Categories
Barnard Columbia Economist Market Economists

Columbia. Early Industrial Organization. Career of Arthur Robert Burns, husband of Eveline M. Burns

In the previous post we encountered social security pioneer Eveline Mabel Burns née Richardson at the point in her career when the Columbia University economics department signaled a definitive end to any hopes for promotion from the rank of lecturer to a tenure track assistant professorship in economics for her with them. In this post we follow the parallel case of her economist husband, Arthur Robert Burns (and no, not the Arthur F. Burns of Burns-Mitchell fame!), who cleared the promotion to assistant professor hurdle at Columbia relatively easily, but was stuck at that rank for nine years, in spite of repeated proposals by the department to promote him sooner.

The heart of this post can be found in the exchange between the  Arthur Robert Burns and then economics department head R. M. Haig in November 1941. Biographical and career backstories for Arthur R. Burns through 1945 can be found in excerpts posted below from budgetary proposals submitted by the economics department over the years. Burns was seen as a pillar of Columbia University’s Industrial Organization field at that time and remained at Columbia through his retirement (ca. 1965) while his wife took up a professorship in Social Work.

____________________________

From: Seligman’s 1929-30 budget recommendation to President Butler (December 1, 1928)

“During [Clara Eliot’s] absence [from Barnard College)  Mr. A. R. Burns has been acting as substitute. In our judgment he has been a valuable addition to the staff, and we recommend that he be reappointed as instructor. In Miss Eliot’s absence the course in statistics has been reduced from two semesters to one. There is a distinct demand for an additional course, though it would be on a different basis from formerly, and our proposal is that Miss Eliot be appointed solely to give two three-point courses in statistics, conducting a statistical laboratory as part of this work. This would relieve Mr. Burns from the course in statistics, and enable him to offer a new course of a somewhat more theoretical character than any now given at Barnard, on “the price-system and the organization of society”, a course which would distinctly help to round out the present offerings in Economics”.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Department of Economics Budgets, 1915-1934 (a few minor gaps)”.

____________________________

Biographical and professional background through 1930-31
of Arthur R. Burns

…Arthur R. Burns was born in London, in 1895. He served in the army from September, 1914, to April, 1917, when he was discharged as no longer fit because of wounds. He entered the London School of Economics at once, took his B.Sc. degree with honors in 1920, taught economics in King’s College for women (University of London) for four years, and took his doctor’s degree in 1926. The award of Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Fellowships brought Dr. Burns and his wife to this country, where they traveled somewhat widely for two years, studied competitive conditions in industries characterized by large business units, and where they were induced to stay by Columbia.

Dr. Burns has now been a lecturer in economics at Barnard College for three years. Members of our department have thus had an opportunity to become well acquainted with his quality. We think that he is by native ability, temperament and training an investigator, and that, given such opportunities as the graduate department affords, he will make significant contributions to economic science. His publications include several technical papers and two books: Money and Monetary Policy in Early Times, 1926, (a learned treatise on the origin and early history of coinage and monetary practices), and The Economic World, 1927 (written in collaboration with Mrs. Burns).

Source: Letter outlining plans for the future development of the economics department by Wesley C. Mitchell to President Butler. January 16, 1931. In Columbia University Archives. Central Files 1890-, Box 667, Folder 34 “Mitchell, Wesley Clair, 10/1930 – 6/1931”. Carbon copy also in Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Department of Economics Budgets, 1915-1934 (a few minor gaps)”.

____________________________

Department recommends promotion to Associate Professorship
already in 1937-38
[Note: actual promotion only occurred Apr. 3, 1944]

[…] I would make the following budgetary recommendations for the coming academic year [1937-1938]:

(1) That the salary of Assistant Professor Arthur R. Burns be advanced from $3,600 to $4,000. In the opinion of his colleagues Mr. Burns is an indispensable member of our group whose scholarly competence and accomplishments entitle him to recognition far beyond that yet accorded him by the University. At the earliest possible moment he should be advanced to an Associate Professorship.”

[…]

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1937-1938”.

