon his dummy corporation for $100,000. The stock in this corporation is sold to the public upon a glowing prospectus. Strangely enough, the gold mine upon working proves to be worth $500,000. Has the corporation any right to sue A now?
  5. The directors in a bank do no more than examine the quarterly summaries of the general manager and compare them with the report of the chief auditor. It turns out that the manager and the auditor have been in collusion all the time for five years to cover up embezzlements and divide the plunder. When the bank fails in consequence the directors are sued by the depositors. What decision?
  6. A partnership pool is formed between four oil corporations that have control of 80% of the product of their district. By the terms of it all expenses and all receipts are to be pooled and the net earnings paid over at the end of every year in proportion to capitalization. At the end of the second year three of the corporations divide up the profits and refuse to give the fourth anything. The fourth brings suit. What will it recover?
  7. A securities corporation is formed under the laws of a State which permits a corporation to hold stock in another corporation. This corporation purchases by exchanges of its stock 90% of the stock of the X railroad and 90% of the stock of the Y railroad. The X railroad and the Y railroad lie in distant States, the laws of which forbid consolidation of competing railroads such as the X and Y railroads are throughout. Is this attempted merger legal?
  8. A railroad corporation refuses to pay its engineers $3.75, an increase of 10% over previous per diem wages. Accordingly the engineers quit work; but, although they watch the situation closely, they offer no show of force. The railroad posts a notice that no more freight will be received until further notice. Have they a legal right to do this?
  9. A gas company publishes a rule that customers who wish gas must deposit $25. However, gas is furnished to a man who lives on X Street for a month on credit. When he moves to Y Street he refuses to pay for gas consumed at X Street, and the company refuses to supply him with gas at Y Street until he does. The man thereupon tenders the company $25 deposit and demands gas in Y Street; he is refused again and now brings suit. What decision?
  10. A telephone company also furnishes a messenger service as a separate part of its business. A company which only furnishes messenger service applies for a telephone. The telephone come refuses on the ground that their messenger business will be injured thereby. Is this refusal justifiable?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Examination Papers 1873-1915. Box 6. Papers Set for Final Examinations in History, Government, Economics, History of Religions, Philosophy, Education, Fine Arts, Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Music in Harvard College, June 1903 (in the bound volume Examination Papers 1902-1903).

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Principles of Accounting. Course description, enrollment, and final exam. W.M. Cole, 1902-1903

As the course description clearly indicates, this undergraduate accounting course was offered by the economics department for those Harvard students planning a business career. At the time accounting was seen to be a kissing cousin to statistics and both essentially amounted to a hill of bean-counting.

______________________

Description of Economics 18
First term, 1902-03

  1. 1hf. *The Principles of Accounting. Half-course (first half-year). Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 3.30. Mr. W. M. Cole.

This course is designed primarily for students who expect to enter a business career, and wish to understand the processes by which the earnings and values of industrial properties are computed. It is not intended to afford practice in book-keeping, but to give students a grasp of principles which shall enable them to comprehend the significance of accounts.

In order that students may become familiar with book-keeping terms and methods, a few exercises will be devoted to a brief study of the common systems of recording simple mercantile transactions. The chief work of the course, however, will be a study of the methods of determining profit, loss, and valuation. This will include an analysis of receipts, disbursements, assets, and liabilities, in various kinds of industry, and a consideration of cost of manufacture, cost of service, depreciation and appreciation of stock and of equipment, interest, sinking funds, dividends, and the like. Published accounts of corporations will be studied, and practice in interpretation will be afforded. Attention will also be given to the functions and methods of auditors.

The instruction will be given by lectures, discussions, reading, and written work.

Course 18 is open to Seniors and Graduates who have taken Economics 1.

Source: Harvard University. Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Division of History and Political Science  [Comprising the Departments of History and Government and Economics], 1902-03. Published in The University Publications, New Series, no. 55. June 14, 1902.

______________________

Enrollment in Economics 18
First term, 1902-03

Economics 18. 1hf. Mr. W. M. Cole. — The Principles of Accounting.

Total 46: 1 Gr., 28 Se., 11 Ju., 3 So., 3 Others.

Source: Harvard University. Annual Report of the President of Harvard College, 1902-03, p. 68.

______________________

Final Exam in Economics 18
First term, 1902-03

ECONOMICS 18
  1. Under normal conditions, on which side of a ledger — debit or credit — will appear the balance of the following accounts? In each case, state why you think as you do.

Bills Receivable.
Bills Payable.
Capital Stock.
Expense.
Accounts Payable.

  1. What should be debited and what credited after each of the following transactions?
    1. Buying on credit, at the first of the year, stationery expected to last eight months.
    2. Paying for that stationery by issuing a note.
    3. Paying that note.
    4. Exchanging that stationery at cost (none being used) for merchandise.
    5. Selling that merchandise at cost and receiving a note in payment.
    6. Collecting cash for the note.
      Now what is the net result, upon ledger balances, of all these transactions?
  2. Of the following transactions what would be the ultimate effect upon a railroad balance sheet? Designate, in each case, on which side of the balance sheet, and in what items, the change would appear.
    1. The issue of new capital stock and the use of the proceeds for new (additional) equipment.
    2. A conversion of bonds into stock.
    3. A distribution of accumulated profits of the past in the form of a scrip dividend which is converted into stock.
    4. A reduction in the valuation (set by the company in its own books) of stocks and bonds owned.
    5. Watering stock to represent supposed increase in earning capacity.
  3. In the middle of a business year, July 1, the sole proprietor of a store dies suddenly. You, as his executor, must determine the exact worth of his business. The trial balance of July 1 is given you. Can you get all needed information from that trial balance? If not, what is lacking? State just what you would do to determine the worth of the business. If you can explain best by figures, assume arbitrary figures (not necessarily reasonable) and proceed with those as a basis. Processes, rather than results, are to be shown.
  4. In cases of depreciation, one of at least three courses is open to the managers. State what are the three, and show how each is treated in the accounts.
  5. The following is a page of a book:–
Jan. 1 Balance 1,547.30
A. Andrews His invoice, Dec. 1 615.10
Bills receivable No. 127 paid 500.00
Bills payable No. 19 discounted 1,000.00
Merchandise Cash sales 173.28
Jan. 2 Bills receivable No. 116 paid 123.50
Insurance Premium ret’d on policy 73.23
Jan. 3 Bills receivable No. 139 paid 312.26
Bills receivable 935.76 935.76
Cash, Dr. 2,797.37 2,797.37
4,344.67

Explain fully what transactions are here recorded. What postings should be made, and to which side of each account? If any figures are not to be posted, why not?

  1. Can all the accounts of a business be nominal? Why, or why not?
    Can all the accounts of a business be real? Why, or why not?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Mid-year Examinations 1852-1943. Box 6. Papers (in the bound volume Examination Papers Mid-years 1902-1903).
Also included in Harvard University Archives. Examination Papers 1873-1915. Box 6. Papers Set for Final Examinations in History, Government, Economics, History of Religions, Philosophy, Education, Fine Arts, Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Music in Harvard College, June 1903 (in the bound volume Examination Papers 1902-1903).

Image SourceHarvard Alumni Bulletin, Vol. XIX, No. 16, p. 308. Portrait of William Morse Cole colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Categories
Berkeley Curriculum Economics Programs

Berkeley. Expansion of economics course offerings announcement. Course offerings 1904-1905.

 

In May 1903 the College of Commerce at the University of California announced a complete reorganization of the economics department’s course offerings for the coming academic year. This was reported in the Berkeley Gazette newspaper which appears to be a slight rearrangment of the University of California’s official Register for 1903-04. The newspaper article is provided in this post followed by the faculty and course announcements for the 1904-05 academic year.

So in the yin and yang of economic theory and application, practical economics received a boost at Berkeley early in the twentieth century with the introduction of  “…a large number of new courses in economics of the most direct practical application to the needs of modern industrial life.”

 

____________________________

Enlarges Economic Courses.
University Offers New Opportunities for Students of Practical Business.
[Announced for 1903-1904]

In response to the needs of the rapidly increasing number of students enrolled in the College of Commerce of the University of California, the work of the Department of Economics has been completely reorganized. Announcement has been made of a large number of new courses in economics of the most direct practical application to the needs of modern industrial life. These courses will be of the greatest interest, however, not only to students who are fitting themselves for banking, insurance, commerce, manufacturing, and exploitation of mineral resources, but also to the theoretical student.

Professor Carl C. Plehn, Dean of the College of Commerce, will offer during the coming year a course in “American Agriculture,” in which he will discuss the development of agriculture in the United States and its present condition from an economical point of view; a new course in “Accounting and Corporation Finance,” setting forth the principles of accounting and credit as illustrated by the methods of large corporations and of the Government, the character of negotiable securities, and the methods exemplified in bank statements and railroad and other corporation and trusts accounts: and courses in “Public Finance,” “Taxation,” and in “Statistics.”

Assistant Professor Wesley C. Mitchell will offer a new course in “Banking,” intended primarily to give men who expect to engage in business such general knowledge of banking as will best prepare them for their professions; a new course in “Hondy” [sic,  very likely a typographical error with “Money” the actual course name, see below] — a study of the economic problems centering around the monetary system; and courses in “Elementary Economic Ideas;” “The Problem of Labor” — a study of the position of wage earners in the economic organization of today; and in “Economic Origins.”

Mr. Lincoln Hutchinson, Instructor in Commercial Geography, will offer a new course in “The Materials of Commerce,” dealing with the principal commodities which enter into commercial affairs, production, sources and markets; a new course on the “Industrial and Commercial Development of the United States,” involving a discussion of the leading commercial problems of the day; a new course entitled the “Economic Position of the Great Powers,” a new course on “The Consular Service,” involving a brief history of the consular service, followed by a technical study of the training and duties of consuls and the practice of the leading commercial nations in consular affairs; and courses in “The History of Commerce,” “Commercial Geography,” and “The Commercial Resources of the Spanish-American Countries.”

Dr. Simon Litman, who recently came to the University as Instructor in Commercial Practice, will offer new courses in “Tariff Policies,” in “Modern Colonial Economics,” a study of the principal commercial and industrial problems which arise in connection with colonial conditions, as illustrated by the experience of the leading colonizing nations, and in “Communication and Transportation,” a study of the Post, the Telegraph, the Telephone, Trade Journals, and facilities for transportation other than railroads; and he will repeat courses already given in “Industrial Processes” and “The Technique of Trade.”

The instruction offered by the Department of Economics will be rounded out by special economic courses offered by professors in other departments. Professor Elwood Mead of the chair of Irrigation will offer a course on “The Organization of the Irrigation Industry,” Professor John C. Moore courses on “The Methods China and Japan,” Professor Ernest C. Moore courses on “The Methods of Modern Charities and Corrections,” and Albert W. Whitney of the Department of Mathematics -a new course in “Insurance,” an account of the history, principles and problems of life, fire, and other forms of insurance, with special study of the mathematical principles involved in actuarial science, and with practice in the computation and use of tables; and Mr. N. M. Hall of the Botany Department a course in “Economic Botany,” dealing with the plant families which furnish important commercial products and agricultural crops.

The work in economics will be completed by the highly important courses offered by the head of the department, Professor Adolph C. Miller of the chair of Political Economy and Commerce. Professor Miller announces a new course in “Railway Transportation,” an examination of the chief financial and economical questions which arise in railway organization and management, embracing such topics as capitalization, speculation, accounting, rate-making, competition, pooling, and consolidation; a new course in “Socialism,” a review of modern socialistic thought with some consideration of its bearing on the proper conception of the problem of social organization; a course in “Modern Industrialism,” dealing with the workings of competition and the tendency toward industrial monopolies; “The Financial History of the United States,” and a course in “Advanced Economics.”

As the culmination of the work of the department, Professor Miller announces a Seminary in Economics. Arrangements will be made for the guidance of individual students or groups of students competent, to engage in economical research. The results will be presented to the Seminary for discussion as occasion may suggest.

Source: The Berkeley Gazette (May 1, 1903), p. 2.

____________________________

Economics Course Offerings
[1904-1905]

Adolph Caspar Miller, M.A., Flood Professor of Political Economy and Commerce.

Carl Copping Plehn, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Finance and Statistics, on the Flood Foundation, and Dean of the Faculty of the College of Commerce.

Henry Rand Hatfield, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Accounting, on the Flood Foundation,

Wesley Clair Mitchell, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Commerce, on the Flood Foundation

Simon Litman, Dr.jur., Instructor in Commercial Practice.

Jessica Blanche Peixotto, Ph.D., Lecturer in Sociology.

Elwood Mead, M.S., C.E., D.Eng., Professor of the Institutions and Practice of Irrigation.

Thomas Walker Page, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Mediæval History.

Ernest Carroll Moore, LL.B., Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Education.

Albert Wurts Whitney, A.B., Assistant Professor of Mathematics and Insurance Methods.

1. The courses prerequisite to a group (15 units) of Upper Division work in the departments of History, Political Science, Economics, or Jurisprudence are any three of the following five; History 51, 54, 64, Political Science 1 (A and B), and Economics 1. No part of the work in the group of advanced courses is to be undertaken until all the three prerequisite courses shall have been completed.

2. But students who plan to take less than twelve units of Upper Division work in the four departments above mentioned may proceed immediately with the advanced courses for which they have the particular prerequisites.

The above regulations apply to students graduating in or after May, 1907. Other students are requested to observe the rules set forth in the Register for 1903-04, page 143.

A. Lectures on Commerce. Members of the Staff.

1 hr., throughout the year, ½ unit each half-year. M, 4. Prescribed each year for all students in the College of Commerce.

1. Introduction to Economics. Professor Miller.

A study of the elementary laws of economics as illustrated in the growth of industry and commerce in England and the United States.
3 hrs., throughout the year. M W F, 9.

2. Principles of Economics. Professor Miller and Assistant Professor Mitchell.

A critical exposition of the leading principles of economics on the basis of a selected text.
3 hrs., either half-year. First half-year, M W F, 10; second half-year, M W F, 9. Prerequisite: Course 1.
N. B. — This course should be taken by all students who intend to take any considerable amount of Economics.

5. Economics of Industry. Associate Professor Plehn.

An elementary course planned to meet the needs of the students in the Engineering Colleges.
3 hrs., first half-year. MWF, 1.

N.B. — This course will not be accepted as fulfilling any prescribed work in the College of Commerce, nor in the Colleges of General Culture.

3. Introduction to Commercial Geography. Associate Professor Hatfield.

The elements of scientific geography; relation between geographical phenomena and economical development; brief survey of the resources of the leading countries of the world.
2 hrs., first half-year. Tu Th, 11. Prerequisite: Course 1.

4. The Materials of Commerce. [Not given in 1904-05.]

The principal commodities which enter into commercial dealings; causes promoting their production; effects of climate, soil, and other conditions; detailed study of their sources, and of the markets in which they are sold.
3 hrs., second half-year. Tu Th S, 10. Prerequisite: Course 3.

4A. Geography of International Trade. Associate Professor Hatfield.

Demand and supply in the world markets; exports and imports of the leading countries; sea-ports; commercial and industrial centers; routes and methods of transportation; postal and telegraphic communication, etc.
2 hrs., second-half year. Tu Th, 11. Prerequisite: Course 3.

5a. American Agriculture. Associate Professor Plehn.

Leading factors in the development of agriculture in the United States and a study of its present condition from an economical point of view. This course will be based largely upon the materials furnished by the government reports and the census returns.
3 hrs., second half-year. M W F, 1. Prerequisite: Course 1, except that advanced students in the College of Agriculture may be admitted, with the consent of the instructor, without Course 1B, but a familiarity with the fundamental ideas and terminology of economics is essential.

6. History of Commerce. [Not given in 1904-05.]

Mediaeval commerce and the “Golden Age” of the Italian Republics; Turkish conquests and the “Age of Discovery”; new routes and the shifting of trade centers; the era of colonization and commercial rivalries; mercantilism and its results; nineteenth century commerce; its development and problems.
3 hrs., second half-year. Tu Th S, 10. Prerequisite: Course 3 and one course in English History.

7. Modern Industrialism. Professor Miller. [Not given in 1904-05.]

A descriptive and interpretative account of the rise of the modern industrial system, especially as affected by the Industrial Revolution. The workings of competition in the nineteenth century and the recent tendency toward the formation of industrial monopolies will receive particular attention.
3 hrs., second half-year. M W F, 2. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2.

8. Theory and History of Banking. Assistant Professor Mitchell.

A study of banking from the standpoint of its relations to the economic development of society. To show what rôle banks have played in this development and the functions they perform at present, attention will be directed to the origin of banking in Europe and America; the gradual changes in banking methods; governmental policies toward banks; the relations between banking, monetary, and fiscal systems; the effect of banking operations upon price fluctuations; the control of banks over the direction of investment; the special banking requirements of different communities; etc.
3 hrs., second half-year. M W F, 8. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2.

8A. Practical Banking. Associate Professor Hatfield.

The internal organization and administration of a modern bank, the nature of bank investments, the extension of credit, the valuation of an account, methods of keeping records.
3 hrs., first half-year. Tu Th S, 10. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2.

8B. Money. Assistant Professor Mitchell.

A study of the economic problems centering around the monetary system.
3 hrs., first half-year. M W F, 8. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2.

8C. International Exchanges. Assistant Professor Mitchell.

Foreign bills; a study of the various factors that affect their price; international trade in commodities; investments of capital in foreign countries; interest rates in important money-markets; shipments of gold; etc.
2 hrs., second half-year. Tu Th, 9. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2.

9. Public Finance-Taxation. Associate Professor Plehn.

The theory and methods of taxation, illustrated by the experience of various nations; the expenditure and administration of public funds; public debts. Especial attention will be paid to taxation in California.
3 hrs., first half-year. M W F, 2. Prerequisite: Course 1.

10. Statistics. Associate Professor Plehn.

The history, theory, and methods of statistics. The collection, analysis, and presentation of statistical data relating to eco nomics and kindred sciences. Practice in the use of mechanical, graphical, and other devices, and apparatus for tabulation, computation and analysis.
3 hrs., throughout the year, including one laboratory period. Tn Th, 11, and a laboratory period to be arranged.
Prerequisite: Course 1; Mathematics 20A must be taken in conjunction with this course. The special consent of the instructor is also necessary.

11. Insurance. Assistant Professor Whitney.

An account of the history, principles and problems of Insurance, particularly of Life-insurance and of Fire-insurance; a special study of the mathematical principles involved in actuarial science, with practice in the computation and use of tables.
3 hrs., second half-year. M W F, 9. Prerequisite: Mathematics 20a.

(77) The Economic Factors in American History. Associate Professor Page.

This course is intended to present, in their proper historical perspective, the facts and tendencies in the growth of American commerce, industry, and finance, and to indicate their influence on the constitutional and social development of the nation.
3 hrs., first half-year. M W F, 3. Prerequisite: Course 1 and two courses in American History.
[This course may be recorded as Economics 77 or History 77.]

12. Industrial and Commercial Development of the United States. [Not given in 1904-05.]

A study of the economic growth of the United States during the nineteenth century. The object is to give the student an understanding of causes which have brought the country to its present position among the nations of the world, and a basis for discussion of the leading commercial problems of to-day.
3 hrs., first half-year. Tu Th S, 9. Prerequisite: At least Sophomore standing, Course 3, and one course in American History.

12A. History of Economic Science. Professor Miller.

A critical review of the leading systems of economic thought since the sixteenth century.
2 hrs., first half-year. Tu Th, 2. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2, and at least Junior standing.

13A. Problems of Labor. Assistant Professor Mitchell.

The position of wage-earners in the economic organization of to-day.
3 hrs., first half-year. M W F, 9. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2, and at least Junior standing.

14. Principles of Accounting. Associate Professor Hatfield.

The interpretation of accounts with regard to the need of the business manager rather than those of the accountant. The formation and meaning of the balance sheet. The profit and loss statement. The various accounts appearing in the balance sheet and errors frequently found therein.
3 hrs., throughout the year. Tu Th S, 9. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2.

14A. The Investment Market. Associate Professor Hatfield.

Investment securities, corporation stocks and bonds, municipal and government bonds, market quotations, operations on the stock exchange, foreign and domestic exchange, the construction and use of exchange, bond and interest tables.
3 hrs., second half-year. Tu Th S, 9. Prerequisite: Course 14.

15. Financial History of the United States. Professor Miller.

A detailed study of the legislation and experience of the United States touching currency, banking, debt, taxation, expenditure, etc. The work will be based, as far as possible, on first-hand examination of sources.
3 hrs., second half-year. M W F, 10. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2, and at least Junior standing.

16A. Railway Transportation. Associate Professor Plehn.

An examination of the chief financial and economic questions which arise in railway organization and management, embracing such topics as capitalization, speculation, and accounting, rate making, competition, pooling, consolidation, etc.
3 hrs., second half-year. M W F, 2. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2, and at least Junior standing.

18. Methods of Modern Charities and Corrections; Theoretical. Assistant Professor Moore.

Studies in the administration of poor relief, the treatment of delinquents and defectives. Readings and lectures.
2 hrs., first half-year. Tu Th, 2. Prerequisite: Course 1 and Philosophy 2. Class to be limited at the discretion of the instructor.

19. Methods of Modern Charities and Corrections; Investigation. Assistant Professor Moore.

Investigation and field work to be done in part in connection with the Associated Charities of San Francisco and Oakland.
2 hrs., second half-year. Tu Th, 2. Prerequisite: Course 18.

23. Modern Industrial Processes. Dr. Litman.

The development and present condition of leading modern industries with particular reference to such industries as now exist or may be established on the Pacific Coast; emphasis will be laid on the technical processes.
3 hrs., first half-year. MWF, 10. Prerequisite: Course 1.

24. Mechanism and Technique of Trade. Dr. Litman.

Devices used by governments and individuals to promote commerce; exposition of the work performed by Boards of Trade, Commercial Museums, Mercantile Agencies, of transactions on Produce and Stock Exchanges, of modern wholesale and retail trade organizations. The course will include the reading by the student of mercantile publications, such as consular reports, trade and financial journals, etc.
3 hrs., first half-year. M W F, 9. Prerequisite: Course 1.

24A. Business Forms and Practice. Dr. Litman.

Detailed study of methods and forms used in connection with the purchase, sale and forwarding of goods; calculations necessitated by the various systems of weights, measures and moneys in different countries; the significance of price quotations in different markets; the meaning and determination of standards and grades as to quality; the forms and functions of invoices, bills of lading, warehouse receipts, consular certificates, and other business documents relating to trade.
3 hrs., second half-year. M W F, 9. Prerequisite: Course 1.

30. Economic Position of the Great Powers. [Not given in 1904-05.]

A comparative study of the commercial and industrial position of the leading nations, with particular reference to the countries of Europe.
2 hrs., first half-year. Tu Th, 11. Prerequisite: Course 3, at least Junior standing, and ability to use French and German statistical publications; consent of instructor must be obtained before enrollment.

31. The Consular Service. [Not given in 1904-05.]

A brief history of the consular service, followed by a technical study of the training and duties of consuls and the practice of the leading commercial nations in regard to appointments, etc.
2 hrs., second half-year. Tu Th, 11. Prerequisite: At least Junior standing; the consent of the instructor must be obtained before enrollment.

35. Customs Tariffs and Regulations. Dr. Litman.

Tariffs and existing reciprocity treaties and agreements of the leading commercial nations with special reference to the Tariff Law and Customs Regulations of the United States. A short tariff history and a general discussion of the aims and means of tariff policies will precede the practical part of the course, which latter will acquaint the student with the problems confronting the American importer and exporter in connection with duties, bounties, etc.
2 hrs., first-half-year. Tu Th, 2. Prerequisite: Course 1.

36. Modern Colonial Economics. Dr. Litman.

The principal commercial and industrial problems which arise in connection with colonial conditions, as illustrated by the experience of the leading colonizing nations. The object of this course is to acquaint the student with questions confronting a merchant and an investor in different colonies, and to show him how these have been and may be dealt with.
2 hrs., second half-year. Tu Th, 2. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2.

37. Communication and Transportation. Dr. Litman.

Means and methods of communication and transportation other than railroads, and their utilization in the service of commerce. An exhaustive study of internal, coast, and trans-oceanic shipping, of modern harbor facilities, of the post, the express, the telegraph, the telephone, etc.
3 hrs., second half-year. M W F, 10. Prerequisite: Course 1.

38. Commercial Resources of the Spanish-American Countries. [Not given in 1904-05.]

Detailed study of the geography, natural resources, and possibilities of development of these countries, devoting a year to each. In 1903–04 the Argentine Republic was studied. Particular attention is given to commercial relations with the United States. 1 hr., throughout the year. Hour to be arranged. Open only to graduate students who satisfy the instructor of their preparation for the work.

40. Economic Origins. Assistant Professor Mitchell.

An investigation of the origin and early development of fundamental economic customs and institutions.
2 hrs., first half-year. Tu Th, 10. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2.

42. Contemporary Socialism. Dr. Peixotto.

A study of the program and methods of the contemporary socialistic parties; a critical investigation of the theories on which these programs are based.
3 hrs., first half-year. M W F, 3. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2, and at least Junior standing.

43. History of Socialism. Dr. Peixotto.

An examination of the antecedents of contemporary socialism.
3 hrs., second half-year. M W F, 3. Prerequisite: Course 42.

45. Advanced Economics. Professor Miller.

This course is designed for students who wish to make a more thorough study of economic theory than can be undertaken in Courses 1 and 2. The aim is to work out a tenable system of economics on the basis of an examination of the theories of leading writers, past and present.
2 hrs., second half-year. Tu Th, 2. Prerequisite: Courses 1 and 2, and at least Senior standing.

20. History and Theory of Prices. Associate Professor Plehn.

The methods of scientific investigation applicable to a study of prices and the causes of their fluctuations.
The course runs throughout the year and credit will be given according to work done. For graduates only. A good training in economics and mathematics and a reading knowledge of French and German are prerequisite.

26. Seminary in Economics. Professor Miller.

Under this head are included arrangements for the guidance of the work of individual students, or groups of students, competent to engage in economic research. The results will be presented to the seminary for discussion as occasion may suggest. The course runs throughout the year, and credit will be given according to work done.

Oriental Languages 1A. Commerce of China and Japan. Professor Fryer.

A course of lectures on the historical and geographical features of the commerce of China and Japan, adapted for students in general, but particularly for those in the College of Commerce.
3 hrs., first half-year. M W F, 1.
[John Fryer, LL.D., Agassiz Professor of Oriental Languages and Literatures.]

Botany 14. Economic Botany. Mr. H. M. Hall.

Laboratory work on the morphology, relationships, properties, and geographical distribution of the plant families which furnish important commercial products and agricultural crops, accompanied by lectures on the uses, origin, cultivation, collection, and commerce of plant products.
6 hrs., first half-year; 3 units. M W F, 8–10.
[Harvey M Hall, M.S., Instructor in Botany, and Assistant Botanist to the Experiment Station]

Irrigation 1. Irrigation Institutions and Economics. Professor Mead and Mr. Stover.

Present conditions of irrigation in the United States; irrigation legislation; methods of establishing rights to water; interstate problems; conditions necessary to development of the agricultural resources of the arid west; comparisons of irrigation methods and laws of other lands with those of the United States; irrigation in humid sections of the United States; operation of irrigation works, individual, coöperative and corporate enterprises; national irrigation; water right contracts; duty of water. Lectures and recitations.
3 hrs., second half-year. Prescribed, Senior year, in the course in Irrigation Engineering, College of Civil Engineering, and in some courses in the College of Agriculture. Elective to students in Economics.
[Elwood Mead, M.S., C.E., Professor of the Institutions and Practice of Irrigation.
Arthur P. Stover, B.S., Instructor in Irrigation Engineering.]