____________________________

Department again recommends promotion to Associate Professorship
[Note: Burns was given the salary increase this time]

[…] I would respectfully make the following budgetary recommendations for the coming academic year [1938-1939]:

(1) That the salary of Assistant Professor Arthur R. Burns be advanced from $3,600 to $4,000. In the opinion of his colleagues Mr. Burns is an indispensable member of our group whose scholarly competence and accomplishments entitle him to recognition far beyond that yet accorded him by the University. At the earliest possible moment he should be advanced to an Associate Professorship.”

[…]

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1938-1939”.

____________________________

Department then begins unsuccessfully to push for an increase in salary with a promotion to Full Professorship
[Nov. 28, 1938]

[…] I respectfully recommend budgetary changes for the coming academic year 1939-1940, involving increase of compensation to the following members of the staff:

[…]

3. Arthur R. Burns from $4,000 to $4,500;

[…]

[Assistant] Professor Arthur R. Burns has established himself as an authority in his chosen field, and it is the desire of his colleagues that he be advanced to a full professorship as rapidly as university resources will allow. His tenure has already been long, and his advancement slow. It is our thought that he be given current recognition and enccouragement, with hope of promotion to rank commesurate with his repute among economists.”

[…]

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, “Economics Budget 1938-1939”. [note: incorrectly filed!]

____________________________

Requesting unpaid leave for a Twentieth Century Fund project

March 1, 1939

Nicholas Murray Butler, LL.D.
President of Columbia University

Dear President Butler:

Professor Arthur R. Burns has been invited to take the directorship of a study of the public utility industry, under the auspices of the Twentieth Century Fund. We of the Department think it wise that he do this and recommend that he be granted leave of absence without pay for the academic year 1939-40. I shall be prepared before long to make recommendation of some outstanding person to serve as a partial substitute for Professor Burns during the coming academic year with a stipend which will absorb approximately three-fifths of Professor Burns’ current compensation.

Very sincerely yours,

Executive Officer
Department of Economics

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1939-1940”.

____________________________

Department repeats its recommendation for an increase in salary with a promotion to Full Professorship
[Nov. 18, 1939]

[…] I respectfully make the following recommendations affecting the budget of 1940-41:

[…]

6. That Assistant Professor Arthur R. Burns be granted added compensation of $500 [i.e. from $4,000 to $4,500].

[…]

[Assistant] Professor Arthur R. Burns has served a long apprenticeship with subordinate rank in the Department. At the moment, either from the standpoint of scholarly attainment or from that of efficiency in graduate instruction he suffers not at all by comparison with the best endowed and most effective of his colleagues. Because of his merits and of the importance of the field he covers, he should be advanced rapidly to full professorial status.

[…]

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1939-1940” [note: incorrectly filed!]

____________________________

Department repeats its recommendation for an increase in salary reducing  promotion to Associate Professorship
[October 27, 1941]

MEMORANDUM
Department of Economics
October 27, 1941

[…]

Arthur R. Burns. Proposed: Advancement–assistant professor to associate professor.
Present salary $4,500
Proposed salary. $5,000

[…]

 

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Budget Material from July 1941-June 1942”.

____________________________

Arthur R. Burns demands promotion to the rank of professor

3206, Que Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

November 1st 1941.

Dear Professor Haig,

As I shall not be in New York this year to talk about the departmental plans for next year I must write. It seems to me that the question of my status in the department now calls for definitive action. Doubtless the unsettled times will be advanced as a reason for postponing promotion. At the outset, therefore, I wish to emphasise that I should regard any such attitude as entirely unfair. If the University is to go through hard times (as well it may) its misfortunes should be shared equitably among all the members of the faculty. To be frank, I feel that I have already been asked to bear an altogether unreasonable share of such financial stringencies as the University may have suffered. There have been many occasions in the past thirteen years on which I have been told that my promotion has been recommended (and more in which I have been told that it would have been recommended) but that no action has been taken for general financial reasons. I fully expect to bear my share of the burden of contemporary events but I feel that the time has come for my position to be given special consideration irrespective of those events, no matter how serious.

Various reasons have been given to me during my thirteen years of service to the University for its failure to promote me. But I think I am justified in believing that there has been less than the usual amount of criticism of my scholarship or my teaching capacity. The number of my students who have progressed in the outside world (sometimes already beyond my own rank and salary) indicates that I have been reasonably effective. Furthermore, I think that you will find that in recent years there has been an increasing number of graduate students coming to Columbia to work with me.

I now ask you, therefore, to have my academic status reviewed, whether or not the University wishes on principle again to avoid promotions. And after this long delay promotion only to an associate professorship will not, in my opinion, be compatible with my professional reputation and status. For six or seven years now my recognition outside the University has been widely at variance with my academic rank. My salary as Director of Research for the Twentieth Century Fund was $10,000 per annum. I have recently been invited to join the Anti Trust Division of the Department of Justice at a salary of $8,000 per annum. I am now the Supervisor of Civilian Allocation in the Office of Production Management. I suggest that this evidence justifies promotion to a full professorship. If economies are necessary, I am ready, as I have said, to accept them on the same basis as my colleagues.

I have written to you with complete frankness because I have been keenly disappointed with the disposal of suggestions for my promotion and I am anxious that you shall be clearly informed as to my feelings. I gather that for a number of years now there has been no serious objection but also no vigorous effort in my behalf. I now feel that if after all these long delays Columbia is unwilling to take special action to recognize my professional status I had better know before I am much older. I am now forty six years of age and if I must seek academic recognition elsewhere I must obviously begin to take the necessary steps without delay. I would of course prefer to stay with Columbia. I think you will agree that these long years of patient waiting are evidence of my loyalty but I think you will also agree that I cannot continue much longer to accept the present wide discrepancy between my status inside and outside the University.

Very sincerely yours,

[signed]

Arthur R. Burns

Professor Robert Murray Haig,
Chairman,
Department of Economics,
Fayerweather Hall,
Columbia University,
NEW YORK CITY

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection. Box 2: “Faculty”,  Folder: “Faculty Appointments”.

____________________________

Department responds to Burns’ demands:
Associate professorship when your rejoin the faculty

November 22, 1941

Professor Arthur R. Burns
3206 Que Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

Dear Professor Burns:

Last night our group met at dinner to consider the budget. This afforded an opportunity to comply with your request that your academic status be reviewed. I wish you could have listened to the discussion that took place. It was highly friendly and appreciative in tone, but at the same time it was pervaded by a deep sense of responsibility for the ultimate objectives for which we are striving. I am sure that it would have impressed you, as it did me, with the essential soundness of the policy of placing heavy dependence upon the deliberate, critical judgment of one’s colleagues in considering questions of promotion.

Your letter of November 1st, which I read to the brethren in full, arrived at a time peculiarly unfavorable for the consideration of finalities and ultimatums. Moreover, I regret to have to report some of the statements and implications of that letter were not altogether fortunate in the reactions they inspired. Let me elaborate on this last statement first.

(1) You state that you gather that in the past there has been “no vigorous effort” in your behalf. I can speak with full knowledge only regarding last year. If the implication is that your failure to secure more adequate recognition is ascribable to lack of vigor on the part of your colleagues as a group, or of the chairman of the Department in particular, I wish to state that I know it to be untrue with respect to last year and have reason to believe it to be untrue of several previous years. As a matter of fact, last year as the program moved forward from the Faculty Committee on Instruction, the recommendation for your promotion was placed at the very top above all others in the Faculty of Political Science. Until the very end, when the Trustees at their March meeting ruthlessly scuttled the program, I had high hopes that the effort would be successful. The only budgetary changes last year in this entire Department of 32 members were a) a $300 increase for which the College authorities had obligated themselves to secure for Barger and b) the temporary allocation of $600 to Wald for one year only from a sabbatical “windfall”.

(2) The citation of the salaries and fees you have been able to command in the government service and in the service of private research organizations as evidence that “justifies promotion to a full professorship” does not greatly impress your colleagues. We rejoice in the recognition and rewards that have come to you in return for your efforts while on leave of absence from your post at Columbia. Certainly the work of the Department has been carried on under a distinct handicap when your courses haven manned by part-time substitutes and we should like to believe that the sacrifices involved had borne rich fruits in professional and material rewards to you personally as well as to the general cause of science. However, you will readily agree, I take it, that our promotion and salary policy cannot be based on the principle you seem to suggest, viz., that the University must be prepared to match, dollar for dollar, the potential earning power of the staff on outside jobs. The rate of compensation for such outside work is, to my certain knowledge, likely to run over four or five times the rate of University compensation. Indeed, I can think of many of our colleagues who, on the basis of such a principle, could cite evidence even more convincing than your own.