Source: University of California. Register, 1904-1905, pp. 153-162, 171, 237-238, 264.

Image Source: University of California Buildings, Berkeley California, ca. 1907. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-View Mirror.

Categories
Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Reading Lists for Second Semester Graduate Economic Theory. Arrow, Bewley, Oniki, 1972

It’s been a while since Economics in the Rear-View Mirror has posted “new stuff”, e.g. the following half-century old reading list for the second half of the Harvard graduate sequence in economic theory taught in the spring term of 1972 by (not-quite-yet Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences Laureate) Kenneth Arrow, Truman Bewley, and Hajime Oniki.

The six reading lists for the course were transcribed from the copies in Zvi Griliches’ papers at the Harvard Archives. 

______________________

About the course instructors

Even youngster economists should need no introduction to Kenneth Arrow, but here is a memoir by K. Vela Velupillai in the Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society just in case.

Truman Bewley, University of California (Berkeley) Ph.D. in 1970. Assistant professor, Harvard (1972-1978). Professor, Northwestern (1978-83). Professor through emeritus professor at Yale (1983-)

Hajime Oniki received his Ph.D. from Stanford in 1968, was assistant professor of economics at Harvard from 1969 to 1972, assistant/associate professor at Queen’s University, Canada (1972-1979), returning to Japan as Professor at Osaka University in 1979.

______________________

Course Announcement for Advanced Economic Theory Sequence, 1971-1972

Economics 2010a. Advanced Economic Theory
Professor Dale W. Jorgenson, Assistant Professors Melvyn Fuss and ____ (fall term); Professor Assistant Professor Michael Rothschild (spring term)

Production theory, consumption theory, and the theories of firms and markets.
Prerequisite: Economics 1050 (formerly Economics 199) or equivalent.
Half course (fall term; repeated spring term). Fall: Tu., Th., (S.), at 12. Spring: Tu., Th., 10-12.

Economics 2010b. Advanced Economic Theory
Professor Stephen A. Marglin and Assistant Professor Masahio Aoki (fall term); Professor Kenneth J. Arrow and Assistant Professors Hajime Oniki and Truman F. Bewley (spring term)

General equilibrium, welfare economics, income distribution, captial and growth.
Prerequisite: Economics 2010a.
Half course (fall term; repeated spring term). Tu., Th., (S.), at 12-1:30.

Source: Harvard University, Official Register. Courses of Instruction for Harvard & Radcliffe, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, 1971-71,  p. 155.

______________________

Spring 1972
Professors Arrow, Bewley,
and Oniki

ECONOMICS 2010b
Reading List #1

Last term, you studied the behavior of the individual economic units which make up the economy. With that as background, we will put all of the pieces together and study properties of the economic system as a whole. We will be concerned primarily with allocations through the price system, first under conditions of perfect competition and later under less restrictive conditions. We will discuss the following kinds of questions: Do “equilibrium” allocations exist? Is it stable? Unique? Of course, in answering these questions we will have to define rigorously such concepts as “equilibrium,” “efficiency,” and “stability.” This will constitute the first heading of the course:

  1. General Competitive Equilibrium, for which the reading list follows.
    For orientation we state the intended subsequent headings of the course.
  2. Welfare Economics
  3. Additional Aspects of General Equilibrium Analysis
  4. Departures from Perfect Competition
  5. Dynamics I: Theories of Interest and Investment
  6. Dynamics II: Theories of Accumulation and Growth
  7. General Equilibrium with Uncertainty and Money; Keynesian Equilibrium
  8. Theories of Income Distribution

In the following reading list, the dates in parentheses are those of the corresponding lecture. It is important that the relevant readings be done before the lecture.

  1. GENERAL COMPETITIVE EQUILIBRIUM (8 February)
    1. The Concepts and Assumptions
      1.  J. R. Hicks, Value and Capital, Oxford, 1939; chapters 4,8.
      2. K. J. Arrow, “Economic Equilibrium,” in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, vol. 4, pp. 376-386.
      3. R. Dorfman, The Price System, Prentice-Hall, 1964, ch. 5.
      4. T. C. Koopmans, Three Essays on the State of Economic Science, McGraw-Hill, 1957, pp. 1-40, 55-64.
      5. J. Quirk and R. Saposnik, Introduction to General Equilibrium Theory and Welfare Economics, McGraw-Hill, 1968, chapters 1, 2, and 3, sections 1, 2.
    2. Existence of Competitive Equilibrium (10 February)
      1. W. J. Baumol, Economic Theory and Operations Analysis, Prentice-Hall, 1961, chapter 16, sections 1, 2.
      2. Quirk and Saposnik, chapter 3, sections 3-8.
      3. H. Scarf, “An Example of an Algorithm for Calculating General Equilibrium Prices,” American Economic Review 59 (1969) : 669-677.
    3. Uniqueness and Stability of Equilibrium (15 February)
      1. Baumol, chapter 16, section 3.
      2. Quirk and Saposnik, chapter 5, sections 1-3.
      3. P. Newman, The Theory of Exchange, Prentice-Hall, 1965, chapter 4.
    4. Nonconvexity and the Existence of Equilibrium (15 February)
      1.  J. Rothenberg, “Nonconvexity, aggregation, and Pareto optimality,Journal of Political Economy 68 (1960): 435-468.
      2. H. Houthakker, “Economics and biology: specialization and speciation,” Kyklos 9: 181-187.

______________________

Spring, 1972
Professors Arrow, Bewley
and Oniki

ECONOMICS 2010b
Reading List #2

  1. WELFARE ECONOMICS
    1. Pareto Efficiency (February 22)
      1. Quirk and Saposnik, chapter 4, sections 1-4.
      2. Samuelson, P. A., Foundations of Economic Analysis Atheneum, 1965, chapter 8, pp. 203-228.
    2. Social Choice and Just Distributions (February 22-24)
      1. Arrow, K. J., “Values and collective decision-making,” in P. Laslett and W. G. Runciman (eds.), Philosophy, Politics, and Society, Third Series, Basil Blackwell, 1965, chapter 10.
      2. Edgeworth, F. Y., Mathematical Psychics, C. Kegan and Paul, 1881, pp. 56-82.
      3. Edgeworth, F. Y. “Pure theory of taxation,” in Papers Relating to Political Economy, Macmillan, 1925, Vol. II, Pp. 100-122.
      4. Vickrey, W. S., “Utility, strategy, and social decision rules,” in K. J. Arrow and T. Scitovsky (eds.), Readings in Welfare Economics, Irwin, 1969, pp. 459-461.
      5. Rawls, J., “Distributive justice,” in Laslett and Runciman, op. cit., chapter 3.
      6. de Jourvenel, B., The Ethics of Redistribution, Cambridge University Press, pp. 53-56, 62-65.
    3. Competitive Equilibrium and Pareto Efficiency (February 24-29)
      1. Scitovsky, op. cit., chapters 4 and 8 (and note to chapter 8).
      2. Bator, F. M., “The simple analytics of welfare maximization, ” American Economic Review, Vol. 47, 1957, pp. 22-59.
      3. Koopmans, op. cit., pp. 41-65.
      4. Quirk and Saposnik, op. cit. chapter 4, section 5.
    4. Market Failure (February 29, March 2)
      1. Bator, F. M. “Anatomy of market failure,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 72, 1958, pp. 351-379.
      2. Coase, R. H., “The problem of social cost,” Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 3, 1960, pp. 1-44.
      3. Scitovsky, op. cit., chapter 20.
      4. Scitovsky, T. “Two concepts of external economies,” in Arrow and Scitovsky, op. cit., pp. 242-252.
      5. Arrow, K. J., “Political and economic evaluation of social effects and externalities,” in J. Margolis (ed.), The Analysis of Public Output, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1970, pp. 1-23; see also the following comment by S. Alexander, pp. 24-30.
    5. Problems of Redistribution (March 2)
      1. Meade, J. E., Efficiency, Equality, and the Ownership of Property. George Allen & Unwin, 1964, pp. 35-77.
      2. Diamond, P., “Negative taxes and the poverty problem — a review article,” National Tax Journal, Vol. 21, 1968, pp. 288-303.

______________________

Spring, 1972
Professors Arrow,
Bewley, and Oniki

ECONOMICS 2010b
Reading List #3

  1. ADDITIONAL ASPECTS OF GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS
    1. The Core of a Market Economy (March 7)
      1. Debreu, G. and H. Scarf, “A Limit theorem on the core of an economy,” International Economic Review 4 (1963): 235-246.
      2. Newman,  op. cit., chapter 5.
    2. Input-Output Analysis (March 7)
      1. Leontief, W. W., The Structure of the American Economy, 1919-1939, Second Edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1951, pp. 139-163, 188-207.
      2. Baumol, op. cit. (first edition), chapter 15.
      3. Dorfman, R., P. Samuelson and R. Solow, Linear Programming and Economic Analysis, McGraw-Hill, 1958, chapter 9 except section 5.
    3. Activity Analysis in General Equilibrium (March 9)
      1. Dorfman, Samuelson and Solow, chapter section 5; chapter 13.
      2. Koopmans, op. cit., pp. 66-104.
    4. Pricing of Goods in General Equilibrium (March 9)
      1. Samuelson, P. A., “Pricing of goods and factors in general equilibrium,” Review of Economic Studies, 21 (1953-4): 1-20; reprinted in Collected Scientific Papers, vol. 2, MIT Press, 1960, chapter 70.
      2. Robinson, J., “Rising supply price,’ ” AEA Readings in Price Theory, pp. 233-241.
      3. Robinson, J. “The basic theory of normal prices, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 76 (1962): 1-19.
      4. Friedman, M., Price Theory: A Provisional Text, Chicago: Aldine, 1962, pp. 74-93.
      5. Morishima, M., “On the three Hicksian laws of comparative statics, Review of Economic Studies 27 (1960): 195-201.
  2. DEPARTURES FROM PERFECT COMPETITION
    1. Measurement of Welfare Loss (March 14)
      1. Dupuit, J., “On the measurement of the utility of public works,” International Economic Papers, Vol. 2 (1952), pp. 93-110; reprinted in AEA Readings in Welfare Economics (Arrow and Scitovsky, eds.), pp. 255-283.
      2. Hotelling, H., “The general welfare in relation to problems of taxation and of railway and utility rates, Econometrica 6 (1938): 242-249; reprinted in Arrow and Scitovsky, op. cit., pp. 284-308 (read pp. 294-308).
      3. Oort, C., Decreasing Costs as a Problem in Welfare Economics, chapter 2.
      4. Harberger, A. C., “Three basic postulates for applied welfare economics: an interpretive essay,” Journal of Economic Literature 9 (1971): 785-797.
    2. Theory of Second Best (March 16)
      1. Little, I.M.D., “Direct versus indirect taxes,” Economic Journal 61 (1951): 577-584; reprinted in Arrow and Scitovsky, op. cit., pp. 608-615.
      2. Mohring, H., “The peak-load problem with increasing returns and pricing constraints,” American Economic Review 60 (1970): 693-705.
      3. Meade, J. E., Trade and Welfare, Oxford, 1955, chapter 1, pp. 3-9, chapter 7, pp. 102-118.
      4. Lipsey, R. and K. Lancaster, “The general theory of second best, ” Review of Economic Studies 24 (1958-9): 11-32.
    3. Imperfect Competition
      1. Kaldor, N., “Market imperfections and excess capacity,” Economica, 1935, pp. 33-50; reprinted in AEA Readings in Price Theory, pp. 384-403.
      2. Marris, R., The Economic Theory of “Managerial” Capitalism, New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964 chapters 1, 3, 5, 6.
      3. Shubik, M., Strategy and Market Structure, New York: Wiley, chapters 1, 3-6.
      4. Harsanyi, J., “Approaches to the bargaining problem before and after the theory of games: a critical discussion of Zeuthen’s, Hicks’, and Nash’s theories, Econometrica 24 (1956): 144-157.
      5. Modigliani. F., “New developments on the oligopoly front. Journal of Political Economy 66 (1958): 215-232.

______________________

Spring, 1972
Professors Arrow,
Bewley, and Oniki

ECONOMICS 2010b
Reading List #4

  1. DYNAMICS I: THEORIES OF INTEREST AND INVESTMENT
    1. Dynamics vs. Statics
      1. Hicks, J. R., Capital and Growth. Chapters 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8.
      2. Samuelson, P. A., Foundations of Economic Analysis, Chapter 11.
    2. Productivity of Capital and the Rate of Return
      1. Haavelmo, T., A Study in the Theory of Investment, Chapters 7, 17, 25, 28-31.
      2. Solow, R., Capital Theory and the Rate of Return, Chapter 1.
      3. Harcourt, G. C., “Some Cambridge controversies in the theory of capital,” Journal of Economic Literature, 7 (1969): 365-386.
      4. Hirshleifer, J., Investment, Interest, and Capital, Chapter 6.
    3. Equilibrium and Optimal Capital Accumulation
      1. Hirshleifer, op. cit., Chapters 4, 7.
      2. Dorfman, Samuelson, and Solow, op. cit., pp. 265-281.
      3. Ramsey, F. P., “A mathematical theory of saving,” Economic Journal 38 (1928); reprinted in Arrow and Scitovsky (op. cit.), pp. 619-624, 630-633.
      4. Arrow, K. J. and M. Kurz, Public Investment, the Rate of Return and Optimal Fiscal Policy, Chapter 3, section 1.
    4. Technological Change
      1. Solow, R., op. cit., Chapters 2, 3.
      2. Solow, R., “Technical change and the aggregate production function,” Review of Economic Statistics, August 1957.
      3. Arrow, K. J., “The economic implications of learning by doing,” Review of Economic Studies, June 1962, pp. 155-173; reprinted in P. Newman, Readings in Mathematical Economics, Volume II, pp. 200-220.
      4. Becker, G., Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, Columbia University Press, 1964, Chapters 2, 3.

______________________

Spring, 1972
Professors Arrow,
Bewley, and Oniki

ECONOMICS 2010b
Reading List #5

  1. DYNAMICS II. THEORIES OF ACCUMULATION AND GROWTH
    1. One-Sector Models
      1. Solow, R. M., Growth Theory: An Exposition. Oxford, 1970. Chapters 1, 2.
    2. Maximal Growth: The von Neumann Model
      1. Koopmans, T. C., “Economic growth at a maximal rate, Quarterly Journal of Economics 82 (1968): 335-345. Reprinted in P. Newman, Readings in Mathematical Economics, Johns Hopkins, 1968, Vol. II, pp. 239-278.
      2. Hicks, J. R., Capital and Growth, Chapters 17-19.
      3. von Neumann, J. “A model of general economic equilibrium, Review of Economic Studies, August 1945, pp. 1-9. Reprinted Newman, op. cit., pp. 221-229.
    3. Intertemporal Efficiency
      1. Koopmans, T. C., Three Essays on the State of Economic Science, pp. 105-126.
      2. Phelps, E. S., Golden Rules of Economic Growth, North-Holland, 1967, pp. 3-20.
      3. Dorfman, R., P. A. Samuelson, and R. M. Solow, Linear Programming and Economic Analysis. McGraw-Hill, 1958, Chapter 12.
      4. Samuelson, P. A., “An exact consumption loan model of interest with or without the social contrivance of money,” Journal of Political Economy 18 (1958): 467-482.
      5. Starrett, D. A., “On golden rules, the ‘biological theory of interest,’ and competitive inefficiency,” H.I.E.R. Discussion Paper. June 1970.

______________________

Spring, 1972
Professors Arrow,
Bewley, and Oniki

ECONOMICS 2010b
Reading List #6

  1. GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM: UNCERTAINTY AND EMPLOYMENT (25,27 April, 2 May)
    1. Uncertainty in General Equilibrium
      1. Hirshleifer, J., Investment, Interest, and Capital. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1970, Chapter 9.
      2. Diamond, P. A., “The role of a stock market in a general equilibrium model under technological uncertainty,” American Economic Review 57 (1967): 758-776.
    2. Underemployment Equilibrium
      1. Leijonhufvud, A., On Keynesian Economics and the Economics of Keynes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968, chapter II.
      2. Arrow, K. J. and F. Hahn, General Competitive Analysis. San Francisco: Holden-Day, 1971, Chapter 14.
    3. Growth and Distribution Without Full Employment
      1. Robinson, J., Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth. London: Macmillan, 1964, pp. 1-87.
      2. Sraffa, P., Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, pp. 12-95.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Zvi Griliches. Box 123, Folder “Advanced Economic Theory, 1971-1975”.

Image Source: Photo of Kenneth Arrow by Irwin Collier, August 22, 2011.

Categories
Industrial Organization Labor

United States. Links to the 19 volumes of the Industrial Commission Reports, 1900-1902

 

From 1898-1902 a U.S. federal government inquiry, The Industrial Commission, analogous to the English Royal Commissions, sought to provide a review of modern market structures and labor market regulations to provide a factual basis for economic policy recommendations. This post provides links to the full set of volumes produced by the committee during its brief existence along with articles written at the beginning of the Commission’s inquiries and upon their conclusion. 

Simon Newton Dexter North (Member of the Industrial Commission, chief statistician of the 1900 census, becoming director of the new Census Bureau in 1903) described the mission of the Industrial Commission (ex ante)

It is this new and strange industrialism that the [Industrial] Commission is called upon to study, to analyze and to interpret, in the light of all the wisdom it can gather from those who are participating in it.

The study takes on two phases, distinct and yet so closely associated and interwoven, that at many points they are inseparable. One is the legal, the other the sociological phase. The act commands the Commission to inquire into and report upon the status of industry before the law in the several States of the Union…

…[The Industrial Commission] has appointed Professor Jeremiah W. Jenks, of Cornell University, as its expert agent to study the question of industrial combination and consolidation from the economic point of view, and to collate and analyze the facts in their bearing upon prices, upon the wage earning class, upon production, and upon the community as a whole.

E. Dana Durand (successively editor and secretary to the Commission from October, 1899, until its dissolution) wrote (ex post):

The rise of the trusts was probably the chief ground which led to the establishment of the Industrial Commission by act of Congress of 1898. Problems of labor had also been conspicuous during the years immediately preceding. But, in order that every class of the discontented might feel that their case was receiving due consideration, the Commission was empowered “to investigate questions relating to immigration, to labor, to agriculture, to manufacturing, and to business…”

______________________

THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION,
BY SIMON NEWTON DEXTER NORTH,
A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION.

(1899)

The bill creating the United States non-partizan Industrial Commission was many years pending in Congress, was once vetoed by President Cleveland, and was signed by President McKinley, June 18, 1898. It took on divers forms at different stages of its incubation, and as finally passed authorized a commission of nineteen members, nine of whom were appointed by the President from civil life, the other ten being members of Congress,—five Senators appointed by the Vice-President, and five Representatives appointed by the Speaker. In making their appointments, the latter chose largely from the membership of the Labor Committees of the two houses. The President went into all walks of business life, and three of his nine appointees are recognized as representatives of organized labor.

There is no precedent in the United States for a body so incongruously made up. The injection of the Congressional element into the Commission is due to the reluctance of Congress to delegate its own functions. By claiming a majority of the Industrial Commission, Congress compromised with its old-fashioned prejudices. Experience has already proved that the Commission must rely almost wholly upon the presidential members for the routine work. The claims upon a Congressman’s time are so-absorbing, that absenteeism has chiefly distinguished their connection with the Commission thus far. But the membership from Congress has already proved itself valuable in an advisory way, and this service will increase in importance as the Commission approaches the formulation of results. The mixed organization has its precedent in several of the English Royal Commissions, and it will keep this body closely in touch with Congress.

The object of the Industrial Commission, as broadly stated in the act creating it, is “to investigate questions pertaining to immigration, to labor, to agriculture, to manufacturing and to business,” and, as a result of its investigations, “to suggest such laws as may be made the basis of uniform legislation by the various States of the Union, in order to harmonize conflicting interests and be equitable to the laborer, the employer, the producer and the consumer.”

This reads like a wholesale commission to reform the industrial world, to invent the missing panacea for the ills that afflict mankind, to point out the royal road to universal contentment and prosperity which the world has sought in vain since the days when “Adam dolve and Eve span.” But that is the superficial view of the matter. Recognizing the obvious and impassable limitations upon the work of the Commission, there remains a field of effort which is not merely important, but may be said to have become imperative. There come times in the onward march of industrial civilization, when it is necessary—if one may be pardoned a wholesale mixing of metaphors—to pause and take account of stock; to strike a balance between conflicting interests; to take an observation by the sun, and determine with accuracy the direction in which the craft is sailing. The most famous precedents for the establishment of such a commission of inquiry are those furnished by Great Britain. At least three Royal Commissions on labor, the last one appointed in 1891, have been put “to inquire into the questions affecting the relations between employer and employed, …. and to report whether legislation can with advantage be directed to the remedy of any evils which may be disclosed, and if so, in what manner.” The reports of these bodies, apart from any remedial legislation which may have sprung from them, accomplished a tremendous service to industrialism, in clarifying the situation and teaching both employer and employee how far the world had advanced beyond the conditions which prevailed in industry at the opening of the century, when the factory system was young and perfected machinery had not yet worked its magic transformation. The report of the Commission of 1891, in particular, may be described as the most important publication on the labor question that has yet been written. Its effect upon the economic literature and thinking of the day is beyond measurement.

It is doubtful if the United States Industrial Commission can produce a report at all comparable to this in character and importance. But it has an opportunity at once splendid and unique. It has a field of investigation that is almost unexplored by any such governmental authority. It is true that Congressional Committees have constantly entered upon it, as in the case of the Abram S. Hewitt Committee and the so-called Blair Senate Committee, both of which printed great volumes of testimony, but neither ever made any report. These Congressional investigations have been haphazard and incomplete, for the reason that the time of Congress is engrossed in other matters, and politics has been inseparable from the work, in the nature of things. From whatever cause, it remains the fact that there has never yet been any systematic attempt to officially investigate and report upon the changed relations of capital and labor in the United States, and the adaptability of our national and State laws to the new industrial conditions which have arisen in consequence.

Moreover, the time appears to be peculiarly opportune. We are not simply on the turn of the century, but at a point of new departure in American industry. Emerging from a long period of depression, victorious in a brief but glorious foreign war, we are apparently entering upon a commercial and business expansion without parallel in our annals. We are forcing our manufactured goods into the world’s markets with a sudden success that surprises ourselves, and startles our foreign competitors. We have long been in the habit of manufacturing on a larger scale than commonly prevails elsewhere, as M. Emile Lavasseur has pointed out in detail; but we are entering now upon an era of combination and consolidation, involving a revolution in the economic conditions of production, the far-reaching effects of which can neither be seen nor imagined. We have reached a point of perfection, in the organization and solidarity of the labor of the country, which is fast substituting collective bargaining for the individual contract in our great industries. Labor saving machinery is becoming more perfect and more omnipotent every day, and electricity is creating a new mechanical revolution no less portentous than that which came with the introduction of steam. Causes and effects are everywhere visible. undreamed of ten and twenty years ago. It is this new and strange industrialism that the Commission is called upon to study, to analyze and to interpret, in the light of all the wisdom it can gather from those who are participating in it.

The study takes on two phases, distinct and yet so closely associated and interwoven, that at many points they are inseparable. One is the legal, the other the sociological phase. The act commands the Commission to inquire into and report upon the status of industry before the law in the several States of the Union. Here is a phase of industrialism to which Congress has never paid any attention, and which is unique in the United States. In Great Britain, where Parliament legislates in both large and small affairs for the whole kingdom, the same factory laws apply equally in all parts of the country, and one manufacturer can get no advantage over another by changing the location of his mill. The same is true of France and Germany. But in this country, there has been growing up very rapidly during the last twenty-five years, in our great manufacturing States, a heterogeneous body of labor laws, so called, which aim at supervision, by the Government, of the relations of employer and employee Under the operation of these laws the conditions governing manufacturing enterprise have been profoundly modified. Competition in industry has grown so close, that the economic effects of this legislation are now recognized as an important factor in production.

The diversity of the labor legislation of the several States is almost startling. There are no two States of the forty-five, in which the conditions governing industry, so far as they are regulated by the State itself, can be described as at all similar. Examining all these laws, in all these States, noting their points of variation and contradiction, they impress us as a legal farrago, lacking the most rudimentary elements of a uniform system, such as should prevail in a country which boasts equality of rights to all its citizens. To illustrate by obvious instances, the laws fixing the hours of labor for women and children in manufacturing establishments, vary from fifty-six in New Jersey, fifty-eight in Massachusetts, sixty in other New England States, in New York and Pennsylvania, to 72 in southern and southwestern States. The age limit at which children can be employed in these establishments varies from fourteen to thirteen, twelve and eleven, until it strikes certain States where there is no legal limit whatever. The employers’ liability laws are as wide in their provisions as the continent itself. Factory inspection is enforced with varying stringency in half a dozen States, and entirely omitted in the rest. Such instances of discriminating legislation are beginning to tell in the reinvestments of capital and the relocation of industries. They reveal an unequal development which demands an intelligent effort in the direction of unification.

In one sense it is a situation beyond the power of regulation. Congress cannot interfere, for these are matters that appertain strictly to the States. The most the Industrial Commission can do is to supply an analysis of these conflicting statutory provisions and a report of the actual operation of the various labor laws, upon which it can base recommendations showing which of them can be adopted with advantage by such States as do not now possess them. The first step in the direction of intelligent unification will thus have been taken. The rest must be left to time and public opinion. The current will at least have been set in the right direction, and we may hope for the ultimate upbuilding of the semblance of a national code of labor laws, under which the working classes can be assured that they are receiving, so far as the State can determine it, the same treatment and consideration, whether they live and work in an Eastern State or a Western State, and the employer can feel sure that the laws which regulate his business are sufficiently alike to give no legal advantage to any competitor anywhere in the Union. The work of the Industrial Commission, so far as I have above outlined it, may be compared to that of the Statutory Revision Commission of the United States, a body consisting of commissioners from the several States of the Union, which aims to bring about a like uniformity in the general statutes of these States, and which has accomplished some tangible results since it was first organized. The Commission has taken an important step looking toward general co-operation in the work of the two bodies, by securing as its advisory counsel Mr. F. J. Stimson, of Boston, who is the secretary of the Statutory Revision Commission, and who is well known besides as a student of labor legislation and the author of text books on the subject.