(3) In the next place your letter seems to imply an understanding of the nature of the University connection that is not in complete harmony with our own. While it may be the policy elsewhere that mere length of service by a person who joins the staff at an early age, even though that service be reasonably effective and untouched by unfavorable criticism, carries assurance of promotion to the highest rank, this is definitely not the policy at Columbia University. Theoretically, at least, the University retains complete freedom of action to withhold advancement subject to a continuing critical appraisal of the individual’s value to the institution, against the background of changing circumstances, among which the University’s ability to supply funds must be listed near the top. Everyone is continually on trial to the very end of his career. This is evidenced in the practice regarding early retirement, the working of which I have recently had an opportunity to observe. Assurance regarding stability of tenure at a given level is a different point and mere humanitarian considerations are given generous weight. However, fundamentally the University connection is to be regarded as an opportunity (an opportunity, incidentally, of which you, in the opinion of your colleagues have, on the whole, made very good use) and promotion and early retirement are certainly affected and, in many cases at least, determined by the manner in which a member of the staff rises to that opportunity. Moreover, when such heavy dependence is placed upon the continuing critical appraisal by one’s colleagues, each man must have regard for his responsibility for the long-run interests of the department and of science. If, as the years roll along, the department is to contain a reasonably large percentage of intellects of the highest order, the critical appraisal must be a continuing process and sufficient freedom of action must be retained in promotion and salary policy to enable the group to make reasonably effective its collective judgment as to what is best for the department in the light of the individual’s developing record and the fluctuations of the resources available for supplying opportunities. I hope that you will forgive me for laboring this point but it is important that you understand what I am certain is the sentiment of the group of which you are a valued member, viz., that no matter on what basis of rank you may return to us, say, for example, as an associate professor, further recognition in rank or salary will be dependent upon decisions reached in harmony with the general policies outlined above.

I now revert to my earlier statement that your letter arrived at a peculiarly unfavorable time.

(1) On November 13th a letter was received from the President of the University indicating that Draconian economies were indicated for this year’s budget. Our own enrolment in the graduate department of economics has shrunk this year about 25 per cent and this shrinkage is on top of last year’s substantial shrinkage. Even in advance of the preparation of the formal budget letters, the department chairmen were summoned before a special committee at the behest of the trustees and urged by the elimination of courses and other means to contract the normal budget to smaller proportions. Consequently only in emergency cases where the interests of the University are considered to be vitally affected, will serious consideration be given to recommendations involving an increased expenditure.

(2) With the retirement of McCrea, the question of the future of the School of Business has been thrown open for discussion. Under the new Dean a radical revision of policy is being formulated, including as one item the transfer of the School to a strictly graduate level. The intimate interrelationships of staff and curriculum between our department and the school are being reexamined. Plans are still in a state of flux but your particular field of interest is involved. So highly dynamic is the situation that the budget letters of both the Department and the School are to be considered tentative documents, subject to modification as decisions of policy are taken during the weeks that lie ahead.

(3) The situation is further complicated by the fact that within our Department itself we have reached the stage, which arises every decade or so, when long-time plans require consideration. Not only are we faced with an important retirement problem, but we are also asked to have regard for the situation that will result if the present trend toward lower enrolments continues. To deal with this situation, a special committee has been set up in the department, headed by Professor Mitchell, to formulate plans for the future. A series of meetings is being held at which the present and probable future importance of the various subjects falling within the scope of the departments are being discussed and questions of staff and curriculum are being intensively studied. Here also important decisions are in the making but definite conclusions have not yet been reached.

I am writing at such length in order that you may understand clearly and fully the background against which we were called upon to consider your letter and the reasons underlying the action that was taken in your case.