I do not wish to be understood as being over-sanguine of the results that are likely to follow the work of the Commission in the field of uniform labor legislation among the States. That the work it has been set to do in this field is necessary and important cannot be intelligently questioned. But the obstacles that oppose any immediate results, except of an educational character, are formidable almost beyond the point of exaggeration. Foremost among them may be stated the essentially different civilizations which prevail in the United States. The conditions of life and of labor are not the same in Massachusetts and in South Carolina, and cannot be made the same by any laws which human ingenuity can devise. The one State has carried her factory laws to an extreme which leads her capitalists to cry out that they are being smothered to death under restrictive legislation; the statute books of the other commonwealth are practically free from all such laws. The difference is due to scores of causes operating divergently through a century, and it may be that another century will pass before co-equal conditions assert themselves. A single potent cause largely controls the economic conditions of the problem as between the two communities. In one State the factory windows are open the year round; in the other artificial heat must regulate the temperature of the mill more than half the time. The influence of climate extends to the quality and quantity of food the operatives must eat, to the clothing they must wear, and thus to the wages they must earn. It even affects the age of puberty, and creates a different standard for the age limit in child labor. It would be absurd to say that one Procrustean system of labor legislation is or can be equally applicable, in all its details, to the northern and the semi-tropical communities. Moreover, it is plain that the valid argument against uniformity which climatic conditions present, will be effectively utilized to resist legal enactments looking toward uniformity, from selfish considerations of a local character. So long as freedom from restrictive legislation, coupled with certain other advantages, tempts Northern capital into South Carolina, for investment in cotton manufacture, there is an influence at work more potent than the pressure of public opinion from other parts of the Union. So long as localities can successfully tempt manufacturing establishments into their midst, by offering bounties in the form of exemption from taxation, they are likely to continue to extend these bribes, however desirable they may admit it to be, as an abstract proposition, that taxation shall be uniform throughout the United States. When we take cognizance of the differences in taxation which exist to-day between nearby States and localities, and their causes, we best understand the hopelessness of any movement which aims at establishing exact equality of condition in this country.

In the matter of the hours of labor, the possibility of uniform legislation appears equally remote. This is the question which, more than any other, is just now close to the heart of organized labor in the United States. The sociological argument upon which the trades-unionist bases his demand for an eight-hour day is tremendously reinforced by the demonstrated fact that improved machinery is capable of producing in all staple lines of goods faster than the consumption of the world can dispose of the product. Equally true is it that the argument for a shorter working day is stronger in a hot and debilitating climate than in the North; as a matter of fact, it is only in the Northern States that the movement has made any headway.

Again, the presence of great masses of colored labor in the South presents another phase of the problem which is certain to grow more troublesome and more insistent as time passes. It is a body of labor which accepts lower wages than white labor, and is constantly pushing itself into new fields of competition with white labor. The negro problem, in its political phase, is the perplexity of this generation: its industrial phase is to become the perplexity of the next.

And so we say that each great section of our great country must be left to work out its own problems in its own way, and in keeping with the peculiar environment of each. The country is too big for a strait-jacket. But all parts of it can learn from the experience of other parts, and the Industrial Commission can be of service by increasing the general knowledge of the industrial methods which prevail under such diverse conditions.

Growing directly out of this phase of the work is the study of the relations at present existing between capital and labor,—the sociological side of the question, as contrasted with its legal side. Here the Commission already finds itself enveloped in a cloud of conflicting theories, of ill-digested facts, and of antagonistic interests. The Commission is not likely to forget that it does not possess the philosopher’s stone, and has no insight into this insoluble world problem, which has been denied to other and wiser students. Nevertheless, it sees certain directions in which it can hope to render a useful service.

In the first place, it recognizes in itself a sort of safety valve for the country. People who suffer wrongs, whether real or imaginary, always feel better when they are allowed an opportunity to ventilate them before some recognized governmental authority where they are insured a respectful hearing and a certain degree of consideration. It was a large part of the purpose of Congress, in creating this Commission, to establish a quasi-tribunal, or national forum, if you please, before which anybody and everybody who thinks he has a wrong to expose or a panacea for existing social or economic evils, can appear and state his case. Congress has little time and less taste for such things. It is the chronic complaint of social reformers and professional agitators, that they can get no hearing at the hands of the Government. Nothing helps toward the evaporation of discontent so much as an opportunity to give utterance to it. Recognizing this trait in human nature, the Commission is prepared to listen to everybody who may choose to present himself at its headquarters in Washington, for the purpose of exposing evils or suggesting remedies. Later on, it will probably send sub-commissions to the chief cities to give a wider opportunity to be heard. In the meanwhile, its mail is already loaded with communications from all parts of the country, in which the writers propound their views with freedom and fullness. An expert will digest this material, and separate the wheat from the chaff. On its own initiative, the Commission will summon comparatively few witnesses, confining its invitations to persons who can shed some valuable light, through study and experience, upon the conditions of our industrial life. One hundred such picked witnesses can furnish more material for its reports than a thousand men drawn at random from the ranks. Organized labor will be represented before the Commission by the chiefs of its great representative bodies,—the flower of the working class,—the leaders who have been studying conditions and moulding the opinions of their unions for the better part of their lives. On the other hand, in selecting “captains of industry” to explain the employers’ side, men will be chosen who, by the immensity of their enterprises, the length of their experience, or the peculiar success which has attended their relations with their employees, may be assumed to know something which ought to be generally known. Out of such a crucible should come a consensus of judgment similar to that of the British Royal Commission, which was remarkable as an exact statement of the points at issue between the two forces of industrialism, of the arguments by which each side reinforced its contentions, and of the points at which agreement had been reached, or seemed to be gradually coming within reach.

A similar statement based upon ascertained facts, is much to be desired in the United States. It will certainly show that immense progress has already been made in certain sections of this country, and in certain of its great industries, toward the peaceable adjudication of the chronic dispute about wages and the conditions of employment. It will show that the situation, however hopelessly pessimistic it may outwardly appear, is full of signs that labor and capital, instead of drifting farther and farther apart, are gradually learning not only the necessity, but the methods, of keeping together. The country as a whole is only dimly cognizant of the progress that has been made, in many industries, in the matter of collective bargaining, in the adjustment of wages on the basis of sliding scales, determined after the fullest interchange of definite information as to costs, profits, and general industrial conditions. The upshot of the whole matter is, in its last analysis, that the great underlying cause of strikes, lockouts, boycotts, and the great bulk of recurring labor disputes, is ignorance,—ignorance on the part of both employer and employed, as to the exact status which must always determine whether wages are properly adjusted. If the Commission can make this fact appear, if it can bring it effectively to the attention of those who chiefly suffer in consequence of it, it will have performed a service to the country worth a million times its cost in dollars and cents. This, in a word, is the chief function of the Commission. It is in its capacity as a great educational machine that its best results are to be anticipated.

I have indicated above some of the chief problems with which the Industrial Commission has been called upon by Congress to deal. In truth, the whole gamut of modern ills is embraced in the single sentence of the law which we have quoted above. When it was first brought face to face with the shoreless sea of inquiry upon which the Commission was launched, some of its members were tempted to think that Congress might have been perpetrating a gigantic joke, in proposing that nineteen men, chosen at haphazard from our seventy millions, should sit down together and mark out a short cut to the millenium. But they went to work in good faith to see how these matters might be segregated. Their first discovery was that they naturally divided themselves into four grand groups, and, accordingly, the Commission separated itself into four sub-divisions of five members each, which have respectively to deal with problems peculiar to Agriculture, to Manufacturing and General Business, to Mining, and to Transportation. Composed of members of each of these sub-commissions, they made a fifth, called the sub-commission on statistics, to which they intrusted the important task of collecting and classifying the mass of material already at hand, in the shape of government and other statistics, reports, etc., relating to these various questions. The Commission does not propose to duplicate any of the official statistical and other information already available for its use. Literally, millions of dollars have been expended in the collection and publication of these data. Having thus segregated its work into four groups, the Commission has further defined it by putting out, for each sub-commission, a typical plan of inquiry, patterned somewhat after the syllabus of the British Royal Commission, and suggesting in outline the topics with which the several investigations may concern themselves. These topics run in number from fifty up to a hundred or more, many, however, being duplicates of each other, where the topics appertain equally to two or more fields of inquiry, as trades-unionism, immigration, education, etc. A dozen or less of these topics are big and portentous enough to occupy the entire time of the Commission for the two years to which its life is limited. Take, for example, the non-competitive employment of convict labor, options in grain and produce selling, sweat shops and their regulation, not to mention the larger questions to which reference has already been made. As its work develops, the Commission will find these big topics crowding the minor ones to the rear, and it will avoid the danger which comes from attempting to cover so much ground that none of it can be covered thoroughly.

As a case in point, the creation of the Commission was contemporaneous with the epidemic of industrial reorganization and consolidation now sweeping over the country. The manner in which it deals with this question will determine the country’s judgment upon the entire work of the Commission. It understands that it must handle it fearlessly, intelligently and exhaustively. It is preparing to approach the subject in a manner quite different from the haphazard treatment it has thus far received at the hands of Congressional and Legislative Committees. It has appointed Professor Jeremiah W. Jenks, of Cornell University, as its expert agent to study the question of industrial combination and consolidation from the economic point of view, and to collate and analyze the facts in their bearing upon prices, upon the wage earning class, upon production, and upon the community as a whole. Professor Jenks enters upon the work with the advantage of many years of special study of the question, in connection with his economic teaching. Under his guidance, the Commission will seek to present a definite summary of the causes, methods and results of this industrial phenomenon. Certainly there is no information of which the country is quite so much in need. Almost before we have been able to realize what was going on, the manufacturing industry of the United States has been transformed from the competitive to the monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic basis. We are to-day face to face with conditions without precedent in history, which set at naught all the time-honored maxims of political economy. It is impossible to exaggerate the effect upon the future life of our people, and upon our social and political institutions. Neither is it possible to reverse or to suspend the experiment. In defiance of the frantic efforts of Legislatures to check their progress or to embarrass their operations, these Goliath combinations have already seized upon the great staple industries of the country; they represent to-day a capitalization,—including the water injected,—nearly equal to the whole amount of capital reported to the Eleventh Federal Census as employed to carry on all the big and little industries existing in 1890. What has been done cannot be undone,—until such time at least as it shall undo itself in what now appears to be the inevitable reaction. But it is plain that a definite governmental attitude toward them must be formulated. A mass of abortive laws encumbering the statute books of many States has failed to stop the consolidation of industrial plants. The time has come when some method for their effective regulation must be devised. The Industrial Commission has here a rare opportunity to render a service vital to the future welfare of the country. It may fail utterly to meet the situation. It will not be surprising if it does, because it now seems one that can only be left to its own solution. On the other hand, if it shall be able to work out some definite and effective method of dealing with this modern force of non-competitive capitalization, it will have justified its creation, though it should accomplish nothing else.

I have endeavored to give some hint of the modern Pandora’s box from which the Industrial Commission is expected to lift the cover, and some ground for belief that the hope it seeks to find at the bottom of the box will not prove altogether elusive. I accept its existence as a recognition of the fact that the well-being of the humblest citizen of the Republic is the first concern of the government. Much remains to be done in fulfilment of the promise upon which this great nation was founded, the promise of the preamble of the constitution, “to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, . . . promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Summing up our experience, we must all agree that while these great blessings have abided with us, as with no other people on the globe, yet there is always opportunity for the more complete realization of each of them. We cannot too often or too strenuously try, by too many expedients, to remedy even those ills inherited from the ages, which most persistently defy the humanitarianism of civilization. We may easily make the mistake of assuming that legislation is the cure-all for each and every social evil. A wise old saw says that “that country is the happiest which is governed the least.” But wiser still is the remark of Sir Arthur Helps, that as civilization grows more complex, the necessity for governmental regulation of the relations of men increases correspondingly. Paternalism in government is a term many of us have been brought up to abhor. Nevertheless, we are compelled to realize that organized society, as represented in the Government, acquires new responsibilities with every new advance in civilization. First among these responsibilities is a knowledge of the facts of every day life among the masses of our people. No price can be too high to pay for it. And if the Industrial Commission can add to the general knowledge we have of these conditions, and thus prepare the way for some improvement in them, however slight, it will have justified its existence.

S. N. D. North.

Source: S.D.N. North. The Industrial Commission. North American Review (June, 1899), pp. 708-719.

______________________

The Reports
of the Industrial Commission.

Vol. 1. Preliminary report on trusts and industrial combinations. [Jenks, Durand & Testimony] 1900.

Vol. 2. Trusts and industrial combinations. Statutes and decisions of federal, state, and territorial low [prepared by Jeremiah W. Jenks], together with a digest of corporation laws applicable to large industrial combinations [prepared by Frederick J. Stimson] (1900).

Vol. 3. Report on prison labor (1900).

Vol. 4. Report on transportation (1900).

Vol. 5. Report on labor legislation [Prepared by Frederick Jesup Stimson, Victor H. Olmstead, William M. Stewart, Edward Dana Durand, and Eugene Willison] (1900).

Vol. 6. Report on the distribution of farm products (1901).

Vol. 7. Report on the relations and conditions of capital and labor employed in manufactures and general business (1901).

Vol. 8. Report on the Chicago labor disputes of 1900, with especial reference to the disputes in the building and machinery trades (1901)

Vol. 9. Report on transportation (second volume on this subject) (1901).

Vol. 10. Report on agriculture and agricultural labor. (1901).

Vol. 11. Report on agriculture and on taxation in various state (second volume on agriculture) (1901).

Vol. 12. Report on the relations and conditions of capital and labor employed in the mining industry (1901).

Vol. 13. Report on trusts and industrial combinations (second volume on this subject) (1901).

Vol. 14. Report on the relations and conditions of capital and labor employed in manufactures and general business (second volume on this subject). (1901).

Vol. 15. Reports on immigration and on education (1901)

Vol. 16. Report on the condition of foreign legislation upon matters affecting general labor [prepared by Frederick Jesup Stimson] (1901).

Vol. 17. Reports on labor organizations, labor disputes and arbitration and on railway labor (1901).

Vol. 18. Report on industrial combinations in Europe [prepared by Jeremiah W. Jenks] (1901).

Vol. 19. Final Report (1902).

______________________

THE UNITED STATES INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION;
METHODS OF GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATION.
By E. DANA DURAND.
(1902)

[Note: The author was successively editor and secretary to the Commission from October, 1899, until its dissolution.]

ECONOMIC investigation by special government commissions in England and the United States seldom result directly and immediately in important legislation. The problem which such a commission usually attacks is a broad one, which no one really expects to solve in any general way; not, as often happens in Continental countries, a specific one for whose solution more or less definite schemes have already been proposed. The cause of such an inquiry as that of the British Royal Commission on Labor or of the Industrial Commission is perhaps vague dissatisfaction with existing conditions. The people want to find out “where they are”: or the government or a political party tries to show that it is “doing something about it,” possibly with the desire to avoid committing itself too definitely. Pending the investigation it may readily happen that the people become more accustomed to the conditions which give rise to it, and perhaps rightly decide that the attempt to enact innovating legislation will result in worse ills. The report of the inquiry itself is likely to confirm them in this conclusion. Its chief value in that case lies in its mirroring of existing conditions and in furnishing facts as a basis for minor enactments from time to time in the future. It may readily happen, however, that ultimately, through the slow influence of such a report on public opinion, important reforms will be brought about.

The rise of the trusts was probably the chief ground which led to the establishment of the Industrial Commission by act of Congress of 1898. Problems of labor had also been conspicuous during the years immediately preceding. But, in order that every class of the discontented might feel that their case was receiving due consideration, the Commission was empowered “to investigate questions relating to immigration, to labor, to agriculture, to manufacturing, and to business,” — in fact, practically the entire field of industry. The wide and indefinite scope of the inquiry was undoubtedly a great hindrance to its thoroughness in any field. At the same time the Commission restrained the desires of various individual members to extend its investigations even more widely than was actually done, and it will be found that it covered some subjects with very considerable thoroughness.

The Industrial Commission consisted of five members of the House of Representatives and five of the Senate, selected by the heads of those bodies respectively, and of nine persons appointed by the President. Only the latter were salaried. Naturally, the members of Congress, with their many other duties, were able to take little part in the investigations proper and comparatively little in deliberating on conclusions. Several of them, who apparently felt only very slight interest in the work, practically never at tended at all: others, though deeply interested, could attend but rarely. The original bill for creating the Industrial Commission, as drawn by Hon. T. W. Phillips, later its vice chairman, did not provide for Congressional members; but doubtless because of a certain jealousy on the part of Congress, or fear lest it might seem to be divesting itself of its prerogatives, the measure was amended by the Senate. The presidential members of the Commission sat from ten to twenty-five days each month, except during summer; but several of them, having important business interests, were necessarily quite irregular in attendance, especially when oral testimony was being taken.

The main body was divided into sub-commissions on Agriculture, Mining, Manufactures and General Business, and Transportation. Investigation of labor problems fell chiefly to the sub-commissions on Mining and Manufactures, while the trust problem was reserved to the entire Commission. It was the duty of these sub-commissions to plan the general lines of investigation, to select witnesses, and to make preliminary suggestions as to conclusions. They did not act to any great extent independently, nor did they ordinarily sit separately in taking testimony. This latter function might well in large measure have been left to the sub-commissions, especially if the number of really active members had been slightly greater. This was the practice of the British Labor Commission. Often, moreover, the Commission as a whole spent much time on other matters that might with entire safety have been left to the smaller bodies. Nevertheless, the sub-commissions served a very useful purpose, as experience showed.

Following the lead of Congressional committees, the Industrial Commission started out with the almost exclusive employment of the method of oral testimony. Only considerably later did it enter at all extensively upon the policy, early advocated by a few of the members, of making use of existing sources of information and of direct field investigations. Almost to the end the taking of testimony continued to occupy most of the time of the commissioners; and such testimony, with reviews and digests of it, takes up fully four-fifths of the space in its reports. But, during the last two years of the Commission’s term, experts were increasingly employed to make investigations on particular topics, as well as, in some instances, to aid in selecting and questioning witnesses. Indeed, the Commission is unique, so far as our own country is concerned, in the extent to which it called in the assistance of university men and trained investigators. *

[*See on this point note in Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. XVI. p. 121.]

The results of this expert work have been notable. Various governmental departments, State and national are constantly pouring forth statistical and descriptive, information as to industrial matters. In many cases these masses of material are not adequately summarized. Still more seldom are they properly interpreted. But, even were this done in the original sources, the number of documents is so great that there is much need of bringing together from time to time the results secured by different authorities. By compiling, analyzing, and interpreting such material for the benefit of the members of the Industrial Commission and of the public, the expert agents were able to render most useful service. Similarly, much information from unofficial but authoritative sources was made available. Some of the specialists, moreover, made original investigations, under the direction of the Commission, by means of printed schedules and of personal interviews, methods which may, if properly employed, secure a much wider basis of data than can be obtained by oral testimony before a body of men.

Investigation through oral testimony of witnesses, however, while it is beset with many difficulties, often yields results not obtainable in any other manner. The experience of the Industrial Commission is interesting on this point. It is difficult for such a body to secure proper witnesses. Much knowledge of men and of conditions. is required to ascertain what persons are best fitted to testify on a given subject. Some of those requested to appear are very loath to do so from pressure of other business or from unwillingness to make disclosures. Much diplomacy may be necessary in securing their attendance; and even this is often unsuccessful, as the Industrial Commission found in several important in stances. The Industrial Commission was given by law “the authority to send for persons and papers, and to administer oaths and affirmations.” This could be interpreted as implying compulsory power of subpœnaing witnesses; but, as neither penalty nor procedure was specifically provided, the Commission did not care to test the matter formally. To be sure, actual resort to coercion would cause so much ill-feeling on the part of the witnesses concerned, and of other possible witnesses, that it would usually be unwise. But a definite compulsory power in the act could in some cases have been used advantageously as a “moral influence.” On the other hand, it is difficult for a body like the Industrial Commission to shut out persons whose evidence is valueless, those who enjoy a junket at government expense or who have some pet personal or local grievance of no general significance.

When a witness is once brought before the inquisitors, the difficulty is only begun. Proper questioning is a fine art. Most satisfactory usually are the witnesses who are themselves economists or investigators, who know what they ought to say and are glad to say it. The questions and criticisms of a group of men in such a case often serve admirably to bring out points more clearly than the witness would do, even in a carefully written paper. But with a witness who has something to conceal, who does not know what is wanted of him, or who is unskilled in expressing himself, the path of the questioner is devious and thorny. A high degree of expert knowledge regarding the matters on which the witness is expected to testify becomes essential. The questioner must know precisely what he wants to draw out. He must follow the witness closely, press him at every turn, seeking further explanation of every doubtful point, criticising and investigating every erroneous or contradictory statement or argument. Yet, so far as possible, the resentment of the witness must not be aroused; for that is the surest way to close his mouth.

Unfortunately, too often the members of the Industrial Commission showed themselves lacking in the degree of skill needed. A common mistake of the questioner was to assume that the people knew what he personally happened to know; another, to feign a familiarity with the subject that he did not actually possess. Many a witness, — a great labor leader, for example, — who would willingly have given a mass of valuable information if skilfully questioned, was allowed to deal merely in ill expressed generalities or in insignificant details. Too often doubtful statements and opinions were permitted to go unchallenged, or questions which the witnesses should have been compelled to answer fully and accurately were omitted or evasively answered. In many cases, confusion resulted from the interruption of one line of questioning by another, an almost inevitable result of the number of interrogators.

On the other hand, oral testimony has many advantages, and the Industrial Commission probably compares most favorably with other similar bodies in its success with this method. Its reports on trusts and transportation, for example, are storehouses of valuable facts and opinions, presented, in many instances, by men of great prominence and familiarity with practical affairs. A dignified government body, sitting formally, can secure evidence from many men who do not ordinarily put their knowledge and their views before the public, and who would give little heed to a single interviewer, even though representing the government. Such men can often throw a flood of light on points that can be but little understood by sur face investigation. They can present facts and arguments which throw new light on the questions at issue. Even a witness who is unwilling to testify, or who aims to mislead, may be forced by searching interrogation to make many important admissions. Few witnesses before such a body as the Industrial Commission will decline absolutely to answer a direct question, since to do so is likely to be interpreted in the most unfavorable light; and comparatively few will make positively false statements. Thus the representatives of the trusts who appeared before the Commission not merely presented their side of the case, — a side which had often been misunderstood, — but in many in stances their evidence showed more clearly than that of outsiders the existence of abuses. The testimony of Messrs. Havemeyer, Moore, and Duke, are cases in point.

It is a great advantage to have the questioning of witnesses conducted by a body of several members. Their number lends dignity, and leads the witness to answer more fully and carefully. Each member, moreover, differing from the others in motive, point of view, and methods of thought, may contribute by his questions to draw out some facts or opinions that will be useful. The best results were obtained by the Industrial Commission, ho ever, when the questioning was chiefly in the hands of one skilled person, either some commissioner specially familiar with the subject, or, as with many witnesses on trusts and on transportation, one of the expert agents, while the other commissioners supplemented the interrogatories here and there merely. The practice of certain investigating bodies in employing a lawyer to aid in questioning witnesses was not followed by the Industrial Commission, perhaps wisely in view of the nature of the subject. But the presence of one or more acute lawyers among the members of the board itself would have strengthened it greatly in taking testimony, as well as in other regards.

Thorough summaries and indexes seem so obviously requisite to the usefulness of a huge mass of material that it is only because in past publications of Congressional commissions and committees these conveniences have been almost wholly lacking that their presence in the reports of the Industrial Commission deserves mention. The Commission was generous in employing trained economists and indexers for this work, and whatever there is of value in the reports has been made reasonably accessible. Each volume of testimony has a full digest, from one-fourth to one-sixth the length of the original evidence. This aims to present concisely, under logically arranged topics, all the important facts and opinions brought forward by the respective witnesses individually. A much shorter review of evidence gives, practically without subjective criticism, the main results of the testimony, grouping together those who present similar facts and views, but bringing out clearly the fundamental points of difference. The reviews and digests both refer to the pages of the testimony. A somewhat elaborate index of the full evidence and another of the review and digest are printed in each volume; while in the final report is a general index covering all the reviews and digests, as well as all special reports and investigations.

Only two among the first eighteen volumes of the Commission’s reports contain conclusions and recommendations by the Commission itself, these being mainly reserved for the Final Report. The wide-spread interest in the trust question led the Commission in March, 1900, to present a brief preliminary report of recommendations. This report was repeated, but with great additions, in the Final Volume. The action of the Commission was doubtless a necessary concession to Congress and the people; but it would have been desirable to avoid such premature expression of conclusions, if possible. Early in 1900, moreover, a volume, prepared by Mr. F. J. Stimson, summarizing existing labor legislation in the United States, was published. This contained a brief report of the Commission itself, with recommendations based rather on a study of the laws in the more advanced states than on an investigation of conditions. So far as direct recommendations for legislation are concerned, the Final Report merely contents itself with quoting the language of the earlier volume. While these recommendations are reason ably satisfactory, it seems unfortunate that the extensive investigations of labor conditions at home, and of foreign legislation, made by the Commission during the latter half of its existence, should have contributed nothing to them.

The Final Report is an extensive and elaborate document. The several broad divisions of the Commission’s inquiry are taken up separately. Under each division is presented a voluminous review of facts and opinions, followed by a very concise series of specific recommendations. It is probable that these longer reviews will have ultimately more influence on legislation than the specific recommendations. Several of them are exceedingly valuable. They are not merely critical summaries of the investigations in the previous volumes; but they bring in much new material from other sources, and they contain much discussion of principles and proposals. In fact, while they are denominated reviews, they really involve conclusions as to many important matters, either directly stated or easily deducible from the criticism of opposing arguments.

The first drafts for these reviews in the Final Report were prepared, for the most part, by expert agents of the Commission who had been previously engaged in investigations along the respective lines. *

[* It may not be inappropriate here to mention the experts to whom these original drafts in the Final Report were primarily due. In several cases, however, there was a considerable degree of co-operation between different persons in the material on a single subject. The introductory chapter on the “Progress of the Nation” was chiefly drafted by John R. Commons and Kate Holladay Claghorn; the review on “Agriculture,” by John Franklin Crowell; “ Mining,” by E. W. Parker and the secretary; “Transportation,” by William Z. Ripley; “Manufactures, Trade, and Commerce,” by the secretary and Robert H. Thurston; “Industrial Combinations,” by J. W. Jenks; “Labor,” by John R. Commons, Charles E. Edgerton, and the secretary; “Immigration,” by John R. Commons; “Taxation,” by Max West; “Irrigation,” by Charles H. Litchman, a member of the Commission.]

This was a necessary and natural method, which adds to the credit of the commissioners who followed it, rather than detracting from it. It is, indeed, scarcely conceivable that such extensive reports should be drafted out of hand by a body of men, especially men who are not specialists and who cannot give all their time to the work. The commissioners spent three or four months, however, in going through these reviews in detail, and statements or arguments which did not commend themselves to the majority were modified, sometimes very radically. Unfortunately, some of the members of the Commission were not able to at tend these discussions very regularly. The amount of time spent on some of the more controversial subjects, especially industrial combinations, necessarily shortened the deliberations on other topics. The result is that most of the reviews in the Final Report still represent mainly the work of the experts who first drafted them. Although a majority of the commissioners doubtless gave them a fair amount of thought before concurring, it is probably safe to say that several of the reviews are more “progressive” in tone — if one may use a vague word — than any committee or commission of Congress would be likely, strictly on its own initiative, to make them. The review on Labor is a conspicuous illustration. It is partly for this reason that the letter of transmittal of the Final Report states that the signatures of the commissioners apply to the recommendations only, and that no particular member is necessarily committed to the statements or reasoning in the reviews. Had the field covered been less enormous, had there been more time saved from the taking of evidence for considering the Final Report, the reviews might in the revision have been made to embody still more essentially the conclusions of the commissioners themselves.

As already stated, the recommendations proper are brief and bald, without argument or details. To its recommendations on immigration and on convict labor the Commission appended, as somewhat tentative suggestions, fully drawn bills. It was probably wise, on the whole, in not yielding to the desire of two or three of the members that the same should be done regarding all subjects. There was no sufficient reason to expect that Congress or the State legislatures would take very immediate action on most of the proposals. Detailed bills would have become out of date in many features before serving as a basis for actual laws. Objection to minor matters in such bills might have hindered due consideration of the fundamental proposals. Moreover, the committees of Congress usually prefer to draft their own bills; while as between the various States there are such differences of conditions, and such variations in the methods of phrasing and carrying out legislation that uniform bills would have been of less service. On the other hand, it seems that much might have been gained by presenting a moderate amount of argument in immediate conjunction with the recommendations, and still more by describing and dis cussing with reasonable fulness the methods of applying practically the broad principles of legislation suggested. As it is, the reader must often search with considerable care in the long reviews to find the arguments in behalf of the proposals; and his mind may be full of unanswered queries as to the actual application and working of the policies proposed.

Hon. T. W. Phillips, the original framer of the bill creating the Industrial Commission, had in mind a body which should virtually draft for the convenience of Congress a complete industrial code, — a deliberative rather than an investigating commission. While this plan in its entirety would, perhaps, scarcely have been practicable, even with the most expert organization of the Commission, it seems unfortunate that the Commission went so nearly to the opposite extreme, subordinating recommendation to inquiry. The recommendations proper, however, being short, received very thorough consideration by the commissioners (except by some of the members of Congress); and their merits and defects are to be ascribed primarily to the Commission itself. The expert agents, of course, had no little influence in regard to some of them. It was they who usually prepared the first drafts. But the drafts followed the general views of the majority of the commissioners. They were, moreover, subjected to extensive modification at its hands. Many new proposals were inserted, and others omitted.

One result of the method of procedure described is that the recommendations of the Industrial Commission are not always consistent with the immediately preceding reviews. The fact that different members, and usually more members, might be present at the time of discussing the recommendations than when the reviews were considered was a further occasion for discrepancy. In some cases, when a great change had been made in the recommendations proper, the commissioners did not take the pains or absolutely did not have the time, as the end of the term drew near, to make the earlier views conform. Thus a large part of the review on the subject of immigration is virtually an argument in favor of the educational test, yet finally a majority of the commissioners decided not to recommend such a test. The recommendations on labor questions, which were prepared early in 1900 and repeated in the Final Report, naturally enough present some, though on the whole not very serious, inconsistencies with the review prepared late in 1901.

The most conspicuous illustration of such discrepancy between review and recommendation is with regard to railway pooling. The discussion in the review, drafted by Professor W. Z. Ripley, had been considered with unusual thoroughness by the Commission in fairly well-attended sessions, but was finally left by them largely as submitted. It was a strong argument in behalf of permitting pools, subject to the supervision of the Interstate Commerce Commission as to rates. A brief paragraph to the same effect was contained in the original draft of the recommendations, but during the discussion later it was bodily omitted without any modification of the argument in the review. It is curious to note, as indicating the rather slipshod methods of such bodies in their deliberations, for similar occurrences are not uncommon among Congressional committees, — that several of the members of the Commission who were present when the recommendations on transportation were being discussed, declared, after the publication of the report, that they had not been aware of the omission of the paragraph, and that they still believed a majority of the members favored pooling.

It is natural enough, perhaps, that the recommendations of the Industrial Commission should not even be, in every instance, consistent with themselves. The conclusions of a body composed of many members, diverse in views and motives, must necessarily involve much of compromise. This at times appears in the presentation side by side of the positions of different individuals or groups which are irreconcilable at bottom, though perhaps not on the sur face. Sometimes inconsistency arose, probably more from carelessness and failure to perceive it than from compromise. The recommendations of the Commission on trusts present a case in point. The discussion of proposed legislation which directly precedes the recommendations really belongs with them, and is essential to understand them. It was worked over with the greatest thoroughness by the commissioners. This discussion shows clearly that existing anti-trust legislation has been ineffective, criticises it for not employing the remedy of publicity rather than attempting directly to destroy combinations, and admits the impracticability of satisfactory legislation by forty-five States and four Territories regarding matters which are almost always largely of interstate concern. The general remedy on which most stress is laid is publicity; yet side by side with this among the recommendations appears another, “that combinations and conspiracies, in the form of trusts or otherwise in restraint of trade or production, which by the consensus of judicial opinion are unlawful, should be so declared by legislation uniform in all jurisdictions.”

Another result of the attempt at compromise between opposing views of commissioners appears in the colorlessness of some of the material in the reviews and recommendations. While it is appropriate enough for an investigating commission to present the arguments on both sides of disputed questions, it fails to perform the duty for which it was created when it suggests no positive conclusions on important matters, and does not even adequately criticise the opposing positions. This fault seems to lie in much of the Commission’s discussion of the facts concerning industrial combinations in the Final Volume, — a discussion which was worked over by the members themselves at great length, and is attributable mainly to them. The statements as to the advantages and disadvantages of trusts, and their effect on prices, are so general and indefinite or so carefully balanced that they quite fail to convey any impression as to whether the Commission thinks there are positive evils to be remedied or not. The absence of specific illustrations on these points, based on the investigations of the Commission itself, is conspicuous. The recommendations of the Commission regarding combinations, however, atone for the flatness of the discussion in the review; for, despite some inconsistencies, they seem more vigorous and sound than could reasonably have been expected from such a body at this time.

In fact, taking the recommendations of the Industrial Commission as a whole, they will probably appear to the majority of economists remarkably sane and liberal, decidedly superior to those of most Congressional committees and public investigating bodies in the United States. Indeed, the Commission is much more definite and forceful in its recommendations than the British Labor Commission. A greater degree of unanimity was secured by the American than by the English body, greater than could perhaps have been anticipated. The Commission’s investigations brought much new light to its members as well as to the general public, — light which constantly forced them more nearly into agreement with one another and with other thoughtful men throughout the country. The differences still remaining at the close of the inquiry led naturally to many prolonged and often acrimonious debates; but the compromises reached were, the writer believes, fairly satisfactory to most of the members, and in most cases they involve neither inconsistency nor colorlessness. The recommendations on each broad subject were separately signed. Two or three Democratic members of Congress declined to sign any of the reports for political reasons. They alleged that the entire work of the Commission had been colored with Republicanism, a charge which, naturally enough, contained an element of truth. They designed to leave themselves free to attack any Republican measure which might be supported on the basis of the reports. But several other Democratic members of the Commission signed the recommendations, as did members who, while Republicans, had been widely opposed to the majority on many questions. Only a few qualifying opinions and dissents as to particular points were appended to the signatures by individual members or groups, so that, on the whole, the recommendations must be considered essentially unanimous.

It is with much diffidence that the writer ventures now a few suggestions, based on the experience of the Industrial Commission, regarding the proper methods of conducting such governmental investigations. The form of organization and the procedure will, of course, properly vary with the nature of the task to be accomplished. What we have to suggest refers more particularly to inquiries into economic problems, and to those which are designed specifically to form a basis for legislation, involving not merely the securing of data, but the suggestion of conclusions and recommendations.

It would seem natural that such an investigation should proceed on the basis of a clear distinction between technical inquiry and deliberation, and should provide more or less distinct machinery for each function. The task of deliberation may well be given to a thoroughly representative body of citizens. The members of this body should recognize that they are not specially fitted to secure economic information in detail. In the ascertainment of facts they should confine themselves mainly to directing the broad lines of work and selecting competent experts to carry it out.

Economists need no argument in behalf of the proposition that this is an age when only specialists can obtain the best results in the investigation of industrial facts. Success requires the constant and concentrated attention of a man familiar by previous training with the sources of information and the methods of inquiring into and judging the significance of data. Recognition of this need of expert service is fortunately growing among our national administrative and legislative officers, and, though perhaps less rapidly, among those of State and local governments as well. A body such as the Industrial Commission might well, at the outset, map out its field thoroughly, and select experts to work it for facts systematically and comprehensively. Immense amounts of information may be compiled from existing official documents, trade journals, publications of trade organizations, etc., from correspondence and from personal interviews. The Commission should insist that such information be brought into logical and concise form, accessible to its members and to the people, and that, wherever possible, a brief summary should accompany each expert report.

In some cases much might be gained in efficiency and economy if a special investigating commission should be given authority to request, or even to require, the co operation of existing government bureaus in securing data. Such bureaus may possess machinery ready to hand, and skilled employees to do field and clerical work. If assistance of this sort is required, the commission would naturally have to be empowered to direct part of its expense appropriation to the bureau furnishing the

service.

The success of the technical investigations of such a commission may be greatly promoted by a thoroughly competent secretary or other chief executive officer. The great value of the work done by Mr. Geoffrey Drage for the Royal Labor Commission shows the possibilities of such a position. The secretary should not merely be qualified to manage the clerical force, attend to the correspondence, and supervise the publication of reports, but he ought properly to be a highly trained economic investigator. Such a secretary could often save expense by himself directing relatively unskilled assistants in collecting needed material. He should be able also, under the direction of the Commission, to exercise a considerable degree of supervision over the work of the various special experts. He might make suggestions of value as to methods, even to specialists far more familiar with particular fields than himself. Especially could he aid in co-ordinating the investigations, avoiding gaps and overlapping. It seems important that, so far as possible, all the experts should have a common headquarters, in order that they may frequently consult with the commission and with one another, and that economy in office administration may be promoted.

Here will doubtless be raised the question, What remains for the commission itself to do, if so much is assigned to expert investigators? Some will complain that the function of the expert is unduly magnified. Others will seriously suggest that we go further, and that deliberative functions as well be assigned to specialists, to statisticians, and economists, eliminating lay members from the investigating commission altogether. This latter proposal would be quite as objectionable as the old plan of intrusting the entire work to politicians, lawyers, and business men, without expert training in economic lines. Not the least important consideration is that legislators and the people generally will have more confidence in conclusions reached by a representative body of citizens than in those of professional economists alone. And this feeling is, on the whole, well founded. Where deliberation on questions, of general principle is required, the judgment of several intelligent persons from various walks in life persons having differing interests, views, and habits of thought — is likely to be safer than that of any expert or group of experts. The specialist may easily become blinded to the wider aspects and bearings of his subject. In planning and directing broadly the technical investigations, a body of non-professionals will serve a most useful purpose. Above all, in reaching conclusions and making recommendations on subjects which involve the well-being of great classes having widely different interests and views, the judgment of a thoroughly representative body is required. Its decision may not conform to strict economic theory or to ideal justice, but it will be likely to be a compromise more nearly acceptable to all classes. At the same time the opinions of their expert investigators may well be consulted constantly by the members of the commission in reaching their conclusions. If the commissioners recognize clearly the limits, and at the same time the exceeding importance, of the functions which they can properly perform, they will feel no false shame in giving large place to the professional investigator.

An important result of such a division of labor as has been suggested would be that the commissioners themselves, freed from the task of investigating details, would have more time to give to thorough deliberation on fundamental matters. In many cases, indeed, the system would relieve the members of the necessity of giving more than a moderate amount of time to the commission work. Somewhat extended sessions at the outset for laying plans and at the close for gathering in results would be necessary. But during the interval the commission might need to meet only occasionally to consult and direct its experts and to take testimony. As above indicated, the method of oral testimony possesses great value for certain purposes, and requires the presence of a body of several members. But no huge mass of oral evidence would be needed by a commission which made adequate use of expert service. Witnesses would be called chiefly to elucidate particular points found by the special investigations to need explanation or to present authoritatively the views and desires of great groups in the community. The leading part in the questioning would usually be taken by some expert, who should have prepared himself for it as the lawyer does for trial. It may be noted also that the time required from the members of the commission might often be greatly lessened by proper reliance on committees.

By reducing the quantity of work required from commissioners, its quality would be vastly improved. When a large part of the time of the members is demanded, only men of comparatively small income or of unimportant interests can usually afford to accept appointments at·the salary offered. In consequence, too often the positions go to place-hunters, to whom the moderate salary is an important consideration. If he felt that by no means all of his time would be required, the astute lawyer, the successful manufacturer, the powerful labor leader, the great financier, men to whom salary was a matter of little concern,-might be induced to become a member of an investigating commission. It must be confessed that even thus the prospect of getting much service from the really most prominent representatives of the various industrial interests is not flattering. We have comparatively few men who have retired after successful past experience, and far too few who, while yet active, care enough to serve the public and to win the honor which such service brings, to spare even a modicum of their time from money-getting. But in the direction suggested lies probably our greatest hope of gradually drawing more official service from leading men of affairs.

The questions as to the proper number of members of an investigating commission, their compensation, and the duration of their term, will of course depend largely on the nature of the subject of inquiry. If the problem is such a fundamental one as that of railroads, or of trusts, or of the relations of capital and labor, it is essential that the commission should be thoroughly representative of all interests, and should have ample time for its work. An investigation of trusts, for example, by a body which should not contain one or more representatives of the great combinations, and one or more spokesmen of their competitors, as well as men standing for the consumers and the investors, must be adjudged inadequate. Equally desirable would seem the presence of a trained lawyer and a trained economist upon a board which is to consider industrial questions regarding which legislation is sought.

It may be seriously questioned whether it is wise, in many cases, for the legislative body to place any of its own members upon a commission which is also to contain other citizens. Such legislators cannot usually be expected to give as much of their time to the commission as its other members; yet naturally they will want to exercise a powerful influence on its conclusions, and will take positions which, had they the light which the others have gained, they would have learned to abandon. Members of legislative chambers in such a commission, moreover, will find it difficult to divest themselves of that partisan attitude towards questions which is part of their daily atmosphere. The chief advantage of such a mixed body is that, if the legislative members agree in the conclusions, they will be able to defend them later on the floor of the legislature itself. But, unless there is good reason to believe that they will themselves enter thoroughly into the investigations and deliberations of the commission, this gain is more than offset by the disadvantages. Committees composed exclusively of members of the legislature will find ample scope in dealing with more particular and less fundamental problems than are assigned to such a special commission. It will naturally be their duty also to deliberate further regarding the actual measures proposed by the investigating commission.

Thus far we have had reference particularly to temporary commissions established to inquire into some special subject or group of allied subjects. Such a temporary body ought to have a definite and fairly limited field. A general inquiry into all industrial problems, such as was set before the Industrial Commission, is evidently too broad to be satisfactorily conducted in any limited time. It is, however, often suggested that the federal government, and perhaps some of the States as well, should establish a permanent commission or council to advise the legislature and the administration regarding economic questions. Such a body has been proposed by various persons in connection with the new Department of Commerce and Industry, for the creation of which bills have recently been introduced in Congress.

To secure the greatest efficiency in official investigation of industrial matters, it would be highly desirable to bring together into one department all the statistical and other bureaus now chiefly concerned with such questions, and to give to this department authority to secure the proper co-operation of other departments which incidentally obtain valuable economic data. An Industrial Council would find its natural position as the immediate adviser to the head of such an industrial department, with perhaps more or less power of direction as well as of counsel. It would be its function to suggest to existing bureaus subjects and methods of investigation, to co-ordinate their work, to supplement it from time to time through special experts and through oral testimony, and, above all, to deliberate regarding conclusions from the facts and to make recommendations to the legislature. The council could be given wide latitude in determining what problems to take up; but it could also be directed by the legislative body from time to time to make investigations or recommendations on particular topics. If we should deem it wise to follow the precedent of European countries in leaving to administrative officials much discretion as to the application in detail of general principles laid down by the legislative branch, such an industrial council would naturally be called upon to adopt ordinances to this end or to approve those issued by other officers.

Should a permanent body with such wide-reaching powers be established, it would evidently be necessary to make its membership larger, and more thoroughly representative of the various economic interests and groups, than in the case of a commission having a special subject of inquiry. To secure the best men, the amount of time of attendance required would have to be kept small. This might be accomplished by large use of committees, and by relying much on the expert heads of bureaus and on special experts.

To the present writer such an industrial council seems to offer ultimately great possibilities for good. Several European countries, such as Prussia, Austria, France, and Belgium, have established bodies having more or less of this character; and they appear to have worked fairly well. To be sure, it must be recognized that a body of this sort, relying on the service of those who find their chief employment and interest elsewhere, is in danger of degenerating into a mere form, or else of falling under the control of small groups of faddists or of those having some ulterior motive. Undoubtedly, a small board of, say, half a dozen members, would possess superiority in mere efficiency of administration and in promptness and unanimity of decision, as compared with a large council. But the growing complexity and importance of industrial problems, and the probably increasing divergence of interests among different groups and classes in the community, make it constantly more necessary that, in deliberation on such matters there should be wide representation of the people.

The time may not be ripe for such methods of attacking our economic problems. But the growing demands on the time of members of legislative bodies and of administrative heads of departments are likely to render the need of division of labor imperative at some not far distant time.

Source: E. Dana Durand. The United States Industrial Commission; Methods of Government Investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 16, No. 4 (August 1902), pp. 564-586.

Image Sources: Simon Newton Dexter North portrait from the U.S. Census/History webpage. E. Dana Durand. Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division. Washington, D.C. 20540. Images colorized by Economics in the Rear-View Mirror.

Categories
Columbia Economists Undergraduate Wing Nuts

Columbia. Economics instructor not rehired. Academic freedom vs. academic license. Henderson, 1933

The issue of academic freedom can shock the best and worst of economics departments. Like much of what is interesting in economics, it is important to distinguish between nominal and real shocks. In 1933 Columbia College, the undergraduate arm of Columbia University, found itself in a whirlwind of controversy following the non-renewal of a contract of a radical instructor of economics. I stumbled across this case from newspaper accounts and thought it would help spice up Economics in the Rear-view Mirror (much as the Harvard/UMass saga of young radical economists in the early 1970s has) to examine the case.

I have not ever looked for or seen any archival material at Columbia regarding the protagonist of this post, Donald Henderson. Economics in the Rear-View Mirror is primarily concerned with the nuts-and-bolts of the economics curricula across time and universities. Still my curiosity has led me to examine several online newspaper archives (The Columbia Spectator archive has been especially useful), the genealogical website ancestry.com, and the usual book/text sites (archive.org and hathitrust.org), to fill in missing details about the life of Mr. Donald Henderson.

Economics in the Rear-View Mirror, theory of the case: Columbia University’s upper administration appears to have had a “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” moment once alumni letters began to pour in following the arrest of its economics instructor, Donald Henderson, at a protest in October 1932 at C.C.N.Y. in support of the English instructor Oakley Johnson, who had been dismissed by City College President Frederick B. Robinson for his “communist sympathies” (a New York Times understatement). Having left the safe-space of what goes in Vegas, stays in Vegas (i.e. Columbia College), Donald Henderson was a low-value academic pawn offered as a sacrifice to satisfy the alumni gods. Henderson had not really displayed visible indicators of a future distinguished academic career and the Columbia administration most certainly underestimated the potential of the organized mobilization by militant agitators capable of leveraging such an issue for less than pure academic freedom principles. At the time the Columbia Spectator editorial board framed the problem essentially as one of academic freedom vs. academic license. 

Who was Donald Henderson? In the historical record we find that Henderson went on to become a communist party labor organizer who had climbed high enough in U.S. union leadership circles to even attract a subpoena from no less an assistant United States Attorney than Roy M. Cohn (yes, that Roy M. Cohn, whose later client list would include… Donald J. Trump…small world?!). Some Congressional testimony with Henderson’s liberal invocation of the Fifth Amendment regarding his communist party activities is provided below. With this his labor organizing career ended in the early 1950s and he lived the rest of his life in obscurity in Miami, Florida.

Now some artifacts following a chronology of Donald Henderson’s life.

______________________

Donald James Henderson
Timeline

1902. Born February 4 in New York City to Jean Henderson née Crawford and Daniel Robert Henderson (occupation “coachman” according to the 1898 birth certificate for his older sister Marjorie Augusta Henderson).

1910.  According to the 1910 U.S. census Mother Jean (“Married”) and all four children were living with their grandmother Estelle I. Crawford in Montpelier, Vermont where Donald went to grammar school. Donald’s father Daniel not yet found at this address or elsewhere).

1913. Donald’s father Daniel remarries August 18 to Hesper Ann Joslin.

1920. According to the 1920 U.S. census Mother Jean (“Divorced”)  and all four children were still living with their grandmother Estelle I. Crawford in Dansville, New York where Donald went to high school.

1921-22. Likely start of Donald Henderson’s undergraduate studies at Columbia University.

1924. The Columbia Progressive Club reorganized November 13.  Purpose of the club was the furtherance of a Third Party Movement. Members of the Executive Committee included Elinor Curtis and Donald Henderson.

1925. Donald J. Henderson married Elinor Curtis (Barnard, 1925) in Manhattan, August 31.

Elinor Curtis in the 1925 Barnard Yearbook

1925. A.B. with general honors, Columbia College.

1925-26. Garth Fellow, Columbia University.

1926. M.A. Columbia University.

1926. Birth of first son, Curtis Henderson (1926-2009) in New York City, September 28.

1926-27. Instructor in Economics, Rutgers University. Listed for a course on the economics (and regulation) of railroads, water, and motor transportation; a course on statistical principles.

1927-28. Summer Session [rank unclear], Columbia University.

1928-29. Instructor of Economics, Columbia University.

1929-30. Instructor in Economics. Columbia University.

1930-31. Instructor in Economics. Columbia University.

1931-32. Instructor in Economics. Columbia University.

1931. Communist Daily Worker of August 4, 1931. Henderson declared that he had rejected socialism and joined the Communist Party.

1932-33. Instructor in Economics. Columbia University.

1932. His wife, Elinor C. Henderson ran for Congress as an independent (i.e. as communists then did) in the 21st New York congressional district, receiving 7/10th of one percent of the vote.

1932. Arrested October 26 with three C.C.N.Y. students for disorderly conduct after police broke up a meeting protesting the dimissal of English instructor at C.C.N.Y., Dr. Oakley Johnson.

Note: Donald Henderson was an instructor of economics, not professor. Daily News (Nov 2, 1932).

1932. Serving as executive secretary of the American Committee for Struggle Against War, the American branch of the World Congress Against War.  Active in the Student Congress Against War and Fascism (established at Christmas).

1933. April. Donald Henderson’s appointment as instructor of economics is not renewed for the coming academic year. Joint committee [the Columbia Social Problems Club, Socialist Club, Barnard Social Problems Club, Economics Club, Mathematics Club, Sociology Club of Teachers College and the Social Problems Club of Seth Low] organizes campus protests for the reappointment of Henderson.
May. Further demonstrations, Henderson case attracts national attention.

Diego Rivera Addressing Striking Students at Columbia,” New York Times, May 16, 1933, p. 3.
Note: The painter Diego Riviera was Frida Kahlo’s husband.

1933. Executive secretary of the United States League Against War and Fascism that met in New York on September 29.

1933-34. Began organizing agricultural workers across the United States for the American Federation of Labor.

1934. Daily News (New York). From Bridgeton, N.J., July 10. Wire photo caption: “Husky Official leads Donald Henderson by the wrist as police spirit the Red organizer away from meeting where striking workers at Bridgeton, N.J., threatened him with lynching.”

1935. Second son, Lynn Henderson born in New York, April 14.

1935. September. Wrote article “The Rural Masses and the Work of Our Party” in The Communist.
[e.g. “… during the past 2 years our party has been successful in developing policies and organization which are rapidly achieving a successful turn to mass revolutionary work and influence in the cities and among the industrial urban proletariat.”]

1937. Established the United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied Workers of America, affiliated to the CIO. Elected as its international president, holding the post to 1949.

1938. [ca.] Third son, Donald Henderson, Jr. born.

1941. Wife, Eleanor [sic] Curtis Henderson died of poisoning June 11 in their home at 7750 South Sangamon Street, Chicago. “A coroner’s jury returned a verdict saying that it was unable to determine whether or not Mrs. Henderson took the poison accidentally.” Chicago Tribune (June 12, 1941, p. 12).

1943. Married South African born actress, Florence Mary McGee [formerly Thomas from her first marriage], in New York City, October 10.

1944. “United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied Workers of America” changes its name to the “Food, Tobacco and Agricultural Workers Union”.

1948. From The South Bend Tribune, Indiana (November 23, 1948), p. 1. “Donald Henderson, of Philadelphia, Pa., president of the Food & Tobacco Workers, was halted repeatedly by CIO convention delegates booing the minority report he read at Portland, Ore., opposing continued CIO support of the Marshall plan.”

1949. April. Henderson attends the (Soviet dominated) World Federation of Trade Union meeting in Paris as president of the Food, Tobacco and Agricultural Workers Union.

1949. Communist Daily Worker of August 15, 1949, entitled “FTA complies with NLRB rule”. Henderson quoted: “While it is true that I had been a member of the Communist Party, I have resigned my membership therein…” [For the union to be in compliance with the Taft-Hartley Act and have its officers sign the non-Communist affidavit, Henderson stepped down as president and was immediately appointed National Administrative Director.]

1950. October. Food, Tobacco and Agricultural Workers Union merged with the Distributive Workers Union and the United Office and Professional Workers Union to form a new international union called the Distributive, Processing and Office Workers Union of America (DPOWA). Served as administrative secretary of that international union for the first year.

1951. October. Reorganization of the DPOWA. Elected to national secretary-treasurer. [Henderson held post at least to Feb. 14, 1952 when he testified before U.S. Senate, Subcommittee to investigate the administration of the internal security Act and other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary.]

1951. Received a 30 day sentence for disobeying a Judge’s injunction against mass picketing during a brief strike at the Pasco Packing Company plant. “Donald Henderson of New York”  head of the Food, Tobacco, Agricultural and Allied Workers Union (Ind.). From an Associated Press report, Dade City (Sept. 26) in Pensacola News Journal  Sept. 27, 1951, p. 9.

1953. From a United Press report from Washington, February 23 published in The Palm Beach Post (February 24, 1953): “Henderson, now secretary-treasurer of the Distributive, Processing and Office Workers of America (ind)” took the fifth amendment before the Senate Permanent Investigating Committee of Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy. He also refused to answer questions about Voice of America employees with suspected communist affiliations.

Post-McCarthy hearing years. “[Henderson] eventually had to become a salesman to earn a living.” [From his obituary in The Militant, December 28, 1964]

1957The Miami News (January 26, 1957, p. 18). Report that Florence McGee moved to Miami recently with her husband, Donald Henderson, and their son. They have “been living quietly at 4335 [or 4345] SW 109th Ct.) She apparently resumed her long-paused acting career in the drama “Teach Me How to Cry” at Studio M.

1958. “By 1958 the illness which eventually took his life forced him into complete inactivity.” [From his obituary in The Militant, December 28, 1964]

1964. Donald Henderson died of a kidney ailment in Miami, Florida in December 12. [From his obituary in The Militant, December 28, 1964]

2000. Florence McGee Henderson (97 years) died in Miami, Florida on June 16.

_________________________

Obituary

THE MILITANT
(New York, NY)
28 Dec 1964

Early Organizer of Tobacco Union Dies in Florida

Donald Henderson, 62, a prominent early organizer of agricultural and cannery workers, died of a kidney ailment in Miami Dec. 12.

Henderson was an economics instructor at Rutgers and Columbia University in the mid-1920s. During this period he played a key role in the student and anti-fascist movements and was active in organizing the National Student Union and the American League Against War and Fascism. These activities led to his dismissal from Columbia.

He then devoted his efforts to the organization of agricultural workers, at that time completely unorganized in the U.S. Beginning by organizing workers in the truck farms of New Jersey, he established the Food, Tobacco and Agricultural workers union. The FTA under his leadership became one of the largest agricultural unions in the US, with a large membership of Southern Negroes, Mexican-Americans in southern California.