The recommendation that I am instructed by our colleagues to include in the budget letter is that I renew the recommendation made last year that you be promoted to the rank of associate professor at a salary of $5,000. I realize that this will be a disappointment to you. You have stated that you consider this degree of recognition, if we are successful in securing it for you, would not be compatible with your professional reputation and status. I infer from your letter that you consider it so inadequate that you are not prepared to accept it. However, you do not make yourself unequivocally clear on this point. If your mind is definitely made up, it will simplify the procedure if you will inform me of the fact at once. On the other hand, there is no disposition to press you for an early answer in case you are not as far along toward a decision as your letter would seem to imply.

In considering the problem of your probable future with us, as compared with the various flattering alternatives open to you, I feel that I should make the following statements:

(1) I have no assurance that the recommendation will be adopted. It will carry the vigorous support of the department and of the Chairman. I have already raised the question informally before the Committee on Instruction of the Faculty and am happy to be able to report that this committee is warmly friendly to your cause. Frankly, however, I am not as optimistic as I was last year at this time regarding the outlook for a favorable outcome when the trustees finally take action.

(2) I should report that, in view of all the circumstances, including the state of ferment that exists at the moment regarding future plans for the department, your colleagues would not be willing to urge your appointment to a full professorship immediately, even if they were convinced that such a recommendation would stand a chance of acceptance by the trustees. You are highly regarded and much appreciated. Your colleagues regret the harsh circumstances that have made it impossible to give you more recognition than you have already received. They consider you an excellent gamble for the long future. They consider the fields of your special interest important. However, it is hoped and believed that you have not yet reached a full development of your potentialities. When faced with the question as to whether they are convinced that, on the record to date, you are reasonably certain to be generally regarded, during the next twenty years, as one of the dozen or so most distinguished economists in active service, there is a general disposition to reply “not yet proven beyond a reasonable doubt”. Although they have no illusions about the difficulty of carrying out this policy with success, they have decided to take the position that they will henceforth recommend for a full professorship no one who does not meet such a test. They prefer to have you return with the clear understanding all around that the final issue, the question of the full professorship, shall not be decided in your case until more evidence is in. They take this position with the best of will and with a considerable degree of confidence that the final decision will be favorable. In connection with this, they feel that the important work upon which you are now engaged should contribute substantially to your “capital account” and should have a highly favorable effect upon your future record as a scholar and teacher.

You paid me the compliment of writing me a candid and forthright letter. In return I have attempted to lay before you with complete frankness all the considerations I know of that bear upon the question you have to consider.

Finally, I should like to say, speaking both in a personal capacity and as the chairman of the department, that I hope you will find it possible to send me word that you desire to continue as a member of our group under these conditions. We have an interesting and important task before us. I believe that you have a rôle to play in its accomplishment. If, unhappily for us, your decision takes you away from us, we shall sincerely regret the termination of our close association with you. To a remarkable degree you have earned for yourself not only the respect but the affection of your colleagues at Columbia.

Faithfully yours,

R.M. HAIG

P.S. At your early convenience will you be good enough to send me a note of any items that should be added to your academic record for use in my budget letter.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection. Box 2: “Faculty”,  Folder: “Faculty Appointments”.

____________________________

From: Economics Department’s Proposed Budget for 1946-1947
November 30, 1945
[Burns recommended for professorship]

[…]

We recommend that Arthur Robert Burns, now an associate professor at a salary of $5,000, be promoted to a professorship at $7,500. Professor Burns, who has been connected with the University since 1928, was appointed an assistant professor in 1935, an associate professor in 1944. He has returned this year to his academic work, after a six-year leave of absence devoted to research and to important governmental service. His war-time activities have included service as Chief Economic Adviser and deputy Director of the Office of Civilian Supply, Deputy Administrator of the Foreign Economic Administration, and a mission to Europe in 1945 as a member of the American Group of the Allied Control Commission, advising on economic and industrial disarmament of Germany.
Professor Burns is carrying one of the fundamental graduate courses on Industrial Organization. He has agreed to offer one of the courses that will be central in the curriculum of the School of International Affairs–a course on “Types of Economic Organization”. His close acquaintance with the organization of the economies of the United States, Britain, and Germany, and his scholarly background in the field are of great value in this development of systematic academic work on comparative economic systems. Burn’s scholarly reputation is high. His study of The Decline of Competition, which is accepted as a standard in the field, is one of the major products of the Columbia Council on Research in the Social Sciences. He has served the country in recent years in administrative and advisory posts of high responsibility. We believe that he should have the rank of full professor.