The deepening of the cold war, resulted in the expulsion of a large number of “left-wing” unions, including the FTA, from the CIO in 1950.

Henderson was an unco-operative witness at the McCarthy hearings in the 1950s and eventually had to become a salesman to earn a living. By 1958 the illness which eventually took his life forced him into complete inactivity.

______________________

Articles in
Columbia Daily Spectator

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 22, 28 October 1932.

Henderson Released on Bail
For Disorderly Conduct Hearing

Columbia Instructor, Held After Meeting
at C.C.N.Y. to Face Trial

Donald Henderson, Instructor in the Department of Economics, who was arrested on Wednesday night on a charge of disorderly conduct in connection with a demonstration at City College, was released on bail yesterday after arraignment in Washington Heights Court.

 

Mr. Henderson and three C.C.N.Y. students, who were held following a meeting of the Liberal Club at City College to protest the dismissal of Oakley defendants. Magistrate Anthony F. Burke ordered bail of $500 for each of the four under arrest. Their release could not be secured until later in the afternoon.

 

The seizure of Mr. Henderson came after the Liberal Club had been ejected from its meeting room in the College and had taken its stand on the Campus. There, after several denunciatory speeches, he was apprehended by the police and taken to night court where Magistrate Dreyer postponed the hearing until yesterday.

 

It is understood that the Columbia Social Problems Club will take steps to protest Mr. Henderson’s detention at a meeting of that organization at noon today in Room 307 Philosophy.

Frank D. Fackenthal, Secretary of the University, when asked whether the University would make any official recognition of the case, said that., the “matter is out of my jurisdiction.”

About 100 students from Columbia and C.C.N.Y. jammed the courtroom to hear the trial, with an equal number milling about outside and listening to speeches condemning the police action…

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 25, 2 November 1932.

Trial Begins For Henderson
Hearing Opens Before Crowded Courtroom.
Resumes Session Today

With the courtroom jammed to capacity and 200 students milling about in the streets outside listening to denunciations of the C.C.N.Y. administration, the trial of Donald Henderson, instructor in Economics at Columbia, arraigned on a charge of disorderly conduct, opened yesterday in Washington Heights Court before Magistrate Guy Van Amringe.

 

Mr. Henderson held with three City College students following a demonstration protesting the dismissal of Oakley Johnson from the C.C.N.Y. faculty, will reappear at 2:30 this afternoon for further hearing.

 

Session Lasted Three Hours

 

Yesterday’s session lasted for nearly three hours, with the proceedings devoted largely to the calling of witnesses for both sides. Mr. Henderson is expected to take the stand today, with Allan Taub acting as counsel for the defense.

 

Dr. George Nelson, assistant librarian at City College, testified yesterday that on the night of the disturbance which resulted in the arrests, he entered the history room of the College and found fifty students meeting there. They refused to leave, he said, and he summoned several policemen.

 

State Henderson Refused to Leave

 

Henderson: remained adamant, Nelson charged, and was finally pushed out of the room. Nelson added that he did not see the other defendants.

 

Oakley Johnson, whose removal led to the series of demonstrations in which Columbia students took a prominent part, appeared at the trial and was at first denied admittance. He finally gained entrance after several disputes.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 29, 9 November 1932.

Henderson on Probation
After Conviction For Disorderly Conduct

Donald Henderson, instructor in Economics, who was tried on a charge of disorderly conduct as a result of his participation in a demonstration protesting the dismissal of Oakley Johnson from C.C.N.Y., is on probation for six months after receiving a suspended thirty day sentence.

 

The trial, conducted before Magistrate Guy Van Amringe in Washington Heights Court, was brought to a close Monday after a week of prolonged hearings. Allen Taub acted as counsel for the defense….

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 112, 5 April 1933.

Henderson Appointment Ended;
Conflicting Explanations Issued

Donald J. Henderson, instructor in economics and prominent radical leader, clashed with the University yesterday over the non-renewal of his appointment here, in the first phase of what loomed last night as a prolonged conflict between Mr. Henderson’s supporters and the Administration.

 

Mr. Henderson, in declaring that he had rejected a Fellowship tendered to him by the University following the termination of his teaching activities, said that the offer was “a maneuver to ease me out of the University without raising the issue of academic freedom.”

 

Concerning that allegation, Professor Roswell C. McCrea, head of the Department of Economics, maintained that Mr. Henderson, during his tenure at Columbia, “has engaged freely in any activities to which he may have been attracted.

“The fact that his position here,” Professor McCrea insisted, “was not a permanent one was clearly stated to him before he became actively connected with any political group.”

With Mr. Henderson’s stand apparently clearly defined by his statement, the Social Problems Club, with which he has been actively connected, revealed yesterday that it will meet at 3:30 this afternoon in Room 309 Business to develop “a line of action” to be followed in Mr. Henderson’s defense.

 

Immediately following the appearance of the College Catalogue on Monday, in which no mention is made of Mr. Henderson, widespread curiosity was current as to his future status. That question was clarified with the issuance of statements yesterday by Mr. Henderson and Professor McCrea.

 

The statements, sharply conflicting on several points, dealt with the circumstances of Mr. Henderson’s seemingly imminent departure from Morningside Heights.

 

Mr. Henderson, who has been a prominent figure in radical disputes on this Campus and elsewhere, charged that the University is “maneuvering to ease me out without raising any question of academic freedom,” whereas, he declared, “the facts in this situation raise clearly and definitely the issue of academic freedom.”

 

In regard to his radical exploits which have been the subject of frequent newspaper comment, Mr. Henderson said that he was told last Spring that “extreme pressure was being brought to bear for my removal.”

 

Says Protesting Letters Received

 

He maintained that Professor Rex C. Tugwell informed him the following summer that “a flood of letters from prominent Alumni” had been received protesting the activities of Mr. Henderson and his wife, who was jailed during a dispute over alleged discrimination against Negroes.

 

Declaring that Mr. Henderson has “failed consistently to apply himself seriously and diligently to his duties as instructor and to maintain the standards of teaching required by this Department,” Dean McCrea said that “those conditions make his further connection with the Department of Economics undesirable.”

 

Mr. Henderson made known that he had been offered a post as “Research Assistant” for one year by the University “at a salary $700 less than my present one.”

 

Cites Provision of Offer

 

“The one condition attached to this offer,” he claimed, “was that the year be spent in the Soviet Union… the subject matter of my thesis, with which Professor Tugwell is acquainted, requires research in the United States rather than the Soviet Union.”

 

Professor McCrea’s statement declared that non-renewal of Mr. Henderson’s contract “is consistent with long-established University policy.

 

“There never has been any understanding or intention that Mr. Henderson should stay permanently at Columbia…. An appointment to an instructorship does not imply, in any case, later appointment to a higher rank with more permanence of tenure. For this reason, such understandings are had with all graduate students who are appointed to instructorships in economics.”

 

Mr. Henderson said that in the summer of 1931 “I became more active in the revolutionary movement and received considerable publicity in the newspapers in connection with those activities.

 

“That fall,” he continued, “I was advised by Professor Tugwell to look for another job. He stated at that time that in case of lack of success in finding another position, I would not be dismissed.”

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 112, 5 April 1933.

Somebody’s Wrong
[Spectator editorial]

The statement issued yesterday by Mr. Donald Henderson obviously does not quite jibe with that of Professor Roswell McCrea. According to one statement, Mr. Henderson was not reengaged as an instructor because of his radical activities, while according to the other the close of his academic career in so far as Columbia is concerned was occasioned by his incompetence as a scholar and as a teacher. There is no denying that Donald Henderson was the most obstreperous of Columbia’s many radicals. As to his teaching ability only those who have been his pupils can testify. Radical activities are certainly not a just cause for dismissal from the faculty of a liberal university. But it is equally as certain that it is unjust to use an instructor’s radical activity as an implement with which to force a university to handle with kid gloves a disinterested and incompetent instructor.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 113, 6 April 1933.

Problems Club Begins Defense of Henderson.
Committee Formed to Outline Campaign for Reappointment of Radical Instructor
– Attacks Dismissal

Mobilization of Donald Henderson’s defense in his clash with the University over non-renewal of his appointment was begun by the Social Problems Club yesterday.

 

While Mr. Henderson, an instructor in the department of economics and widely known radical leader, issued a second statement in which he characterized Professor Roswell McCrea’s assertions as “false” and “absurd,” the Club appealed for “effective and widespread action” in his support.

 

Committee of Ten Chosen

 

The latter move followed a meeting of the Club yesterday afternoon when a committee of ten was elected to direct the campaign for Mr. Henderson’s reappointment. The committee held its first session immediately after the club meeting and announced that it would convene again this afternoon to formulate “a complete program of action.”

 

At the same time Dr. Addison T. Cutler, instructor in economics and a member of the committee, made public four letters he said came from students who have studied under Mr. Henderson. These letters, “from students not affiliated with the Social Problems Club,” were introduced in defense of Mr. Henderson’s teaching ability.

 

Declares Action Due to ‘Pressure’

 

In his statement which was prompted by the declaration of Professor McCrea on Tuesday concerning Mr. Henderson’s status, the latter amplified his previous testimony in which he claimed that the University’s action was the result of “extreme pressure” growing out of his political activities.

 

“The assertion by Professor McCrea Mr. Henderson said yesterday, that I was engaged to teach in Columbia University on the condition that I finish my work for the doctor’s degree in two years is absolutely false.

 

Calls McCrea’s Statement ‘Absurd’

 

“As in the case of all instructors who are engaged at Columbia without doctor’s degrees, it was understood that I should continue my graduate work as rapidly as possible. The records will show that I have done this; all course credits and course requirements have been disposed of.”

 

Stating that he has been engaged in research on his thesis—”The History of the American Communist Party”—for the past two years, Mr. Henderson further charged that “the entire question of scholarly competence raised by Professor McCrea is absurd in view of the offering to me of a research assistanceship by the same department.

 

“The latter certainly could not be based on a disbelief in my scholarly competence.” The Problems Club will seek to enlist the support of other Columbia organizations, it was said yesterday.

 

The club’s statement asserted that “the Social Problems Club has been aware of administrative opposition to Mr. Henderson for many months. A careful effort has been made by the administration to get rid of Mr. Henderson without raising the issue of academic freedom.”

 

Charging that Mr. Henderson was “dismissed because of his political activities,” the statement called upon Spectator “to give the same dignified but vigorous support of academic freedom in Henderson’s case as did Henderson in the case of Spectatorat this time last year.”

 

In that regard, it was recalled yesterday that the strike on this Campus last year protesting the dismissal of Reed Harris took place exactly one year ago today.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 115, 10 April 1933

Joint Committee Outlines Action On Henderson
Issues Statement on Case Preliminary to Drive for Widespread Support
25,000 Leaflets To Be Distributed

In the first major move of what portends to be a nationwide campaign for the reappointment of Donald Henderson, the Columbia Joint Committee representing the Social Problems and Socialist Clubs yesterday issued a statement laying the groundwork for its program of action in Mr. Henderson’s defense.

 

The declaration was formulated in concert by the two organizations which are assuming the initiative in the movement for reappointment of the prominent Campus radical leader to his present post in the Economics Department.

To Seek Nationwide Aid

 

It deals with the case as presented by Mr. Henderson last week and as set forth by Professor Roswell C. McCrea in explanation of the Administration’s stand. Twenty-five thousand copies of the statement are being printed for distribution among organizations throughout the country in an effort to enlist “widespread and effective” support, it was announced last night.

 

The statement takes up successively the question of Mr. Henderson’s status under three main divisions —”The University’s Excuses,” “The Great Maneuvre That Failed” and “Pressure for Henderson’s Removal.” It concludes with a plea for “all students, student groups and faculty members to send letters of protest to Professor Roswell C. McCrea in Fayerweather Hall.”

 

Lays Dismissal to Radicalism

 

“No one knows better,” the declaration asserts, “than the Columbia administration that Mr. Henderson has been dropped because of his political activities and his leadership in the student movement of America.”

 

The committee outlines “The University’s Excuses” as based on three grounds—the non-permanence of Mr. Henderson’s appointment, non-completion of his degree and his teaching ability.

 

Questions Second Charge

 

On the first point, the statement says that “no one claims the University is violating a legal contract in dropping Henderson.” It takes issue, however, with Professor McCrea’s assertion that Mr. Henderson’s original appointment was made “on the condition that he finish his doctor’s degree within two years.” Concerning Mr. Henderson’s failure to achieve his Ph.D., the statement asserts that “neither have many other instructors who have been teaching for many years at Columbia” and states he “has finished all course and credit requirements.” Professor McCrea’s reference to Mr. Henderson’s teaching ability is branded “the most contemptible charge of all, unsupported by facts.”

 

Professor McCrea had said “Henderson has failed consistently to apply himself seriously and diligently to his duties as instructor and to maintain the standards of teaching required by the department.”

 

Cites Praise of Henderson

 

The Joint Committee here offers commendatory avowals “by former students who are neither personal friends of Henderson or associated with his political activities, including honor students, football players and others.”

 

The statement takes note of the action of Mr. Henderson’s Economics Seminar which unanimously voted him “a competent instructor” and “his analysis of economic theory… illuminating and intellectually stimulating.”

 

Statement Attacks Fellowship Move

 

Turning to “The Great Maneuvre That Failed,” the Committee considers the offer of a fellowship to Mr. Henderson by the University, which he declined, he said, as a move “to ease me out of the University without raising any question of academic freedom.”

 

In the section devoted to “Pressure for Henderson’s Removal,” the committee declares that at the time of the student strike last year in which Mr. Henderson played an active part, “Professor Tugwell said that it was only a question of time how long the pressure (for Mr. Henderson’s removal) could be withstood.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 117, 12 April 1933

To the Editor of Spectator:

 

The following is a statement of facts concerning a conversation I had with Dean Herbert E. Hawkes; I pass it on to you in the hope that it may shed light on the refusal of the administration to renew the appointment of Donald Henderson:—

 

The conversation took place in the Dean’s office in January, 1932. Only the Dean and I were present. We were engaged in a discussion of the teaching staff of Columbia College.

It was Dean Hawkes’ contention that the quality of instruction afforded students in the College was fully as distinguished as that to be had in any other university in this country.

To illustrate this argument he placed before me a list of the professors and instructors in the College. He read the names of the instructors, amplifying his reading with short summaries of the merits of the men in question.
I remember very clearly that he had high praise for every name on the list except of Mr. Henderson. The Dean said: “Mr.” Henderson is the only weak man we have. We are not satisfied with his work. I don’t think he will be with us next year.”

DONALD D. ROSS ’33 A.M.

 

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 117, 12 April 1933

Group Will Hold Protest Meeting On Henderson
Joint Committee Fixes Next Thursday as Date
Site Not Yet Chosen
Will Picket Library on Wednesday

The campaign for the reappointment of Donald Henderson, instructor in economics, yesterday focused on the efforts of the Columbia Joint Committee, organized to carry on his defense on this Campus.

 

Following a meeting attended by representatives of Columbia organizations, two principal decisions emerged:

  1. An outdoor demonstration will be held on Thursday, April 20, at a principal point, still undetermined, on the Campus.
  2. Pickets will be designated to surround the Main Library a week from today in preparation for an open-air meeting the following day.

Seven Clubs Send Members

 

While non-Campus groups were coming to the aid of the Columbia Committee, seven clubs from the University sent delegates to the meeting which determined upon the outdoor demonstration and the picketing plan.

 

These groups include:

 

The Columbia Social Problems Club, the Socialist Club, the Barnard Social Problems Club, the Economics Club, the Mathematics Club, the Sociology Club of Teachers College and the Social Problems Club of Seth Low.

 

Leaflets Distributed on Campus

 

2,000 leaflets bearing the title, “The Henderson Case” and containing the statement issued last Sunday by the Joint Committee were distributed on the Campus yesterday with 3,000 additional copies to be delivered today.

 

Meanwhile, the plan to enlist support from organizations throughout the country continued apace with the National Student League circularizing groups on 100 campuses. A city-wide meeting on the case will be held this Saturday at the New School for Social Research when delegates will be sent from the National Student League, the Intercollegiate Council of the League for Industrial Democracy, the Student Federation of America and other groups.

 

Teachers Send Protest

 

The Association of University Teachers yesterday sent a telegram of protest to President Nicholas Murray Butler and Professor Roswell C. McCrea. It read: “The Association of University Teachers, having examined all evidence available believes the dismissal of Donald Henderson unjustified and urges his reappointment.”

 

It was also made known that the Association has appointed a committee to cooperate in the campaign for Mr. Henderson’s reappointment.

 

The pickets will be stationed at positions around the Main Library where the offices of several prominent administrative officers are situated.

 

The Joint Committee yesterday made public a letter from Professor McCrea addressed to Miss Margaret Schlauch, a graduate of the University. Miss Schlauch has written protesting the nonrenewal of Mr. Henderson’s contract.

 

McCrea Replies to Letter

 

Professor McCrea, in reply, stated that “unfortunately, I fear that the public fails to understand the real merits of the situation. “These I think were adequately set forth in a statement which was furnished to the press but which did not appear in its entirety,” he wrote.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 118, 18 April 1933

Group Plans Picket Protest For Henderson
Supporters Will Circle Main Library—Howe Bans Mail Distribution Of Campaign Leaflets in Dormitories

While organizations and individuals throughout the city were being enlisted in the campaign for reappointment of Donald Henderson, the Columbia Joint Committee yesterday speeded preparations for bringing the case before the Campus this week.

 

Preliminary to an outdoor meeting on Thursday at which representatives of Campus groups affiliated with the committee will speak, thirty pickets tomorrow will surround the Main Library, where the offices of Administrative leaders are situated.

 

Bans Distribution of Leaflet

 

Distribution of the leaflet entitled “The Henderson Case” which has been circulated on the Campus was temporarily halted yesterday when it was revealed that the University had denied the committee permission to insert the statements in dormitory mail-boxes.

 

Herbert E. Howe, director of Men’s Residence Halls, told Spectator yesterday that “the University does not allow advertising material in local mail distribution.” He said that he considered the leaflet in that classification.

 

Committee leaders asserted that the circular on “What Is the Social Problems Club” and the announcements of the Marxist lectures had been recently distributed in dormitory boxes with Mr. Howe’s permission.

 

To Demonstrate at Sun Dial

 

As the Association of University Teachers assumed a leading role in organizing city-wide groups for Mr. Henderson’s defense, the Columbia Committee announced that the first of a contemplated series of demonstrations will be held at the Sun Dial in front of South Field. Leaders said yesterday that the meeting will be a “Columbia demonstration limited to Columbia speakers.”

 

The Association of University Teachers is drawing up a detailed statement on the case, it was made known yesterday, with the intention of submitting it to individuals and groups as the basis of an appeal for widespread support.

 

Say Henderson Expelled for Beliefs

 

The Association stated that “it has considerable evidence justifying the opinion that Mr. Henderson was expelled for his political activities and beliefs” and declared that “this is the most important case of violation of academic freedom since the war.”

 

A committee representing eight college organizations in this city has been formed to aid the protest movement, it was learned yesterday, following a conference at the New School for Social Research last Saturday.

 

Professor Henry W. L. Dana, who was dismissed from the University during the World War and is now at Harvard, has written to Professor Roswell C. McCrea concerning the Henderson case, it was revealed yesterday, with publication of a copy of the letter by an official of the National Student League.

 

Text of Letter

 

Professor Dana wrote:

 

“Considering the cases of other teachers who have been forced to leave Columbia University in the past (Professors MacDowell, Woodberry, Ware, Peck, Spingarn, Cattell, Beard), not to mention my own name, I cannot help smiling at the unconscious irony in your statement that the case of Mr. Henderson ‘is consistent with long-established University policy.’ “

 

Members of the Joint Committee indicated yesterday that a strike may be called for next week if ensuing developments “warrant such a move.” They said that demonstrations at colleges throughout the city are being planned.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 119, 19 April 1933

Will Picket Library Today
Henderson Supporters To Stage Three-Hour Demonstration

Student pickets will surround the Main Library at ten o’clock this morning for a three-hour siege of administrative offices to protest against the non-renewal of Donald Henderson’s appointment.

 

Preparatory to an outdoor demonstration in front of South Field at noon tomorrow, thirty representatives of organizations affiliated with the Columbia Joint Committee will form a cordon encircling the Library where they will maintain their stand until 1 P.M. this afternoon.

 

15 of Class Sign Petition

 

Meanwhile, fifteen members of Mr. Henderson’s Economics 4 class yesterday signed a petition, circulated by a student, which terms him a “thoroughly competent instructor and a definite asset to the course.” There were seventeen students present at the class meeting. Twenty-one students are registered in the course, a member of the Economics department said.

 

This move followed the action of students in Mr. Henderson’s Economics Seminar who last week unanimously voted him “a competent instructor” and said “his analyses of economic theory have been illuminating and intellectually stimulating.”

 

Announcements Posted on Campus

 

Posters appeared on the Campus yesterday announcing tomorrow’s demonstration and stating that seven speakers from Columbia organizations would address the meeting. The protesting students will assemble at the Sun Dial. The Joint Committee yesterday released data that a Faculty member and student had compiled, relative to the number of staff members in Columbia College who have not yet received Doctor’s degrees. This investigation was prompted, it was said, by Professor McCrea’s reference to Mr. Henderson’s failure to achieve his Ph.D. during his tenure here.

 

The survey asserted:

  1. Of ninety-four Faculty members with the rank of assistant professor or above, twenty-two have not obtained doctor’s degrees.
  2. Of eighty instructors in Columbia College, fifty are without doctor’s degrees. Of those fifty, thirty-three have served four years or more at Columbia.
  3. Of the thirty who have received Ph.D.’s, the average time for completion of all requirements was 4.9 years.
  4. Of thirty-three instructors without doctor’s degrees, the average time elapsed since they received their last degree is 7.6 years.

This data was made public with a statement pointing out that Mr. Henderson is serving his fifth year at Columbia and received his M.A. degree in 1926. Committee leaders said yesterday that from present indications a series of demonstrations, leading to a call for a student strike next week, will be staged. They declared there is a possibility that later meetings would be transferred to the Library steps, despite the University ruling restricting outdoor assemblages to South Field.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 120, 20 April 1933

Group to Stage Protest Meeting
Henderson Adherents to Mass Today — Pickets Surround Library

A mass meeting to protest the University’s failure to renew Donald Henderson’s appointment will be staged at noon today at the Sun Dial in front of South Field.

 

The demonstration, called by the Columbia Joint Committee which organized in Mr. Henderson’s defense last week, will be addressed by two Faculty members and representatives of Campus groups.

 

Patrol Library Area

 

In preparation for the meeting, thirty student pickets yesterday patrolled the area around the Main Library, bearing placards which urged Mr. Henderson’s reappointment. The pickets maintained their stand for three hours, attracting curious groups of spectators and several newspaper photographers.

 

The Columbia Committee revealed last night that a delegation is being formed to confer with Dr. Butler tomorrow on Mr. Henderson’s status and to present its plea for renewal of his contract.

 

Cutler Will Speak

 

Dr. Addison T. Cutler, instructor in economics, and Bernard Stem, lecturer in sociology, will be the faculty speakers at today’s demonstration. Other addresses will be delivered by John Donovan ’31, president of the Social Problems Club; Ruth Reles, of Barnard; John Craze, of the Mathematics Club; Jules Umansky, of the Socialist Club; Edith Goldbloom, of New College and Nathaniel Weyl ’31, now a graduate student.

 

The picketing continued for three hours yesterday with some students carrying varied placards along the Library Steps, while others formed a cordon encircling the building.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 121, 21 April 1933

Large Crowd Attends Protest For Henderson
150 Hear Addresses by Cutler, Donovan — Term Dismissed Instructor ‘Too Good for Most of People in University’

Agitation for the reinstatement of Donald Henderson continued yesterday when the Columbia Joint Committee staged a demonstration attended by about 150 students at the Sun Dial in front of South Field.

 

Leading off a series of addresses by members of the Faculty and Student Body, John Donovan ’31, president of the Social Problems Club, declared the Economics instructor was expelled “not because he was too poor a teacher but because he was too good for most of the people in this University.”

 

Cutler Praises Henderson

 

Dr. Addison T. Cutler of the Economics Department, one of the two Faculty speakers, stated that “Mr. Henderson has carried out as few educators have done, the maxim that theory and practice should be united.

 

“It has always been a Columbia tradition,” he declared, “that its teachers should be active in community life. It is now becoming recognized that this means they should be active in their communities along class lines. But if they want reconstruction of the social order they aren’t acceptable to the administration.”

 

Distribute Protest Postcards

 

Terming the charge of “academic incompetence” levelled at Mr. Henderson by the University a subterfuge, Dr. Cutler lauded the instructor’s ability and characterized the reasons given for his dismissal by Dean Roswell C. McCrea of the School of Business, as “the thinnest kind of a fictitious peg upon which to hang a hat.”

 

During the course of the demonstration, members of the Joint Committee distributed postcards addressed to President Butler and bearing the statement: “I, the undersigned student, join the protest against the dismissal of Donald Henderson and demand his reappointment.”

 

Committee to Meet Butler

 

A committee delegated by the protest group today will confer with Dr. Butler regarding the non-renewal of Mr. Henderson’s appointment and to urge his reinstatement. Meanwhile, petitions protesting the teacher’s dismissal will be ready for distribution Monday, Donovan stated.

 

Jules Umansky, of the Socialist Club, also spoke yesterday, asserting that “Mr. Henderson is incompetent from the point of view that he taught what he wasn’t supposed to teach. He is incompetent because he has been teaching young people to think in terms of current problems. He is the only one who has taught this subject.”

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 122, 24 April 1933

Group to Meet With Dr. Butler
Henderson Supporters Pick Delegation to Seek Administration Stand

The Administration’s stand regarding the renewal of Donald Henderson’s appointment is expected to receive expression when a special delegation chosen by the Columbia Joint Committee confers today with Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler.

A conference with Dr. Butler was to have taken place last Friday, leaders of the protest group declared, but was postponed until this afternoon “because of some mechanical obstructions.” These, it was stated, were removed with the appointment of a special committee of ten students and one Faculty member and the arrangement with Dr. Butler for a definite appointment.

 

Delegation Has 11 Members

 

The delegation which will meet with the president at 3:45 this afternoon is composed of: Bent Andresen ’36; Reginald Call ’33; Dr. Addison T. Cutler, economics instructor; John L. Donovan ’31, president of the Social Problems Club; Edith Goldbloom, of New College; James E. Gorham ’34; Leonard Lazarus, Law School student; Angus MacLachlan ’33; Victor Perlo, graduate student; [a brief biography]; Ruth Relis, of Barnard College and Charles Springmeyer ’33.

 

National Campaign Planned

 

Meanwhile, Henderson sympathizers off the Campus moved to obtain widespread backing for their campaign. Invitations have been sent to ten nation-ally-constituted student, teacher and professional groups asking them to a conference for the organization of concerted action on the Henderson to be held Thursday of this week.

 

The Association of University Teachers has already entered the drive to reinstate Henderson, having sent a telegram to Dr. Butler protesting the dismissal of the instructor.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 124, 26 April 1933

The Case of Donald Henderson
[Spectator Editorial]

What is academic freedom? Obviously, the right of a faculty member to express his convictions, political or social, without the dread that such expression will cost him his position or his chances of promotion. Columbia University, despite Dr. Butler’s reputed statement to the contrary, has violated this code — notably, in the expulsion of outstanding Faculty members during the war hysteria of 1917.

 

Now comes the cry that the refusal of the University to renew the contract of Donald Henderson is another clear-cut case of disregarding academic freedom. The non-reappointment of Mr. Henderson is said to be a direct result of his economic and political creed. The obvious question is then — Has the University’s action been due to Mr. Henderson’s radical activities?

 

At Monday’s conference with President Butler, Dr. Addison T. Cutler, member of the Columbia Joint Committee, is quoted as having said:

 

“Mr. Henderson told me a year ago last Fall that he had been asked to get another job.”

 

A year ago last Fall would be 1931 — prior to the Reed Harris expulsion, prior to the Kentucky student trip, prior to his arrest at City College. Certainly, his activity in radical circles was: comparatively obscure up until the time when Mr. Henderson says he was told his contract would not be renewed.

 

From the evidence presented up to the present time, the case of Donald Henderson is not one of clear-cut violation of academic freedom even though his supporters have attempted to make it appear so.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 126, 28 April 1933

From Mr. Henderson

To the Editor of Spectator:

 

The editorial in Wednesday morning’s Spectator concerning my case raises very sharply one question of fact which I feel requires a statement from me. This point concerns the time when pressure began to be applied for my removal, and the reason for this pressure.

 

During May 1931 Professor Tugwell informed me that my status as instructor at Columbia was not in question, that the people “downstairs” were satisfied with my work. In October 1931 during the first week of the session, Professor Tugwell. called me into his office and informed me that the situation had radically changed and that I had better look for a position…somewhere else for the following year. It was made clear, however that this was in no sense a case of “firing” but rather a suggestion that I find a position somewhere else if possible.

 

I immediately raised the question with Professor Tugwell concerning the abrupt change in attitude toward me between May 1931 and October 1931. No definite answer was given by Professor Tugwell beyond a general statement that I was spending too much time in “agitation” and not enough in “scholarly education.”

 

ln point of fact, what happened between May and was this. As my original statement pointed out I became extensively and publicly active in the Communist movement during the summer and though present members of the editorial board of Spectator may not have been aware of it at that time and know nothing of it now, these activities were attended with considerable publicity.

 

It is also true that with increased activity and publicity during the past year this pressure has taken on the form of blunt refusal to reappoint. The complaints about my activities were not in any way concealed from me. On the contrary they were several times brought to my attention, and it was well understood in the department that such was the case.

DONALD HENDERSON

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 127, 1 May 1933

Groups Rally To Defense Of Henderson
General Committee for Instructor’s Support Is Formed — Speakers at Meeting Call Educational System ‘Sterile’

The campaign for the reinstatement of Donald Henderson assumed nationwide significance over the week-end as the result of three conferences staged by the New York Committee for the instructor’s reappointment.

 

As the culmination of a week of general organization of the Henderson defense and presentation of the instructor’s case at several city colleges, a meeting was held at the Central Plaza last night at which addresses attacking the University’s failure to renew Mr. Henderson’s appointment were delivered by five speakers, including, for the first time in his own public defense, Mr. Henderson.

 

200 Attend Protest Meeting

 

Amid the sounding of a call for a “permanent organization to prevent future violations of academic freedom and to: put forward immediately mass pressure to reinstate Donald Henderson,” the speakers at the meeting, attended by 200 persons, generally condemned the “narrowness, dryness and intellectual sterility,” of the existing educational system.

Mr. Henderson termed Columbia “a liberal university where you may believe anything you please and discuss it freely under academic auspices, provided you hold these beliefs educationally and not agitationally.” Putting into practice personal doctrines which run counter to the “dominant social institutions” will result in “academic suicide,” he said.

 

Predicts Student Fascist Move

 

“Both for students and teachers the range of freedom in thought and action is constantly narrowing,” Mr. Henderson stated, predicting the crystallization of a Fascist student movement in America with increasing “tightening of educational lines.”

 

At an organization meeting Saturday, eight national student, teacher and professional groups, in addition to fifteen college clubs, allied themselves in a “General Committee for the Reinstatement of Donald Henderson.”

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 129, 3 May 1933

Henderson to Lecture

Donald Henderson, instructor in economics, will speak on the “Revolutionary Student Movement” at the next of the Social Problems Club’s Marxist Lectures tonight at 8:30 o’clock in Casa Italiana.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 129, 3 May 1933

To Hold Protest At Noon Today
Henderson Supporters Will Mass at Sun Dial For Demonstration

Three radical leaders and ten students will speak at noon today at the second Columbia outdoor mass meeting protesting the University’s failure to renew the appointment of Donald Henderson, instructor in economics.

 

Characterized by Henderson supporters as “undoubtedly the most important event in the fight,” the protest demonstration to be held at the Sun Dial is expected to draw a city-wide crowd of sympathizers.

 

Niebuhr to Speak

 

Speakers at the meeting, according to a statement issued yesterday by the Columbia Joint Committee for the Instructor’s reinstatement will be Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr of Union Theological Seminary, J. B. Matthews of the Fellowship of Reconciliation and Robert W. Dunn of the Labor Research Association. Ten students will also deliver addresses, representing various Campus organizations.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 130, 4 May 1933

Flays Faculty In Marxist Talk
Henderson Says Staff Quit Harris ‘Cold’-Plan Demonstration Today

Charging that American college faculties have failed to give support to student radical movements, Donald Henderson, instructor in economics, declared yesterday evening in one of the Social Problems Club’s series of Marxist Lectures that members of the Columbia teaching staff quit the Reed Harris and other cases “cold” when they thought they might “burn their fingers.”

 

With a plea for solidarity among student bodies of the nation on issues of importance, Mr. Henderson told a small audience at the Casa Italiana that “it is doubly important to get students of other campuses to come and demonstrate at Columbia.” The most pressing problem facing organized student movements, he said, is the “isolated character” of the individual student bodies.

 

Students Not Revolutionary

 

“The total student body in the United States is not revolutionary material,” Mr. Henderson declared, pointing out that the great bulk of present undergraduates came to college in the period when they were justified in looking forward to “a hopeful cultural future,” as well as important jobs on graduation. The depression has not greatly altered the points of view of many students, declared the instructor whose reappointment is being sought by the National Student League.

 

A fight on academic freedom should not be undertaken only on the basis of its own importance, but should be regarded as “merely the reflection of the broader social situation,” Mr. Henderson declared. Struggles taken up at colleges must be carried on with the intention of calling attention to the revolutionary program as a whole, he added.

 

A protest demonstration for the reappointment of Mr. Henderson will be held this noon at the Sun Dial in front of South Field, according to supporters, yesterday’s meeting having been postponed on account of rain.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 131, 5 May 1933

500 Attend Demonstration For Henderson
Instructor’s Case Held An Instance of General ‘Academic Repression’ in U. S.
 — Sykes Presents Opposition Viewpoint

The case of Donald Henderson is merely a single instance of a general situation of academic repression in this country, it was asserted yesterday by eleven of twelve speakers addressing a demonstration in protest against the failure of the University to renew Mr. Henderson’s appointment.

 

A crowd of 500 persons, assembled at the Sun Dial, variously expressed, by either cheering or booing, their opinions of the several speakers, among whom was J. B. Matthews, of the Fellowship of Reconciliation. He demanded student support of the Henderson case “as part of an issue we shall be forced in the future to combat in a bigger way, an issue which is now raising its head on the Columbia Campus.”

 

Tells Group to Organize

 

“This is the time to awaken, to organize, to stop now the tendency toward academic repression and servility to the prevailing social order,” he declared.

 

Mr. Henderson’s crime consisted in “functioning effectively in the social order and getting his name in the papers,” according to Robert W. Dunn of the Labor Research Association. “Had he been a respectable liberal and confined himself to harmless academic matters he would have been retained, at full pay, even if he never met his classes,” Mr. Dunn asserted.

 

Will Picket Today

 

During the demonstration two committees were organized to picket, commencing at noon today, the home of Dr. Butler and the Columbia University Club rooms. Agitation for Mr. Henderson’s reinstatement will continue Tuesday with another demonstration, followed by a march around the Campus, it was announced to the assembled crowd. An opposition viewpoint was expressed at the meeting by Macrae Sykes ’33, Student Board member who, when asked his opinion of the case, declared “there is a confusion of issues in this case. Academic freedom is not involved in Mr. Henderson’s expulsion. Many teachers at Columbia are expressing to their students the same ideas for which you claim Henderson was fired. These teachers weren’t asked to resign.

 

“This is no question of academic freedom,” Sykes continued, “but of the right of department heads to hire and fire their subordinates at will.”

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 132, 8 May 1933

An Unanswered Question
[Spectator Editorial]

On April 28, Mr. Donald Henderson, in reply to an editorial published two days previous, stated:

  1. In May, 1931, Professor Rexford C. Tugwell had told Mr. Henderson that his status as an instructor “was not in question.”
  2. In October of the same year, Mr. Henderson said in his letter, Professor Tugwell “called me into his office and informed me that the situation had radically changed and that I had better look for a position somewhere else for the following year.”
  3. When Mr. Henderson asked Professor Tugwell the reason “for the abrupt change in attitude toward me between May, 1931, and October, 1931,” the letter declares, “no definite answer was given by Professor Tugwell beyond a general statement that I was spending too much time in ‘agitation’ and not enough in ‘scholarly education.'”

Mr. Henderson’s statements are serious enough to warrant an answer. What happened between the months of May and October, 1931, is a question which silence on the part of Professor Tugwell cannot clear up.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 133, 9 May 1933

Broun, Harris Will Address Mass Meeting
Will Speak Today at Henderson Protest — 26 Prominent Liberals Ask A. A. U. P. tor Inquiry Of Instructor’s Case

Preparations for the third outdoor protest demonstration in behalf of Donald Henderson were completed yesterday as leaders of the Columbia Joint Committee for the instructor’s reappointment made public a letter sent by twenty-six educators, writers and radical leaders, to the American Association of University Professors requesting an investigation of the Henderson case.

 

Heywood Broun, columnist, Reed Harris, former Spectator editor and Joshua Kunitz, author, in addition to ten student speakers, will deliver addresses in Mr. Henderson’s defense in another protest meeting at noon today at the Sun Dial.

 

The signers of the communication declare themselves to be “deeply concerned with the issues of academic freedom and free speech” raised in the Henderson case, and request the Association to conduct a “thoroughgoing” investigation.

The full text of the letter follows:

 

“Professor Walter Wheeler Cook, President,
The American Association of University Professors
Johns Hopkins University

Dear Sir:

The undersigned individuals are deeply concerned with the issues of academic freedom and free speech raised by the release from Columbia University of Donald Henderson, instructor of economics. Mr. Henderson, who has been an instructor at Columbia for four years, has been notified that he will not be reappointed for 1933-34. The alleged reasons for this refusal to reappoint him are failure to complete work for a Ph.D. degree, and his poor teaching.

 

“Students and teachers at Columbia and other universities charge that the reasons given by the University for this action are hypocritical and misleading, and that the real reason for his release is his continued radical student and labor activities.

 

“We believe that the issues involved in Mr. Henderson’s release are of sufficient importance to justify a thoroughgoing inquiry by the American Association of University Professors. Accordingly, we ask you to instigate such an investigation at the earliest possible moment, and to make a report of your findings to the American people.”

 

The communication was signed by the following: George Soule and Bruce Bliven, of The New Republic; Lewis Gannett, of The New York Herald-Tribune; Freda Kirchway, of The Nation; Alfred Bingham and Selden Rodman, of Common Sense; Harry Elmer Barnes; Sidney Howard; Waldo Frank; Granville Hicks; Professors Broadus Mitchell, Johns Hopkins University; Newton Arvin, Smith College, Robert Morss Lovett and Maynard C. Krueger, University of Chicago, Harry A. Overstreet, C.C. N.Y., Willard Atkins, Edwin Burgum, Margaret Schlauch and Sidney Hook, New York University; Dr. Bernhard J. Stern, Columbia; Norman Thomas, A. J. Muste, Corliss Lamont, Elizabeth Gilman, Paul Blanshard and J. B. Matthews.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 134, 10 May 1933

Broun Asks Student Strike For Henderson
Calls University’s Action ‘Unfair’ — ‘Liberalism’ of Butler Hit by Instructor, Speaking on Own Case — Reed Harris Talks

Heywood Broun, noted columnist, yesterday called upon Columbia students to strike in protest against the University’s “unfair treatment” of Donald Henderson.

 

Declaring the economics instructor was “fired” solely for his radical activity, Mr. Broun told a crowd of 750 at a protest meeting on 116th Street that they should “come out and fight openly” to affirm the fact that “this University is ours and belongs to nobody else.”

 

Calls Students’ Judgment Important

 

“It is a strange thing,” the newspaper man asserted, “that an instructor is incompetent as soon as he becomes interested in radical activities. A remote Administration is not a judge of competence in this matter. The most important thing is what his classes think of Donald Henderson.”

 

In his second public address on his own case, Mr. Henderson, last speaker at the demonstration, attacked Columbia’s “liberal reputation,” declaring that “the essence of Columbia University’s liberalism is that it permits you freedom of thought as long as you don’t carry your beliefs into action.”

 

Attacks Liberals’ Policies

 

The practical application of such doctrines, if they run counter to the “dominant institutions,” causes the University to “distinguish between academic freedom and academic incompetence,” he declared.

 

“Effective unity of opposing thought and action of this sort,” Mr. Henderson stated, “immediately puts the liberal in a position where he must join the forces of reaction.”

He called upon teachers and students everywhere to “rouse into action and discover the meaning of this liberalism and all the other doctrines that are hung around our necks.”

Reed Harris, former Spectator editor, returning to the University to defend the Faculty member who supported him after his expulsion from Columbia last year, also spoke. He termed Mr. Henderson “one of the most important instructors in America” and called his non-reappointment “a rotten deal for Mr. Henderson and for the students.”

 

“Education,” he declared, “is a little like beer. It needs ferment to keep it from becoming flat. It needs activity, and teachers like Henderson provide this activity, dispel the unhealthy serenity bred of College Studies and dimly lighted rooms.”

 

Says Officials Are ‘Hypocrites’

 

Attacking the Administration’s stand on the case, Harris charged Columbia officials with being “hypocrites.” A charge of “absolute incompetence” and “nincompoopery” was levelled at a majority of Faculty members, some by direct reference, by Joshua Kunitz, writer and Phi Beta Kappa member who received his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees here.

 

Plans for continuance of agitation were drawn up by Henderson adherents immediately after the protest meeting. Two principal decisions emerged:

 

Will March by Torchlight

  1. A torchlight procession around the Campus will take place tonight, commencing at 8:30 o’clock from the Sun Dial. Preliminary to this event, sympathizers will picket the Main Library steps for two hours.
  2. Tomorrow, a mass picketing of the grounds, conducted by a city-wide group of Henderson supporters, will be held. Dr. Butler’s home will also be picketed.

Other speakers at yesterday’s demonstration included Nathaniel Weyl ’31; Robert Gessner, of the N. Y. U. faculty.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 135, 11 May 1933

Roar, Lion, Roar
[Spectator editorial]

Last night the supporters of the movement to reinstate Donald Henderson held a demonstration on 116th Street. Their intentions were simply to carry on the fight for a cause which they felt was justified.

 

But the self-styled “intelligent group of Columbia students” determined that the only way to beat the Henderson supporters was by egg-throwing. Dr. Addison T. Cutler, a courageous member of the Faculty, was subjected to the humiliation of having his coat spattered with eggs thrown by a gentleman who dared not come up front and state his case.

This exhibition by a supposedly intelligent group of undergraduates—their complete reversion to howling lynch-law—must leave the-ordinary bystander amazed.

 

When an alumnus of Columbia College—not a supporter of Mr. Henderson, but one who was merely passing by—got up and pleaded with the undergraduate group to be square and decent, he was greeted with hoots and jeers. It was rowdyism of the worst sort. It was inexcusable.

 

Students of this calibre will someday be graduated from Columbia College as capable, competent and educated young men.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 136, 12 May 1933

Joint Committee Calls Strike For Henderson
Instructor’s Backers to Stage Walkout Monday – Ask General Student Participation—Will Issue Leaflet on Case Today

A call to all University students to strike Monday in protest against the “continued silence” of the administration regarding the reappointment of Donald Henderson was sounded yesterday by the Columbia Joint Committee for the instructor’s reinstatement.

 

Declaring that “increasing manifestations of student sympathy and the incontrovertible evidence which has been presented” justify a general walkout, a statement issued yesterday by the Henderson defense group urged students to employ “the most potent weapon of student expression” to fight “this latest attempt to stifle freedom of action.”

 

Administration Is Silent

 

“Our campaign has moved forward,” the statement asserted, adding that the administration has been silent “despite the mass of testimony” offered to answer its original statement of the reasons for not reappointing Mr. Henderson.

 

Complete plans for the strike were speeded overnight with student sympathizers throughout the city voicing support of the move. Pickets to dissuade Columbia students from attending classes Monday will be selected over the weekend, leaders of the protest group announced.

 

Will Distribute Leaflets

 

This morning leaflets will be distributed on this and other campuses reviewing the case of Donald Henderson and urging students to participate in the walkout.

 

It is planned to circulate a petition urging the instructor’s reappointment among members of the teaching departments in an attempt to line up concerted student and Faculty opposition.

 

From noon till late afternoon yesterday Henderson adherents picketed the Main Library steps and the home of Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, bearing twenty-foot banners stating “Reappoint Henderson,” and numerous placards.

 

Many Students Indifferent

 

Repercussions of the open battle Wednesday night between Henderson supporters and the newly-manifested student opposition sounded from all quarters of the Campus yesterday. While many students hitherto undecided as to their sentiments on the Henderson case have definitely aligned themselves with either opposing or supporting forces as a result of the clash, many expressed continued indifference to the matter.

 

The opposition ranks, as yet not openly organized, were silent last night regarding plans for further action, but it was considered likely in informed circles that they will intensify their activity and seek to enlarge their numbers, preliminary to a mass counter-move on the day of the walkout.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 137, 15 May 1933

100 to Picket University in Henderson Strike Today
Walkout to Last All Day—
‘To Be Peaceful, Disciplined Meeting,’ Committee Promises—Rivera to Speak

Culminating six weeks of continuous agitation, the supporters of Donald Henderson will go on strike today.

One hundred pickets, drawn from Columbia and other colleges in the city, will patrol all University buildings commencing at 9 o’clock this morning to dissuade students from attending classes in protest against the Administration’s failure to reappoint Mr. Henderson, Henderson sympathizers will enter classrooms to urge students and Faculty to join the protest forces.

 

Strike to Last Until 5 P.M.

 

The walkout, continuing until 5 o’clock this afternoon, will be a “disciplined, peaceful affair,” leaders of the Columbia Joint Committee for the economics instructor’s reinstatement promised yesterday. Pickets and striking students have been instructed to “cause no trouble.”

 

Throughout the day, a continual procession of speakers will mount the Sun Dial to lead protest meetings demanding Mr. Henderson’s reappointment. Included in the list are the following: Diego Rivera, Mexican artist; McAlister Coleman, Socialist leader; Donald Henderson; Paul Blanshard, of the City Affairs Committee; Joseph Freeman, editor of New Masses; Alfred Bingham, son of Senator Hiram Bingham of Connecticut and editor of “Common Sense”; Clarence Hathaway, Communist Party Leader; William Browder; and E. C. Lindeman, of the Social Science Research Council.

 

Opposition to Demonstrate

 

Opposition forces could not be reached last night, but it was reporter [that a] counter-demonstration is planned for today. Having organized over the weekend, they are understood to be enlarging their ranks and are expected to offer resistance to pickets and protesting groups for the duration of the walkout.

Friday members of the Joint Committee distributed leaflets urging students to Strike Monday to Reappoint Henderson.” Reviewing the Henderson case thus far, the paper declares

“On Monday students of; Columbia University will once again be called to strike in defense of academic freedom. The time has come when we must resort to that weapon to protect the right of Donald Henderson and instructors after him to carry their beliefs into effective action.”

 

Leaflet Discusses Case

 

Discussing the case under four headings, “Why Was Henderson Fired?” “Facts,” “Who Supports Henderson?”, and “Who Opposes Henderson?” the leaflet points out that Mr. Henderson “has been dismissed from his teaching position at Columbia because of his activities in the revolutionary student and labor movement.”

 

Following a list of the student, teacher and professional groups supporting the economics instructor, the statement of The Joint Committee challenges the opposing student faction, and concludes: “At one and the same time they (the opposition) maintain ‘this is no case of academic freedom and Henderson Should be fired for his Communism! Sweep all radicals Out of Columbia!’ “

 

“Which is it, ‘gentlemen’ of the opposition,” the leaflet asks, was Henderson fired for radicalism or not? Do you or do you not want Columbia closed to all but goose-steppers? Make up your minds!”

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVI, Number 137, 15 May 1933

Manners
[Spectator editorial]

Today a group of students sincerely devoted to the fight for the reappointment of Donald Henderson will leave their classes and hold an all-day demonstration in front of the Sun Dial. Thus far they have carried on their activities with as much dignity as the opposition would allow. In one specific case they were treated to an adolescent display of rowdyism by a group of students.

 

We believe that student expression should have every opportunity for full and unrestricted expression, bounded only by certain standards of courtesy and fairness. The Henderson supporters have invited their opponents to speak. They have striven to prevent their meetings from degenerating into brawls upon provocation by a band of egg-throwers.

 

We hope that the Columbia College students who have made of themselves public examples of irresponsibility will be absent today. By staying away from that which they don’t want to hear, they will restore to themselves some of their fast disappearing dignity.

______________________

Seabrook Farms, N.J. Strike

Daily News (New York, 11 July 1934).

N.Y. Red Run Out as Farm Strike Ends
By Robin Harris (Staff Correspondent of TheNews)

Bridgeton, N.J., July 10.—The sixteen-day strike of the Seabrook Farms workers whose riots and disorders reached a climax in yesterday’s “Bloody Monday” gas bomb attacks was ended today when the strikers overthrew Communistic leadership and threatened to lynch Donald Henderson, Red organizer and former Columbia University economics instructor.

            As the resentment of the strikers flamed into anger toward their discredited leader, the authorities slipped Henderson out of town in an automobile, taking him to his bungalow at Vineland, about eight miles from here.

 

Workers Against Him.

 

            Henderson, whose wife, Eleanor (sic), was one of the twenty-seven strike leaders arrested after yesterday’s riots, found the opinion of the workers solidly against him when he urged them to reject the peace agreement drawn up by Federal Mediator John A. Moffitt.

 

            Shouts of “Run him out of town!” and “Lynch him!” interrupted the pint-sized [According to Henderson’s 1942 Draft registration card his approximate height and weight were 5 foot 10 inches, 140 lbs.] agitator’s flow of oratory when he persisted in addressing the highway mass meeting at which the workers voted 2 to 1 to accept the Moffitt agreement.

Surrounded by deputy sheriffs, Henderson left the meeting and returned to the offices of the Seabrook Farms, where he was greeted with jeers and renewed threats from the workers.

 

            While police officials and members of the farmers’ vigilantes committee strove to mollify the booing crowd, County Detective Albert F. Murray slipped Henderson out of the rear door and departed for Vineland….

 

            The twenty-eight prisoners, twenty-seven seized after the riots yesterday and the other when recognized today, were ordered released by Cumberland County Prosecutor Thomas Tuso after he learned of the strike settlement.

 

            Twenty-one of the prisoners were granted unconditional freedom, while the other seven, including Henderson, his wife, and Vivian Dahl, were continued in $500 bail pending the action of the Grand Jury, which meets in September.

 

            The seven continued in bail were charged with inciting to riot and suspicion of possessing dangerous weapons.

 

            Following the release of the prisoners, Col. H. Norman Schwarzkopf [Fun Fact: father of Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. commander of U.S. Central Command who led coalition forces in the Persian Gulf War], head of the New Jersey State Police, announced that he would give the New York Reds twenty-four hours to leave town. Those failing to get out under the deadline will be clamped into jail.

______________________

Grand Jury Probing

The New York Times Sept 11, 1951

“A nationwide search by the Government for Donald Henderson, president of the Food, Tobacco, Agricultural and Allied Workers Union of America, independent, was called off yesterday after the leftist labor leader agreed by telephone to appear here tomorrow before the Federal grand jury investigating subversive activities.

 

Roy M. Cohn, assistant United States Attorney in charge of the investigation, said that since last Wednesday United States marshals had been trying to locate Mr. Henderson to serve a grand jury subpoena. Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Henderson called Mr. Cohn from Charleston , S. C., and agreed to appear before the panel.

 

The grand jury has been questioning labor officials who signed the non-Communist affidavit under the Taft-Harley Law after resigning from the Communist party. …

 

…Yesterday three other leftist union officials were witnesses before the grand jury. They were James H. Durkis, president of the United Office and Professional Workers of America, independent, who resigned publicly from the Communist party, and Julius Emspak, secretary-treasurer, and James Maties, (or Matles) director of organization, of the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers, independent….

At the conspiracy trial of the eleven convicted Communist leaders, Louis F. Budenz, former editor of The Daily Worker, testified that Mr. Emspak attended a June 1945 meeting of the Communist party national committee….

______________________

February 14, 1952 Testimony

U.S. Senate, Subcommittee to investigate the administration of the Internal Security Act and other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary.  [pp.165-185]

[p. 166]
…Mr. Arens. Will you kindly give us the date and place of your birth?

Mr. Henderson. I was born in New York City, February 4, 1902.

Mr. Arens. And where were you educated? Give us a word about your education, if you please.

Mr. Henderson. I went to grammar school in Montpelier, Vt. I went to high school at Dansville, N.Y. I went to college at Columbia University.

Mr. Arens. Give us, if you please, a brief résumeé of your occupation after you completed your formal education.

Mr. Henderson. I taught at Columbia University for 7 years as an instructor in economics, and since that time I have been a labor organizer in one or another labor union.

Mr. Arnes. Could you be a little bit more specific on the labor organizations which you have been identified with?

Mr. Henderson. Starting in 1933-34, I started organizing agricultural workers throughout the country.

Mr. Arens. For what organization, if you please?

Mr. Henderson. For the American Federation of Labor. And in 1937, we established an international union affiliated to the CIO.

Mr. Arens. What was the name of that union?

Mr. Henderson. It was called the United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied Workers of America. That changed its name to the Food, Tobacco and Agricultural Workers Union in 1944. It affiliated to the CIO in 1937.

Mr. Arens. And what was your particular office or position with the union?

Mr. Henderson. I was elected international president of that union in 1937 and held that post until 1949. In October 1950, we merged with two other organizations, the Distributive Workers Union and the United Office and Professional Workers Union, to form a new international union called the Distributive, Processing and Office Workers Union of America, and I am the national secretary-treasurer of that new international union.

Mr. Arens. And how long have you held this post of national secretary-treasurer of DPOWA?

Mr. Henderson. At the time of the merger, I held the post of administrative secretary of that international union until October of 1951, when there was a reorganization and I was elected to the post of national secretary-treasurer of that union, and I have held that post since that time.

Mr. Arens. Would you give us, if you please, just a word of your personal history? Are you a married man?

Mr. Henderson. I am married; have been married twice. My first wife died. I have three children by my first wife, aged 25, 16, and 14, living on Long Island at the present time.

[…]

[p. 172]
…Mr. Arens. Did you join the Communist Party in 1931?