[…]

Annex C

ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS

Academic Record

1918. Gladstone Memorial Prize, London School of Economics, London.
1920. B.Sc. (Economics) degree with First Class Honors, University of London.
1926. Ph.D. degree, University of London.
1926-28. Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Fellowship.

Teaching

1922-26. University of London.
1928-31. Lecturer in Economics, Barnard College, Columbia University.
1931-35. Lecturer in Economics, Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University.
1935-44. Assistant Professor of Economics, Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University.
1939. Special Lecturer, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
Leaves of absence without salary for 1940-41 through 1944-45.
1944-45. Promoted to Associate Professor of Economics
Returned to Columbia University for 1945-46.

Published Work

“Indian Currency Reform.” Economica, about 1925.
“The Effect of Funding the Floating Debt,” Economica, about 1933.
Money and Monetary Policy in Early Times.” London: Kegan Paul & Co., 1927. About 650 pp.
The Economic World.” London, University of London Press, 1928. [sic: co-authorship of wife Eveline M. Burns was not included in the citation].
“The Quantitative Study of Recent Economic Changes in the United States.” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 31: 491-546, April, 1930.
“Population Pressure in Great Britain.” Eugenics, 3: 211-20, June, 1930.
“The First Phase of the National Industrial Recovery Act 1933”. Political Science Quarterly,  49:161, June, 1934.
“The Consumer under the National Industrial Recovery Act.” Management Review, 23:195, July 1934.
The Decline of Competition. New York, McGraw Hill, 1936. 619 pp.
[not listed: “The Process of Industrial Concentration” 47 Q.J.E. 277 (1933)]
“The Anti-Trust Laws and the Regulation of Price Competition.” Law and Contemporary Problems, June, 1937.
“The Organization of Industry and the Theory of Prices.” Journal of Political Economy, XLV: 662-80, October, 1937.
“Concentration of Production,” Harvard Business Review, Spring Issue, 1943.
“Surplus Government Property and Foreign Policy”, Foreign Affairs, April, 1945.

Unpublished Studies

1935-38. Investigation of the pricing of cement with special reference to the basing point system (in collaboration with Professor J. M. Clark).
1939. Report on the pricing of sulphur.
1938-39. Study of distribution costs and retail prices.
1939-41. Director of Research, Twentieth Century Fund study of “Relations between Government and Electric Light and Power Industry.” Has been completed and is now in hands of the Twentieth Century Fund.

Other Work

1935. Alternate member. President’s Committee to report on the experience of the National Recovery Administration.
1938-39. Chairman, Sub-Committee of Price Conference on Distribution Costs and REtail Prices.
1939-41. Member of Board of Editors, American Economic Review.
1941. Supervisor of Civilian Supply and Requirements, Office of Production Management.
1942. Chief Economic Adviser, Office of Civilian Supply, War Production Board.
1942 (July-August). Member of mission to London to study British methods of concentration of industry.
1943. Deputy Director, Office of Civilian Supply.
1943. Director of Planning and Research, Office of Civilian Requirement
1943, December to March, 1945. Special assistant to Administrator, Deputy Administrator to the Foreign Economic Administration.
1945-continuing. Consultant to Enemy Branch of the Foreign Economic Administration.
1945, Summer. In Europe with the American Group of the Allied Control Commission to advise on the economic and industrial disarmament of Germany.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Department of Economics Budget ’46-47 and related matters”.

___________________________

Obituary: “Arthur Robert Burns dies at 85; economics teacher at Columbia“, New York Times, January 22, 1981.

Image: Arthur Robert Burns.  Detail from a departmental photo dated “early 1930’s” in Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Photos”.