Mr. Henderson. I must refuse to answer that question on the same ground. [5th amendment]

Mr. Arens. I put it to you as a fact that on or about August 4, 1931 you joined the Communist Party and I ask you to affirm or deny that fact.

Mr. Henderson. I must refuse to answer that question on the same ground, sir.

[…]

Mr. Arens. The Daily Worker, Mr. Henderson, of August 4, 1931, contains an article which states that you had rejected socialism and [p. 173] joined the Communist Party. Do you have any recollection of that article?

Mr. Henderson. I must refuse to answer on the same ground.

Mr. Arens. I lay before you, Mr. Henderson, a photostatic copy of an article appearing in the Communist Daily Worker of August 4, 1931, and I ask you if you recognize that article.

[…]

Mr. Arens. Now I lay before you an article, a photostat of an article, in the Communist Daily Worker of August 15, 1949, entitled “FTA complies with NLRB rule” in which the following appears:

… “While it is true that I had been a member of the Communist Party, I have resigned my membership therein…”

[…]

[p. 176]
…Mr. Arens. Why did you sever your connections with Columbia University?

Mr. Henderson. I must refuse to answer that on the same ground, sir.

Senator Watkins. Were you teaching at Columbia University?

Mr. Henderson. Yes, sir.

Senator Watkins. What position did you occupy?

Mr. Henderon. I was an instructor there for 7 years in the department of economics. [sic, probably added one year Rutgers and six years at Columbia, see timeline above]

Senator Watkins. Department of economics?

Mr. Henderson. That is correct, sir.

Mr. Arens. What period of time?

Mr. Henderson. 1926 to 1933, I believe, were the years.

Mr. Arens. Did you resign, or was there a severance of relationships?

Mr. Henderson. There was a severance of relationships.

Mr. Arens. At whose request was there a severance of relationships?

Mr. Henderson. I must refuse to answer that question on the same ground.

Mr. Arnens. I respectfully suggest that the witness be ordered and directed to answer the question: At whose request was there a severance of relationships between this witness and Columbia University?

Senator Watkins. You are ordered and directed to answer.

Mr. Henderson. I must refuse to answer on the same ground.

Mr. Arens. I put it to you as a fact that you were forced to resign from the faculty of Columbia University because of your activities in behalf of the Communist Party, and I ask you to affirm or deny that fact.

Mr. Henderson. I must refuse to answer the question on the same ground.

Mr. Arens. In 1937 you registered to vote as a Communist, did you not?

Mr. Henderson. I must refuse to answer that on the same ground.

Mr. Arens. Did you attend the Tenth National Convention of the Communist Party as a delegate in 1938?

Mr. Henderson. I must refuse to answer that question on the same ground, sir.

Mr. Arens. I put it to you as a fact that, on November 16, 1940, you attended the 1-day national emergency convention held by the Communist Party in New York City, and I ask you to affirm or deny the fact.

Mr. Henderson. I must refuse to answer that question on the same ground.

[…]

[p. 177]
…Mr. Arens. Did you ever live in Chicago, Ill.?

Mr. Henderson. I did.

Mr. Arens. Did you ever live at 234 South Wells Street, Chicago?

Mr. Henderson. That may have been, I don’t recall the exact number. I lived at three diffent places there.

Mr. Arens. Did you ever live on South Wells Street, in Chicago?

Mr. Henderson. I think so; yes.

Mr. Arens. I put it to you as a fact that on February 1, 1941, you were present at a Communist Party executive board meeting held at 234 South Wells, Chicago, Ill., and ask you to affirm or deny that fact.

Mr. Henderson. I must refuse to answer that on the same ground, sir.

______________________

From the CIO Convention
in Portland, Oregon (Nov. 1948)

Murray Lashes Leftist Head of CIO Union

By Seymour Korman
Chicago Tribune (November 23, 1948, p. 26)

Portland, Ore., Nov. 22 — With hoots, jeers and shouts of “go back to Russia,” right wing delegates at the CIO convention today lashed out at the leftist minority in one of the most tumultuous sessions in the labor organization’s history. For more than three hours, the pro and anti-Communist factions hurled bombastic rhetoric at each other before the report of CIO President Philip Murray, embodying support of the Marshall plan, was carried with only one small leftist group abstaining among the 600 delegates.

[…]

The oratorical explosion was touched off by Donald Henderson, leftist president of the Food and Agricultural Workers union. In a minority report, he condemned the Marshall plan as being an aid to Fascists. He was interrupted by the shouts of, “Go back to Russia.”…

… Murray accused Henderson and the other leftists of employing the same tactics as European Communists and styled the Henderson group “ideological dive bombers.”

______________________

Image Source: Press photo of Donald Henderson in Daily News (New York, NY). July 11, 1934.

 

Categories
Bibliography Economists M.I.T.

M.I.T. Writings and addresses of Francis A. Walker, 1857-1897

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE WRITINGS
AND REPORTED ADDRESSES
OF FRANCIS A. WALKER.

The following bibliography, based upon memoranda and scrap books left by General Walker, has been prepared under the supervision of the Secretary of the [American Statistical] Association. It will be observed that references to newspapers have been included containing reports of addresses delivered on various occasions, but these have been mentioned only when the report was fairly complete, and appeared to be in the main accurate. The Secretary of the Association [David Rich Dewey] will be glad to receive corrections or additions.

1857. More Thoughts on the Hard Times. (Signed W.) National Era (Washington), October 29.

1858. Mr. Carey and Protection. (Not signed.) National Era (Washing top), January 21.

Why Are We Not a Manufacturing People? (Signed F. A. W.) National Era, January 28.
Mr. Carey on the History of Our Currency. (Signed F. A. W.) National Era, June 3.
Mr. Carey’s Letters.-Continued. (Signed F. A. W.) National Era, June 17.

1858-60. Contributions to the Ichnolite: a monthly magazine published by the students of Amherst College. Vols. 5, 6, 7, and 8.

1860. Contributions to The Undergraduate, New Haven. (After No. 1 the name of the magazine was changed to University Quarterly.) Vols. 1 and 2.

1868. On the Extinguishment of The National Debt. By “Poor Richard.” Bankers’ Magazine, July, vol. 23, pp. 20-34.

1868. Mr. Grote’s Theory of Democracy. Bibliotheca Sacra, October, vol. 25, pp. 687-733.

1868. Many editorial articles in the Springfield Republican.

1868-69. Editor of the Monthly Reports of the Bureau of Statistics, Treasury Department, on the Commerce and Navigation of the United States. Series 1868-69, Nos. 21-29, pp. 287. Series 1869-70, Nos. 1-3, pp. 152.

1869. Is It a Gospel of Peace? Lippincott’s Magazine, August, vol. 4, pp. 201-05.

1869. Annual Report of the Deputy Special Commissioner of the Revenue in charge of the Bureau of Statistics on the Commerce and Navigation of the United States for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1868. (Dated August 20, 1869.) Part 1, pp. 729; Part 2, pp. 352; Part 3, pp. 144. Also 40th Congress, 3d Session. House Ex. Doc., vol. 16. Washington.

1869. The National Debt. Lippincott’s Magazine, September, vol. 4, pp. 316-18.

1869. Annual Report of the Operations of the Bureau of Statistics to the Secretary of the Treasury for the Year 1869. (Dated October 13.) Pp. 6. Also 41st Congress, 2d Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 2, vol. 4, pp. 337-42. Washington.

1869. American Industry in the Census. Atlantic Monthly, December, vol. 24, pp. 689-701.

1870. What to do with the Surplus. Atlantic Monthly, January, vol. 25, pp. 72-86.

1870. A Reply to Mr. Kennedy on the Errors of the Eighth Census. Letter in Washington Chronicle, January.

1870. An Oration at the Soldiers’ Monument Dedication in North Brookfield, Mass., January 19. Pph., pp. 5-35. Also in Springfield Republican, January 20.

1870. The Report of the Special Commissioner. Lippincott’s Magazine, February, vol. 5, pp. 223-30.

1870. The Legal Tender Act (With Henry Adams). North American Review, April, vol. 110, pp. 299-327. Also published in Chapters of Erie and Other Essays, by Charles F. Adams, Jr., and Henry Adams, pp. 302-32.

1870. Annual Report of the Deputy Special Commissioner of the Revenue in charge of the Bureau of Statistics on the Commerce and Navigation of the United States for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1869. (Dated February 7, 1870.) Pp. viii. Part 1, pp. 227; Part 2, pp. 436; Part 3, pp. 94. Also 41st Congress, 2d Session. House Ex. Doc., vol. 15. Washington.

1870. Communication from the Superintendent of the Census submitting a draft of an Act amendatory of the Census Act of 1850. (Dated February 17.) 41st Congress, 2d Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 161, pp. 3.

1870. A Statement of the Superintendent of the Census relating to the amount to be saved to the Treasury by dispensing with certain copies of the Census Returns required by the Act of 1850. (Dated April 6.) 41st Congress, 2d Session. Senate Ex. Doc. No. 79, vol. 2, pp. 3. Washington.

1870. The Indian Problem. Review of Keim’s Sheridan’s Troopers on the Borders. The Nation, June 16, vol. 10, p. 389.

1871. Letter from the Superintendent of the Ninth Census addressed to Hon. W. B. Stokes relative to field-work performed by assistant marshals. (Dated January 14.) 41st Congress, 3d Session. House Mis. Doc. No. 31, vol. 1, pp. 3.

1871. Report of the Superintendent of the Census on Estimates of Expenditures, etc. (Dated December 20, 1870.) 41st Congress, 3d Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 29, vol. 7, pp. 4.

1871. Report of the Superintendent of the Census, December 26. Reprinted as a preface to vol. 1 on Population. Pp. xlviii. Washington.

1872. Letter from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs upon the action of the Department relating to the Kansas Indian Lands in the State of Kansas. (Dated December 2, 1871.) 42d Congress, 2d Session. Senate Mis. Doc. No. 10, vol. 1, pp. 4. Washington.

1872. Letter from the Superintendent of the Census containing a report of the number of persons employed in obtaining the Ninth Census, time employed, amount paid to each, etc. (Dated December 6, 1871.) 42d Congress, 2d Session. Senate Ex. Doc. No. 4, vol. 1, pp. 186.

1872. Reports of the Ninth Census, 1870. 3 quarto volumes and Compendium.

1872. Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior for the year 1872, November 1. Washington. Pp. 471. Also 42d Congress, 3d Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 1, vol. 3, Part 5, pp. 389-847. Washington.

1873. The Indian Question. North American Review, April, vol. 116, pp. 329-88. Also republished in book The Indian Question.

1873. Some Results of the Census of 1870. Read before the Social Science Association, Boston, May 15. Published in Journal of Social Science, No. 5, pp. 71-97. Also printed separately.

1873. American Irish and American Germans. Scribner’s Monthly, June, vol. 6, pp. 172-79.

1873. The Relations of Race and Nationality to Mortality in the United States. Read before the American Health Association. Published in Reports and Papers of the American Public Health Association, vol. 1, pp. 18-35. Also republished in Statistical Atlas, 1874.

1873. Our Population in 1900. Atlantic Monthly, October, vol. 32, pp. 487-95.

1874. Report of the Superintendent of the Census, November 15, 1873. 43d Congress, 1st Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 1, Part 5, vol. 4, pp. 757-63.

1874. Indian Citizenship. International Review, May-June, vol. 1, pp. 305-26. Also republished in book The Indian Question.

1874. Handbook of Statistics of the United States, compiled by M. C. Spaulding. Review in The Nation, May 14, vol. 18, p. 319.

1874. Mr. D. A. Wells and the Incidence of Taxation. Letter in The Nation, June 11, vol. 18, pp. 378-79.

1874. The Wages Question. Address before the Alexandria and Athena Societies of Amherst College, July 8. Published in New York Times, July 9; also Springfield Republican, July 9.

1874. Statistical Atlas of the United States based on the results of the Ninth Census, 1870, with contributions from many eminent men of science and several departments of the Government. Compiled with authority of Congress. (The Preface and Introduction, and of the Memoirs and Discussions, The Progress of The Nation, and Relations of Race and Nationality to Mortality in the United States, were written by General Walker.) Washington. Plates 54.

1874. Legislators and Legislation. Letter in Providence Journal.

1874. Wages and the Wages-Fund. Letter to the Financier, August 29. (In reply to Prof. A. L. Perry.)

1874. The Indian Question. Boston. Pp. 268.

1874. Cairnes’s Political Economy. Review in The Nation, Nov. 12, vol. 19, p. 320.

1874. Our Foreign Population. Chicago Advance, November 12, December 10, and January 14, 1875.

1875. Report of the Superintendent of the Census, November 1, 1874. (Dated New Haven.) 43d Congress, 2d Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 1, Part 5, vol. 6, pp. 721-30. Washington.

1875. The Wage-Fund Theory. North American Review, January, vol. 120, pp. 84-119.

1875. The Hard Times. Address before the New Haven Chamber of Commerce, February 23. Abstract in Springfield Republican, February 25.

1875. The First Century of the Republic: Growth and Distribution of Population. Harper’s Monthly, August, vol. 51, pp. 391-414. Also published in book First Century of the Republic, pp. 211-37.

1875. Our Domestic Service. Scribner’s Monthly, December, vol. 11, pp. 273-78.

1876. Maps (three) in History of the United States, by J. A. Doyle. New York.

1876. Census. Encyclopædia Britannica (9th edition), vol. 5, pp. 334-40.

1876. The Wages Question. A Treatise on Wages and the Wages Class. New York; London, 1877. Pp. iv, 428.

1877. The Philadelphia Exhibition. Part 1. — Mechanism and Administration. International Review, May-June, vol. 4, pp. 363-96.
The Late World’s Fair. Part 2. — The Display. July-August, vol. 4, pp. 497-513.
The Late World’s Fair. Part 3. — The Display. September October, vol. 4, pp. 673-85.
These are also published in The World’s Fair: Philadelphia, 1876; A Critical Account, pp. 68; also in A Critical View of the Great World’s Fair, pp. 68.

1878. The United States. Johnson’s Cyclopædia (1st edition), vol. 4, Part 2, pp. 1029-56.

1878. United States Centennial Commission. International Exhibition, 1876. Editor of Reports and Awards. Philadelphia, 1878; also Washington, 1880. 6 vols.

1878. Money. (Lectures, Johns Hopkins University.) New York and London. Pp. xv, 550.

1878. Remarks addressed to the International Monetary Conference, Paris, August 22. 45th Congress, 3d Session. Senate Ex. Doc. 58, pp. 73-79. Also printed separately.

1878. Report of the Superintendent of the Census, January 17. (Dated New Haven.) Pp. 21. Also 45th Congress, 3d Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 1, Part 5, vol. 9, pp. 839-57. Washington.

1878. Interview of the Select Committees of the Senate of the United States and of the House of Representatives to make provision for taking the Tenth Census, with Prof. Francis A. Walker, Superintendent of the Census, December 16. 45th Congress, 30 Session. Senate Mis. Doc. No. 26; pp. 20.

1879. The Monetary Conferences of 1867 and 1878, and the Future of Silver. Princeton Review, January, vol. 3, N. S., pp. 28-54.

1879. Money in Its Relations to Trade and Industry. (Lectures, Lowell Institute, Boston.) New York and London. Pp. iv, 339.

1879. The Present Standing of Political Economy. Sunday Afternoon, May, vol. 3, pp. 432-41.

1879. Report of the Superintendent of the Census, November 15. Pp. 16. Also 46th Congress, 2d Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 1, Part 5, vol. 10, pp. 307-20. Washington.

1880-82. Census Bulletins, Nos. 1-305. Also Extra Census Bulletins.

1880. The Principles of Taxation. Princeton Review, July, vol. 6, N. S., pp. 92-114.

1881-88. Reports of the Tenth Census, 1880. 22 quarto volumes and Compendium (Parts 1 and 2). Washington.

1881. Report of the Superintendent of the Census, December 1, 1880. 46th Congress, 3d Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 1, Part 5, vol. 10, pp. 423-26. Washington.

1881. Letter to Secretary of Interior giving complete returns of the population of each State and Territory on the 1st day of June, 1880. Letter of January 17 to Hon. S. S. Cox, pp. 5-18. The Alabama Paradox — Letter to Hon. S. S. Cox, January 17, pp. 19-20. The Moiety Question. — Letter to Hon. S. S. Cox, January 15, pp. 20-24. 46th Congress, 3d Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 65, vol. 18, pp. 1-2. (The Moiety Question reprinted in 1891.)

1881. Letter from the Superintendent of the Census respecting the execution of the law for taking the Tenth and subsequent censuses, with accompanying schedules. (Dated January 25.) 46th Congress, 3d Session. Senate Ex. Doc. No. 28, vol. 1, pp. 35.

1881. Report of the Superintendent of the Census, November 1, pp. 65. Also 47th Congress, 1st Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 1, Part 5, vol. 10, pp, 665-727. Washington.

1882. American Agriculture. Princeton Review, May, vol. 9, N. S., pp. 249-64.

1882. The Growth of the United States. The Century, October, vol. 24, pp. 920-26.

1883. Remarks on the Character of President W. B. Rogers, October 12, before the Society of Arts. Published in Proceedings of the Society of Arts, 1882-83, pp. 5-7. Also printed separately.

1883. American Manufactures. Princeton Review, March, vol. 11, N. S., pp. 213-23.

1883. Remarks on Giving the Name of William B. Rogers to the Main Building, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, May 29. (Printed for private distribution.)

1883. Political Economy. New York and London. Pp. iv, 490.

1883. The Unarmed Nation. Our Duty in the Cause of International Peace. Address delivered at Smith College, Northampton, June 20. Published in the Springfield Republican, June 21.

1883. Henry George’s Social Fallacies. North American Review, August, vol. 137, pp. 147-57.

1883. Land and Its Rent. Boston and London. Pp. vi, 232.

1884. President’s Report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 12, 1883. Boston. Pp. 31.

1884. The Second and Third Army Corps. Letter in The Nation, March 27, vol. 38, p. 274.

1884. Political Economy. (Briefer Course, abridged from work of 1883.) New York. Also republished under the title A Brief Political Economy. London, 1886. Pp. iv, 415.

1884. Industrial Education. Read before the American Social Science Association, September 9. Published in Journal of Social Science, No. 19, pp. 117-31.

1884. Public Revenue. Lalor’s Cyclopædia of Political Science, Political Economy, and United States History, vol. 3, pp. 618-29; The Wage Fund, ditto, pp. 1074-77; Wages, ditto, pp. 1077-85.

1884. President’s Report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 10. Boston. Pp. 20.

1885. Letter to the Secretary of the Interior, February 24, regarding the Accounts of Richard Joseph. 49th Congress, 1st Session. House Ex. Doc. No. 127, pp. 5-7.

1885. Shall Silver be Demonetized? North American Review, June, vol. 140, pp. 489-92.

1885. President’s Report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 9. Boston. Pp. 24.

1886. Gettysburg. Lecture in Lowell Institute Course, Boston, March 4. Published in Boston Herald, March 5.

1886. What Industry, if Any, Can Profitably be Introduced into Country Schools? Science, April 15, vol. 9, p. 365.

1886. History of the Second Army Corps in the Army of the Potomac. New York. Pp. xiv, 737. Second edition, 1891, pp. xx, 737.

1886. The Military Character and Services of Major-General W. S. Hancock. Address delivered at the meeting of the Vermont Officers’ Reunion Society, Montpelier, Vt., November 3. Published in Free Press (Burlington), November 5. Read (revised and corrected) before the Military Historical Society of Massachusetts, February 13, 1888. Published in the Papers of the Military Historical Society of Massachusetts, vol. 10, pp. 49-67. Under the title Hancock in the War of the Rebellion, read before the New York Commandery of the Loyal Legion, February 4, 1891. Published in Personal Recollections of the War of the Rebellion. (New York Commandery of the Loyal Legion.). Vol. 1 (1891), pp. 349-64. Published in the Brooklyn Standard Union, February 7 and 14, 1891.

1886. Geography of New England: A Supplement to Maury’s Manual of Geography. Pp. 24.

1886. Sumner at Fair Oaks. National Tribune (Washington), October 14. Couch at Fredericksburg, ditto, October 21. Hancock at Gettysburg, ditto, October 28. Warren at Bristoe, ditto, November 4.

1886. President’s Report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 8. Boston. Pp. 32.

1887. Socialism. Scribner’s Magazine, January, vol. 1, pp. 107-19. Also published in Phillips Exeter Lectures (1885-86). Boston, 1887, pp. 47-78.

1887. A Plea for Industrial Education in the Public Schools. Address to the Conference of Associated Charities of the City of Boston, February 10. Pph., pp. 34.

1887. General Hancock and the Artillery at Gettysburg. The Century, March, vol. 33, p. 803. Also published in Battles and Leaders of the Civil War (The Century Co.), vol. 3, pp. 385-86.

1887. The Source of Business Profits. Read before the Society of Arts, March 24. Published in Proceedings of the Society of Arts, 1886-87, pp. 76-90. Also published, with additions and alterations, in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, April, vol. 1, pp. 265-88. Printed separately, Pph., pp. 26.

1887. Wolseley on Lee. Letters in The Nation, March 31, vol. 44, p. 269; April 28, pp. 362-63.

1887. Arithmetic in Primary and Grammar Schools. Remarks before the School Committee of Boston, April 12. Published as School Document No. 9, 1887. Pp. 20. Also Pph., pp. 29.

1887. Sketch of the Life of Amasa Walker. In History of North Brookfield, Mass. The same expanded in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register, April, 1888, vol. 42, pp. 133-41. Also printed separately, Pph., pp. 14.

1887. Meade at Gettysburg. Battles and Leaders of the Civil War (The Century Co.), vol. 3, pp. 406-12.

1887. Memoir of William Barton Rogers, 1804-82. Read before The National Academy of Sciences, April. Published in Biographical Memoirs of National Academy, vol. 3, 1895, pp. 1-13. Also Pph., pp. 13.

1887. The Socialists. The Forum, May, vol. 3, pp. 230-42.

1887. Political Economy. (Revised and enlarged.) New York and London. Pp. vi, 537.

1887. Reply (before the Boston School Board) to Supervisor Peterson on the Study of Arithmetic in Grammar Schools, June 14. Published in Popular Educator, September, vol. 3, pp. 209-11.

1887. The Labor Problem of Today. Address delivered before the Alumni Association of Lehigh University, June 22. Printed by the Association. New York. pp. 29.

1887. Manual Education in Urban Communities. Address before The National Educational Association, Chicago, July 15. Published in Addresses and Proceedings of The National Educational Association, 1887, pp. 196-205.

1887. What Shall We Tell the Working Classes? Scribner’s Magazine, November, vol. 2, pp. 619-27.

1887. Arithmetic in the Boston Schools. Read before the Grammar School Section of the Massachusetts Teachers’ Association at Boston, November 25. Published in The Academy, Syracuse, N. Y., January, 1888. vol. 2, pp. 433-44. Also printed separately.

1888. United States: Part III.-Political Geography and Statistics. Encyclopædia Britannica (9th edition), vol. 23, pp. 818-29.

1888. President’s Report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 14, 1887. Boston. Pp. 39.

1888. Remarks at the Opening of the Sixteenth Triennial Exhibition of the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association, September 27, 1887. Published in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of January 18, 1888, p. 56.

1888. The Eleventh Census of the United States. Quarterly Journal of Economics, January, vol. 2, pp. 135-61. Also printed separately, Pph., pp. 27.

1888. The Military Character and Services of Major-General Hancock. (See 1886.)

1888. The Bases of Taxation. Political Science Quarterly, March, vol. 3, pp. 1-16.

1888. A Reply to Mr. Macvane: On the Source of Business Profits. Quarterly Journal of Economics, April, vol. 2, pp. 263-96. Also printed separately; Pph., pp. 36.

1888. Economy of Food. Science, May 18, vol. 11, pp. 233-34.

1888. Efforts of the Manual Laboring Class to Better Their Condition. Address as President, American Economic Association, May 21. Publications of the American Economic Association, vol. 3, pp. 7-26.

1888. The Intermediate Task.—Protection and American Agriculture. The National Revenue. A Collection of Papers by American Economists. Edited by Albert Shaw. Pp. 135-151. (Pp. 137-151 reprinted from the revised edition of Political Economy. New York, 1887.)

1888. The Knights of Labor. Princeton Review, September, vol. 6, N. S., pp. 196-209.

1888. President’s Report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 12. Boston. Pp. 50.

1888. Philip Henry Sheridan. Eulogy delivered before the City Government of Boston, December 18. Published in Sheridan Memorial, pp. 41-117; Boston Herald, December 19. Also printed separately.

1889. Recent Progress of Political Economy in the United States. Address as President, American Economic Association, December 27, 1888. Publications of the American Economic Association, vol. 4, pp. 17-40.

1889. Memoir of E. B. Elliott. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, vol. 24, pp. 447-52.

1889. Census. Johnson’s Cyclopædia (Revised, 1889-90), vol. 1, pp. 78-88 (New edition, 1895); vol. 2, pp. 152-59.

1889. Ventilating Public Buildings. Letter in Boston Post, January 22.

1889. Can Morality be Taught in the Public Schools without Sectarianism? Christian Register, January 31.

1889. The Laborer and His Employer. Lecture delivered at Cornell University, February. Published in Scientific American, June 1, Supplement No. 700.

1889. The Growth of The Nation in Numbers, Territory, and the Elements of Industrial Power. Oration before the Phi Beta Kappa, Brown University, June 18. Published in Providence Journal, June 19.

1889. Indian Schools. Letter to General Armstrong in Southern Workman, October, 1889; quoted in Proceedings of Seventh Annual Meeting, Lake Mohonk Conference, pp. 36-37.

1889. First Lessons in Political Economy. New York; London, 1890. Pp. viii, 323.

1889. The Nation’s Celebration. The Independent (New York), September 26.

1889. Address before the Newton Tariff Reform Club, November 20. Abstract in Springfield Republican, November 22.

1889. Industrial Training. A Talk to the Commercial Club of Providence, November 17. Reported in Providence Journal.

1889. Civil Service Reform. Thanksgiving-Day Discourse. The Independent (New York), November 28.

1890. Annual Report of the President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 11, 1889. Boston. Pp. 48.

1890. The Nation That Was Saved. Oration at Reunion of New Hampshire Soldiers, Weirs, August 29, 1889. Printed in Veteran’s Advocate, Concord, N. H., January, vol. 7, pp. 2-3.

1890. The Study of Statistics in Colleges and Technical Schools. Technology Quarterly, February, vol. 3, pp. 1-8.

1890. Mr. Bellamy and the New Nationalist Party. Atlantic Monthly, February, vol. 65, pp. 248-62. (Address delivered before the Economic Association of Providence, December, 1889. Reported in Providence Journal.) Also printed separately, Pph., pp. 15.

1890. America’s Fourth Centenary. The Forum, February, vol. 8, pp. 612-21.

1890. The Eight-Hour Agitation. Address before the Young Men’s Christian Union, Boston, March 1. Published in Boston Journal, March 3.

1890. Protection and Protectionists. Quarterly Journal of Economics, April, vol. 4, pp. 245-75.

1890. Address at the Memorial Exercises of the Thomas G. Stevenson Post, G. A. R., May 30. Published in Boston Journal, May 31.

1890. The Eight-Hour Law Agitation. Atlantic Monthly, June, vol. 65, pp. 800-10. Also printed separately, Pyh., pp. 22.

1890. The Great Review. Oration before the Society of the Army of the Potomac, Twenty-first Annual Reunion, Portland, Maine, July 3. Published in Report of the Proceedings of the Society of the Army of the Potomac, 1890, pp. 18-32; also in Boston Journal, July 4.

1890. Address on Presenting Diplomas of Graduation, June 3. Boston Journal, June 4; also Technology Quarterly, August, vol. 3, p. 202.

1890. Statistics of the Colored Race in the United States. Publications of the American Statistical Association, September-December, vol. 2 (Nos. 11-12), pp. 91-106.

1890. Democracy and Wealth. The Forum, November, vol. 10, pp. 243-55.

1890. The Changes of the Year. Technology Quarterly, November, vol. 3, pp. 281-86.

1890. Why Students Leave School. Letter in Boston Herald, December 14.

1890. The Tide of Economic Thought. Address as President of the American Economic Association, December 26. Publications of the American Economic Association, vol. 6 (1891), pp. 15-38. Also printed separately, Pph., pp. 24.

1891. Annual Report of the President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 10, 1890. Boston. Pp. 52.

1891. Panic from Coinage. Evidence before the Committee on Coinage, January 29. 51st Congress, 2d Session. House Report 3967, Part 3. Reports and Hearings, pp. 54-58.

1891. Against Free Coinage of Silver. Speech in Faneuil Hall, January 20. Published in Boston Journal, January 21.

1891. Hancock in the War of the Rebellion. (See 1886.)

1891. Testimony before Committee of New York Legislature, March 7, regarding Eleventh Census of the United States in New York. Reported in New York Times, March 8.

1891. Charles Devens. An address delivered before the Commandery of the State of Massachusetts Military Order of the Loyal Legion, March 19. Published in Circular No. 7, Series 1891, March 20; Boston Journal, March 20; also Pph., pp. 20.

1891. Usefulness of a Five-Year Course. Letter in The Tech, April 9, vol. 10, pp. 177-79.

1891. The United States Census. The Forum, May, vol. 11, pp. 258-67.

1891. The Great Count of 1890. The Forum, June, vol. 11, pp. 406-18.

1891. The Place of Schools of Technology in Education. Remarks at the Graduating Exercises of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute, June 18. Published in W. P. I., Worcester, July 15, pp. 79-80.

1891. A Reply to the Article: The Economists and the Public. Letter in Evening Post (New York), June 27.

1891. The Place of Scientific and Technical Schools in American Education. Address delivered at the 29th University Convocation of the State of New York, Albany, July 8. Published in Regents’ Bulletin, No. 8, January, 1893, pp. 375-88; also the larger portion in Technology Quarterly, December, vol. 4, pp. 293-303; and in the Educational Review under the title The Place of Schools of Technology in American Education, October, vol. 2, pp. 209-19.

1891. The Colored Race in the United States. The Forum, July, vol. 11, pp. 501-09.

1891. The Doctrine of Rent and the Residual Claimant Theory of Wages. Quarterly Journal of Economics, July, vol. 5, pp. 417-37.

1891. Immigration and Degradation. The Forum: August, vol. 11, pp. 634-44.

1892. Annual Report of the President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 9, 1891. Boston. Pp. 56.

1892. Growth and Distribution of Population in the United States. The Chautauquan, March, vol. 14, pp. 656-58.

1892. Dr. Böhm-Bawerk’s Theory of Interest. Quarterly Journal of Economics, July, vol. 6, pp. 399-416.

1892. Immigration. Yale Review, August, vol. 1, pp. 125-45.

1892. Normal Training in Women’s Colleges. Educational Review, November, vol. 4, pp. 328-38.

1893. Annual Report of the President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 14, 1892. Boston. Pp. 65.

1893. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. — Length of Course. — Degrees at Scientific Schools. Letter in Engineering News, January 26, vol. 29, pp. 90-91; February 2, p. 108.

1893. Scientific and Technical Schools. Address delivered at opening of Engineering Building, Pennsylvania State College, February 22. Published in Proceedings at the Formal Opening of the Engineering Building, Pennsylvania State College, pp. 23-30; also in Pennsylvania School Journal, April, vol. 41, pp. 435-38.

1893. Remarks on the Dedication of the New Science and Engineering Buildings of McGill University, Montreal, February 24. Published in Technology Quarterly, April, vol. 6, pp. 65-68. Also printed separately.

1893. The Free Coinage of Silver. Journal of Political Economy, March, vol. 1, pp. 163-78.

1893. Sickles at Gettysburg. Letter in The Nation, May 11, vol. 56, p. 346.

1893. College Athletics. Address before the Phi Beta Kappa Society, Alpha of Massachusetts, at Cambridge, June 29. Published in Boston Transcript, June 30; Harvard Graduates’ Magazine, September, vol. 2, pp. 1-18; Technology Quarterly, July, vol. 6, pp. 116-31. Also printed separately, Pph., pp. 16.

1893. How Far Do the Technological Schools, as They Are at Present Organized, Accomplish the Training of Men for the Scientific Professions, and How Far and for What Reasons Do They Fail to Accomplish Their Primary Purpose? Address on opening Congress of Technological Instruction, Chicago, July 26. Published in Addresses and Proceedings of International Congress of Education, Chicago, pp. 528-34.

1893. The Technical School and the University. A Reply to Prof. Shaler. Atlantic Monthly, September, vol. 72, pp. 390-94. Technology Quarterly, October, vol. 6, pp. 223-29. Also printed separately, Pph., pp. 7.

1893. Address on Taking the Chair as Président-Adjoint, International Statistical Institute, Chicago, September 11. Published in Bulletin L’Institut International de Statistique, Tome viii, 1895, pp. xxxvi-ix.

1893. Value of Money. Paper read before the American Economic Association, September 13. Published in Quarterly Journal of Economics, October, vol. 8, pp. 62-76. Also printed separately, Pph., pp. 17.

1893. Annual Report of the President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 13. Boston. Pp. 61.

1894. International Bimetallism. Address delivered before the Liberal Club of Buffalo, N. Y., February 16. Published in book The Liberal Club, pp. 107-38.

1894. [Neo-Bimetallism in Boston.] Letter in Evening Post (New York), February 24.

1894. State House Reconstruction. Remarks at a Hearing at the State House, March 1. Published in Boston Transcript, March 6. Also in Pph. Save the State House, pp. 20-24.

1894. Bimetallism: A Tract for Times. Pph., pp. 24.

1894. Bimetallism. Address delivered before the Boston Boot and Shoe Club, March 28. Published in The Shoe and Leather Reporter, April 5. Also printed separately, Pph., pp. 15.

1894. Par of Exchange. Letter in Evening Post (New York), April 3.

1894. General Hancock. (Great Commanders Series.) New York. Pp. vi, 332.

1894. How May Closer Articulation Between the Secondary Schools and Higher Institutions be Secured? Discussion of the question at the Ninth Annual Meeting of the New England Association of Colleges and Preparatory Schools, October 12. Published in Addresses and Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the New England Association of Colleges and Preparatory Schools, pp. 22-25. Also published in School Review, December, vol. 2, pp. 612-15.

1894. The Relation of Professional and Technical to General Education. Educational Review, December, vol. 8, pp. 417-33.

1894. Annual Report of the President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 12. Boston. Pp. 86.

1895. Bimetallism. Address delivered before the Springfield Board of Trade, March 27. Published in Springfield Union, March 28.

1895. The Making of The Nation. (The American History Series.) New York. Pp. xv, 314.

1895. Reply to Criticism on Springfield Address. Letter in Evening Post (New York), April 5.

1895. The Restriction of Immigration. Address delivered at Cornell University, April 12. Published in the Transactions of the Association of Civil Engineers of Cornell University, 1895, pp. 73-85.

1895. The Growth of American Nationality. The Forum, June, vol. 19, pp. 385-400.

1895. Obituary: Samuel Dana Horton. The Economic Journal, June, vol. 5, pp. 304-06.

1895. The Relation of Manual Training to Certain Mental Defects. Paper read at the Sixty-fifth Annual Meeting of the American Institute of Instruction, July 9. Published in Journal of Proceedings of American Institute of Instruction, 1895, pp. 23-32. Also printed separately, Pph., pp. 12.

1895. The Quantity-Theory of Money. Quarterly Journal of Economics, July, vol. 9, pp. 372-79.

1895. The Argument for Bimetallism. The Independent (New York), October 10.

1895. “Severe Work at the Tech.” Letter in Boston Herald, November 20.

1895. The Restriction of Immigration. Address delivered before the Manufacturers’ Club of Philadelphia, December 16. Published in Manufacturers’ Record, December 21.

1896. Annual Report of the President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 11, 1895. Boston. Pp. 74.

1896. Reply to General Greeley Curtis regarding General Hooker. Letter in Boston Herald, February 5.

1896. Bimetallism in the United States. The Bimetallist (London), February, vol. 2, pp. 38-41.

1896. Currency and Prices. Letter in The Economist (London), April 18, vol. 54, pp. 491-92. Also published under the title A Criticism of the Right-Hon. G. J. Shaw-Lefevre, in The Bimetallist (London), May, vol. 2, pp. 97-98.

1896. The Relation of Changes in the Volume of the Currency to Prosperity. Paper read before the American Economic Association, December 28, 1895. Published in Economic Studies (American Economic Association), April, vol. 1, pp. 23-45.

1896. Letter to Senator Teller on the Silver Question, April 13. Quoted as an appendix to Senator Teller’s speech in the Senate, April 29.

1896. On Teaching English Composition in Colleges. Boston (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Pph., pp. 5.

1896. Something About the Par of Exchange. Letter in Evening Post (New York), May 29.

1896. Money. Dictionary of Political Economy (Edited by R. H. Inglis Palgrave), vol. 2, pp. 787-96. Quantity-Theory of Money. (To be published in vol. 3.)

1896. Henry Saltonstall. Technique, 1897, pp. 32-34.

1896. Restriction of Immigration. Atlantic Monthly, June, vol. 77, pp. 822-29.

1896. Address before the British Bimetallic League, London, July 13. Published in The Bimetallist (London), July, vol. 2, pp. 139-45. Also published in The National Review, under the title The Monetary Situation and the United States, August, vol. 27, pp. 783-92.

1896. International Bimetallism. (Lectures delivered at Harvard University.) New York and London. Pp. iv, 297.

1896. International Bimetallism: A Rejoinder. Yale Review, November, vol. 5, pp. 303-12.

1896. International Bimetallism. Address delivered before the School masters’ Club of Massachusetts, November 7. Published in the Boston Herald, November 7; also in The Bimetallist (London), December, vol. 2, pp. 218-29.

1896. Technical Education. Address delivered at the Dedication of the Thomas S. Clarkson Memorial School of Technology, Potsdam, N. Y., November 30. (To be published.)

1897. Annual Report of the President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 9, 1896. Boston. Pp. 80.

1897. Remarks at the First Meeting of the Washington Members of the American Statistical Association, Washington, December 31, 1896. Publications of the American Statistical Association, March, vol. 5 (No. 37), pp. 180-87.

1897. General Gibbon in the Second Corps. Paper read before the New York Commandery of the Loyal Legion, May 6, 1896. (To be published in Personal Recollections of the War of the Rebellion. New York Commandery of the Loyal Legion. Vol. 2.)

Source: D. R. D. [David Rich Dewey], Bibliography of the Writings and Reported Addresses of Francis A. Walker. in Publications of the American Statistical Association, vol. 5 (1896-1897), pp. 276-290.

Image Source: MIT Museum website. Francis Amasa Walker file. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-View Mirror.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Public Finance

Harvard. Enrollment and Demand for Theory and Methods of Taxation. Durand, 1902-1903

 

Edward Dana Durand taught at Harvard for only two semesters, he also taught at Stanford for three semesters and later at the University of Minnesota for four years. The rest of his long career was in government service. This post adds the final exam questions from his taxation course taught at Harvard..

Bonus material regarding Durand’s biographical record has been added. He was not a big name in the history of economics, but definitely someone who added significantly to historical government economic statistics. His long years as a U.S. Tariff Commissioner also make him of interest to historians of economic policy.

______________________

Papers of Edward Dana Durand

Given his long professional association with Herbert Hoover, it is appropriate that Durand’s papers are kept at the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library in West Branch, Iowa.

Archival Tip: Microfilm MF-65/3. Memoirs of Edward Dana Durand, 1954 (438 pages).

______________________

Edward Dana Durand
Timeline

1871. Born October 18 in Romeo, Michigan. Lived there about eleven years.

Ca. 1882. Family moved to Huron, South Dakota where he graduated from high-school.

Freshman year at Yankton College (South Dakota).

1893. A.B., Oberlin College.

1893. Summer. Stenographer to the Secretary of the World’s Columbian Exposition at Chicago.

1896. Political and municipal legislation in 1895Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 7  (May 1896), p. 411-425.

1896. June, awarded  Ph.D. (assistant to J. W. Jenks. Other instructors of Durand: C. H. Hull,  Walter F. Willcox) from Cornell University. Thesis: “Finances of New York City.”

1896. Political and municipal legislation in 1896Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 9 (March, 1897), pp. 231-245.

1896-97. Legislative librarian, New York State Library at Albany.

1897. Student, University of Berlin. Quit his studies there to take the job at Stanford.

1898-1899. Assistant Professor of Political Economy and Finance at Stanford University. [added to faculty in spring 1897, “began duty” spring term 1898] Courses taught: elementary economics, practical economic questions (e.g. labor movement, labor legislation, corporations, trusts), economic history, socialism and social control, money and banking, public finance, politics and administration, municipal government.

1898. Political and municipal legislation in 1897. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,  Vol. 11 (March, 1898), pp. 174-190.

1899. E. Dana Durand. “Council Government versus Mayor Government,” Political Science Quarterly. Vol. 15, Nos. 3 and 4.

1899-1902. On leave from Stanford to work in Washington, D.C.

1899-1902. Editor for the federal Industrial Commission that produced a report of nineteen volumes. [ Links to all 19 volumes can be found in the following two catalog pages at hathitrust.org: all but vols. 1 and 10 here; vols. 1 and 10 (and 12 other volumes) found here.]

1900. Durand prepared “Topical digest of evidence” in the Industrial Commission’s Preliminary report on trusts and industrial combinations. (In Vol. I of the Commission’s Reports). One of authors of the “Report on labor legislation” (Vol. 5). Washington: 1900.

1902-03. Taught courses on the labor question, problems of industrial organization and theories and methods of taxation at Harvard in the second term of the 1901-02 academic year (see link immediately following)  and in the first term of 1902-03.

Harvard. Exams for labor economics and industrial organization. Durand, 1902

1903. Married Mary Elizabeth Bennett (1871-1943) in New York City on July 15. Three sons and a daughter. (They compiled a Bennett Family History, 1941)

1903. Special Examiner for about four months before being called to the newly created Bureau of Corporations [forerunner of Federal Trade Commission] as Special Examiner.

Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of the Census. Street and Electric Railways 1902Washington, 1905. Text prepared by T. Commerford and E. Dana Durand.

Report of the Commissioner of Corporations on the Beef IndustryWashington, March 3, 1905.
“As Deputy Commissioner of Corporations he gained experience with the report on the Beef Trust, for which report he was chiefly responsible.” [Garfield report]

1904. Recent tendencies in economic legislationYale Review, Vol. 12 (Feb., 1904), pp. 409-428.

1905. The beef industry and the government investigationAmerican Monthly Review of Reviews, Vol. 31 (Apr., 1905), pp. 464-471.

1907-09. Deputy Commissioner of Corporations.

1907. Report of the Commissioner of Corporations on the Petroleum Industry. Part I, Position of the Standard Oil Company in the Petroleum Industry (May 20, 1907); Part II, Prices and Profits (Aug. 5, 1907).

1909-1913. Director of the Census Bureau (appointed June 16, 1909; resigned June 30, 1913).

1910. Thirteenth Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1910.

1913-1917. Professor of Statistics, taught ‘descriptive’ economics, agricultural economics, and statistics at the University of Minnesota. On leave October 1917-1921.

1915. Published The Trust Problem. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

1915. President of the American Statistical Association.

1915. Assessments of Railroads in North Dakota, Report to the North Dakota Tax Commission.

1916. Bulletins from the Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota.

Coöperative Livestock Shipping Associations in Minnesota. Bulletin 156, February 1916.
Farmers’ Elevators in Minnesota, 1914-1915 (with J. P. Jensen). Bulletin 164, October 1916.

1917. Bulletins from the Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota.

Coöperative Creameries and Cheese Factories in Minnesota, 1914 (with Frank Robotic). Bulletin 166, March 1917.
Coöperative Buying by Farmers’ Clubs in Minnesota (with H. B. Price). Bulletin 167, June 1917.
Coöperative Stores in Minnesota, 1914. Bulletin 171, October 1917.

1917-18. Assistant head of the meat division, Food Administration. Charged by a commission merchant of Chicago with settting prices on the behalf of meat packers. Statement  before the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,  March 21, 1918. (Hearings on Government Control of Meat-Packing Industry) pp. 1661-1676.  The agricultural committee refused to press charges after the investigation.

1918-1919. From May 1 through February 15 in England. From February 15 to July 20 in France.

1919. Resigned professorship at Minnesota and leaves the Food Administration position to represent the Hoover relief Commission in Warsaw and advise the Polish Ministry of Food (leaving France July 20).

1921. Arrived in New York on July 21, returning from Poland.

1921. August. Appointed chief of the newly created eastern European division of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce by Secretary Hoover.

1922. Public finance of PolandTrade Information Bulletin, No. 32 (June 19 1922). Supplement to Commerce Reports published by the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, U. S. Department of Commerce.

1924-30. Chief of the Division of Statistics and Research in the Department of Commerce.

1926. Economic and political effects of governmental interference with the free international movement of raw materials. Paper in International Conciliation, published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Number 226 (January 1927), pp. 25-34. (Reprinted from Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, Vol. 12, No. 1 (July, 1926), pp. 135-144).

1928. November. Headed the American delegation at the 1928 International Conference on Economic Statistics.

1929. Free and dutiable imports of the United States in the calendar year 1927Trade Information Bulletin, no. 626 (1929).

1930. American Industry and Commerce. Boston: Ginn and Company. Durand identified as “Statistical Assistant to the Secretary of Commerce” on the title page.

1930-35. Chief economist for the Tariff Commission. In October 1930, it was announced that he was to take charge of the commission’s statistical work.

1935 to June 1952. Appointment annouced in December 1935 by FDR to fill the Republican vacancy on the Tariff Commission. Durand replaced John Lee Coulter of North Dakota.

1960. Died January 6 in Washington, D.C.

Sources: K. Pribram, “Edward Dana Durand, 1871-1960,” Revue de l’Institut International de Statistique / Review of the International Statistical Institute, Vol. 28, No. 1/2 (1960), pp. 118-120.
The Outing Magazine, Vol. 54, August 1909, pp. 563-564.
Miscellaneous newspaper reports have been useful in filling a few gaps.

______________________

Course Description

7b2 hf. The Theory and Methods of Taxation, with special reference to local taxation in the United States. Half-course (second half-year).

[NOTE:  Listed as omitted in 1902-03 in the announcement of course offerings. However it was indeed offered during the first semester by Durand in 1902-03.]

In this course both the theory and practice of taxation will be studied.

Attention will be given at the outset to the tax systems of England, France, and Germany; and the so-called direct taxes employed in those countries will receive special consideration. After this, the principles of taxation will be examined. This will lead to a study of the position of taxation in the system of economic science, and of such subjects as the classification, the just distribution, and the incidence of taxes. Finally, the existing methods of taxation in the United States will be studied, each tax being treated with reference to its proper place in a rational system of federal, state, and local revenues.

Written work will be required of all students, as well as a systematic course of prescribed reading. Candidates for Honors in Political Science and for the higher degrees will be given the opportunity of preparing theses in substitution for the required written work.

Course 7b is open to students who have taken Economics 1.

Source: Harvard University. Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Division of History and Political Science  [Comprising the Departments of History and Government and Economics], 1902-03. Published in The University Publications, New Series, no. 55. June 14, 1902.

______________________

Course Enrollment

Economics 7b. 1hf. Dr. Durand. — The Theory and Methods of Taxation, with special reference to local taxation, in the United States.

Total 21: 3 Gr., 13 Se., 4 Ju., 1 Other.

Source: Harvard University. Annual Report of the President of Harvard College, 1902-03, p. 68

______________________

Over five years ago Economics in the Rear-View Mirror posted some course materials for Durand’s Economics 7b course.

Harvard. Local taxation. Suggested topics and readings. Durand, 1902

______________________

Final Examination
ECONOMICS 7b
1902-1903

  1. Compare England and France as regards:
    1. purpose of customs duties and character of articles taxed;
    2. character and weight of excise taxation;
    3. main forms of direct taxation;
    4. methods of local taxation.
  2. Discuss the correctness and wisdom of the recent Income Tax decision of the Supreme Court.
  3. To what extent would the general property tax, if evasion could be prevented, meet the demand that every citizen be taxed according to his ability?
  4. Mention three ways of adjusting the taxation of mortgages and mortgaged real estate. Which do you think preferable, and why?
  5. A man living in Massachusetts, with no property there of a tangible character, owns land in New York and stock of a corporation whose property is in New York. (a) To what extent is he and his property now legally taxable by each State? (b) To what extent ought he justly to pay taxes to each State, and what would be a feasible method of adjustment?
  6. Compare Pennsylvania and Ohio as regards (a) sources of State, as distinguished from local, revenue; (b) method of taxing intangible personal property.
  7. What would you consider the best method of taxing railroad corporations? Compare this with other methods.
  8. Discuss the justice of taxing the pure economic rent of land to practically its full amount.
  9. State and discuss briefly four rules or principles for the selection of commodities for indirect taxation.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Mid-year Examinations 1852-1943. Box 6. Papers (in the bound volume Examination Papers Mid-years 1902-1903).
Also included in: Harvard University Archives. Examination Papers 1873-1915. Box 6. Papers Set for Final Examinations in History, Government, Economics, History of Religions, Philosophy, Education, Fine Arts, Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Music in Harvard College, June 1903 (in the bound volume Examination Papers 1902-1903).

Image Source: E. Dana Durand. Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division. Washington, D.C. 20540. Image colorized by Economics in the Rear-View Mirror.

Categories
Exam Questions France Public Finance

France. Public finance exam question. Leroy-Beaulieu, 1878

Paul Leroy-Beaulieu

While tracking down an exact reference for the French professor Paul Leroy-Beaulieu, I came across a collection of examination questions for 1873-1884 from the École libre des sciences politiques at archive.com. [Trick: sometimes you need to click the + sign in the archive.com viewer to see an image in that collection]

I offer this post for the 1878 examination as a bookmark for myself and others. Maybe later a few more of the economics questions will get fished out and posted in translation.

___________________________

Question de Finances
Cours de M. Leroy Beaulieu

Exposer brièvement les avantages et les inconvénients respectifs des impôts directs et des impôts indirects. Le placer, pour l’étude de cette question, au point de vue d’un pays qui a de très grandes charges, c’est a dire qui est grevé d’une lourde dette et qui entretient un grand état militaire.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Question: [Public] Finance
for the course
taught by Mr Leroy Beaulieu

Briefly describe the respective advantages and disadvantages of direct and indirect taxes. Take, in your answer to this question, the point of view of a country which is very heavily burdened, that is to say, having both a heavy [national] debt and a very large military budget.

Source: Ecole libre des sciences politiques (Paris). Examens de 1878: questions envoyées par les professeurs pour les épreuves écrites, questions tirées et questions non tirées…

Image SourceParis. Collège de France, M. le Professeur Paul Leroy-Beaulieu, Membre de l’Institut. Wikicommons, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.,

Categories
Economists International Economics Princeton

Princeton. The Frank D. Graham Memorial Lecturers. 1950-2023

This post is reproduces a table found in the Princeton economics department’s website that lists 69 distinguished economists who were invited by its International Economics Section (formerly known as the International Finance Section) to give the annual Frank D. Graham Memorial Lecture from 1950/51 through 2022/2023. It is quite the who has been or still is who of international economics. Some later post will deal with the historical record of the International Economics Section. For now, one more artifact added to the collection.

____________________________

Frank D. Graham taught at Princeton from 1921 until 1949, and served as the second Walker Professor of Economics and International Finance from 1945 to 1949.  Professor Graham published widely on international trade and international monetary issues. He is perhaps best known for his 1923 paper, “Some Aspects of Protection Further Considered.”  Graham’s contributions to Princeton and to international economics are honored by the Frank D. Graham Memorial Lecture, which is delivered annually by an eminent international economist.

Frank D. Graham Memorial Lecturers
(1950-2023)

1950-1951 Milton Friedman
1951-1952 James E. Meade
1952-1953 Sir Dennis Robertson
1953-1954 Paul A. Samuelson
1955-1956 Gottfried Haberler
1956-1957 Ragnar Nurkse
1957-1958 Albert O. Hirschman
1959-1960 Robert Triffin
1960-1961 Jacob Viner
1961-1962 Don Patinkin
1962-1963 Friedrich A. Lutz
1963-1964 Tibor Scitovsky
1964-1965 Sir John Hicks
1965-1966 Robert A. Mundell
1966-1967 Jagdish N. Bhagwati
1967-1968 Arnold C. Harberger
1968-1969 Harry G. Johnson
1969-1970 Richard N. Cooper
1970-1971 W. Max Corden
1971-1972 Richard E. Caves
1972-1973 Paul A. Volcker
1973-1974 J. Marcus Fleming
1974-1975 Anne O. Krueger
1975-1976 Ronald W. Jones
1976-1977 Ronald I. McKinnon
1977-1978 Charles P. Kindleberger
1978-1979 Bertil Ohlin
1979-1980 Bela Balassa
1980-1981 Marina von Neumann Whitman
1981-1982 Robert E. Baldwin
1983-1984 Stephen Marris
1984-1985 Rudiger Dornbusch
1986-1987 Jacob A. Frenkel
1987-1988 Ronald Findlay
1988-1989 Elhanan Helpman
1988-1989 Michael Bruno
1989-1990 Michael L. Mussa
1990-1991 Toyoo Gyohten
1991-1992 Stanley Fischer
1992-1993 Paul Krugman
1993-1994 Edward E. Leamer
1994-1995 Jeffrey Sachs
1995-1996 Barry Eichengreen
1996-1997 Wilfred J. Ethier
1997-1998 Maurice Obstfeld
1998-1999 Jeffrey A. Frankel
1999-2000 T.N. Srinivasan
2000-2001 Lars Svensson
2001-2002 Jean Tirole
2002–2003 Joseph Stiglitz
2003–2004 Kenneth Rogoff
2004–2005 Guillermo Calvo
2005-2006 Alan Deardorff
2006-2007 Robert E. Lucas, Jr.
2007-2008 Jonathan Eaton
2008-2009 J. Peter Neary
2009-2010 Avinash K. Dixit
2010-2011 Ricardo Caballero
2011-2012 Anthony Venables
2012-2013 Olivier Blanchard
2013-2014 Robert C. Feenstra
2014-2015 Sir Mervyn King
2015-2016 Pascal Lamy
2016-2017 Jaume Ventura
2017-2018 Robert W. Staiger
2018-2019 Samuel Kortum
2020-2021 Andrew Atkeson
2021-2022 Pinelopi (Penny) Koujianou Goldberg
2022-2023 Hélène Rey

Source: Historical list of Graham lecturers posted at the website of the Princeton economics department’s International Economics Section (formerly the International Finance Section). From the copy at the Internet Archive WaybackMachine.