Categories
Chicago Columbia Economist Market Economists

Chicago. Harry Johnson opposes major appointment to be offered to Gary Becker, 1964

From the perspective of today it is rather difficult to imagine that the idea of bringing favorite son Gary Becker back to the University of Chicago from Columbia could have faced any, much less, serious resistance from within the economics department. But as the following letters from Zvi Griliches’ papers in the Harvard archives show, Harry Johnson’s displeasure with this prospect was a force taken most seriously by several of his colleagues, at least in the Spring of 1964. Perhaps more was at play than Johnson’s principle objection to a Becker hire:

“…his accomplishments consist mainly in doing more competently what various members of the department already do, and have been doing for a long time, and not in doing well what the department does not do and ought to be doing if it expects to attract good students and maintain its leadership among the graduate schools of the continent, I think that it would be a grave error of strategy in the development of the department to go after him.”

Johnson offered another interesting claim with regard to 1964 Chicago faculty expectations for a Ph.D. thesis:

I have noticed among some of the graduate students the notion that the Ph.D. thesis is to be completed with the minimum of intellectual input and a few single-equation regressions. This is contrary to the intention of the Ph.D. regulations (‘the quality and length of a good journal article’)…

Perhaps the birth of the concept of a job-market-paper?

_____________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO 37 • ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

May 20, 1964

To: Al Harberger, Zvi Griliches

From: Al Rees

Re: Gary Becker

The question of an appointment for Gary will be discussed at a Department Meeting on June 4. I enclose a copy of a confidential memo from Harry in which he opposes the appointment. Harry will be in Italy on June 4 and cannot present his views in person. I would very much like to have your reaction before the meeting.

You should also know that appointments are being offered this week to Jimmy Savage and to Hans Theil, both at high salaries and both joint with the School of Business. There seems to be a very high probability that both will be accepted.

I am somewhat concerned about the number of tenure posts the Administration will let us have; in particular, I do not want to do anything that might “freeze out” Larry Sjaastad, for whom I have very high hopes.

Another consideration is the effect on Harry of making a senior appointment that he opposes. He seems to feel somehow outnumbered and is still actively considering a move to London.

Gregg has already put to you the case for Gary; in any case you know his stengths too well to need to be reminded of them.

[signed] Al

_____________________

 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Date May 19, 1964

CONFIDENTIAL

To: A. Rees
From: H.G. Johnson
In re: [Economics] Department Meeting, June 4th

As I will not be at the departmental meeting on June 4th, I am taking the unusual course of putting on paper my views about certain matters due for discussion, on which I would have spoken.

I. A. (1) The thesis prospectus seminar on Choudhri was dissatisfied with the prospectus; it considered making him prepare a new prospectus, but decided instead to make him get agreement from the three members of his Committee on a new draft. Earl Hamilton was in favor of another prospectus seminar, but was overruled. I have had second thoughts, and believe that the matter should be reconsidered, for the following reasons:

(a) next year’s money workshop will be in different hands than this year’s; I am worried that, in the rush to get students past their prospectus seminar, we will land next year’s workshop with a batch of poorly thought out prospectuses that will have to be patched up with great labor.

(b) Choudhri has an excellent record; he should be able to do much better, and we should make him do better–if we let him get by with low-quality work, we are doing his future career a disservice.

(c) I have noticed among some of the graduate students the notion that the Ph.D. thesis is to be completed with the minimum of intellectual input and a few single-equation regressions. This is contrary to the intention of the Ph.D. regulations (“the quality and length of a good journal article’), bad for student morale, and inimical to good teaching. An example in this case would be salutary, and it would do Choudhri himsèlf little harm and probably some good.

I. A. (1) I would like to recommend strongly that we go after R. A. Mundell for the Ford Fellowship for 1965-66. Mundell is one of the most original and elegant moentary theorists going: he has contributed to the theory of economic policy under fixed and floating exchange rates, and started off the analysis of optimum currency areas, and he has made a number of contributions to the price theory of money and of inflation. He is also a first-class international trade and general value theorist, and a man who is always ready for an intelligent argument. Apart from our mathematical economists, we have no-one here with Mundell’s interest in pure monetary and value theory; and we have no-one with his practical experience at the IMF. I should add that I have suggested Mundell partly because I have talked with him, and he would like to spend 1965-66 in this area.

I. B. (2) Just as strongly, I feel that the department should not pursue the proposal to offer a tenure appointment to Gary Becker. I have a high respect for Becker’s theoretical abilities; but as his accomplishments consist mainly in doing more competently what various members of the department already do, and have been doing for a long time, and not in doing well what the department does not do and ought to be doing if it expects to attract good students and maintain its leadership among the graduate schools of the continent, I think that it would be a grave error of strategy in the development of the department to go after him. 

In addition, I would point out that Becker is probably the most distinguished graduate this department had had in recent years, and that going after him would be a repetition of the cannibalization-of-the-young policy that in my judgment has seriously weakened this department in the past decade or so. Unless we get our good graduates established in good departments in other Universities, we are going to have to live with the present image of the Chicago School in the profession at large, and we are not going to have representatives in other good universities steering good students towards us. If we persistently try to bring our own best back, we will defeat ourselves in the long run in two ways: we will not get the students; and we will not get the top-quality men we should get either, because we are bound to miss out on some of our own, and the fact that a new non-Chicagoan will necessarily be one of a minority outgroup will make the place unattractive to such men.

I am also fairly sure that Becker would not come, because he is intelligent enough to know that he should not come and begause he is well entrenched at Columbia, where a number of senior men are due to be replaced and will be replaced by men of his own

_____________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO 37 • ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

June 15, 1964

Professor Zvi Griliches

The Maurice Falk Institute for
Economic Research in Israel
17, Keren Hayesod Street
Jerusalem, Israel

Dear Zvi:

I have your letter of June 7.

At the Department Meeting a week ago last Friday, we took no action on Richard Moorsteen other than agreeing to invite him to come to Chicago for a visit next fall. We agreed to invite Bob Mundell to join our faculty for the year 1965-66 on the Ford Foundation Professorship.

The Department took no action on my proposal to offer a major appointment to Gary Becker. It is likely that the question will come up again next fall and you will be here then to state your own point of view.

It is quite clear now that Theil is not going to give us his decision until after his return to the Netherlands. At the moment I am fairly optimistic that when he makes his decision, it will be favorable. Theil has been offered a quite good package, I think, and I judge from conversations with him that he feels he also has a good package.

Furthermore, Judy got the impression that Laura Theil would be favorable to coming here.

You ask in the postscript to your letter whether I got a raise. I presume that what was in your mind was the question: Will I get a raise if the chairmanship is offered to me and I accept it?

I can’t answer your  question for sure since the chairmanship has not been offered to me. Indeed, I have taken steps at this end to try to insure that it won’t be offered to me. If it is offered to me, it is very unlikely I will accept it. Indeed, I can’t imagine that the terms on which it would be offered would be sufficiently attractive to induce me to accept.

Sincerely,

[signed] Gregg

H.G. Lewis

HGL/agm

Source: Harvard University Archives, Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 129, Folder „Correspondence, 1960-1969“.

Image Sources: Harry Johnson (Archives of two giants of economics donated to the U Chicago Library. U Chicago News, October 25, 2018); Gary Becker (University of Chicago Booth School Nobel Laureate Page for Gary Becker).

Categories
Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Economist Market Economists Harvard M.I.T.

Chicago. Three casual letters from Cambridge, Mass. regarding young talent, 1957-59

 

In the three letters to Theodore W. Schultz transcribed for this post we witness the old-boy network at work in Chicago’s search for young talent.  Mason and Harris from Harvard share the enormous respect that Harvard Junior Fellow Frank Fisher had won from the senior professors there.  Evsey Domar hedges somewhat in his assessment of Robert L. Slighton but more or less places him in a spectrum running between Marc Nerlove and Martin Bailey closer to the latter. Other now familiar (and less familiar) names are tossed in for good measure.

____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Office of the Dean

Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

December 27, 1957

Professor Theodore Schultz
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Ted:

In addition to [John] Meyer, [James] Henderson and [Otto] Eckstein, I would also name Franklin Fisher and Daniel Ellsberg as among our really promising young men. Fisher and Ellsberg are, at present, both junior fellows. Fisher is something of a wunderkind, having graduated summa cum laude from Harvard at the age of 18. He published a mathematical article on Welfare Economics when he was a senior, and those who can understand it say it’s good. He is only 20 now, and, of course, it is difficult to say how he is going to turn out. He may be another Paul Samuelson, and on the other hand he may not. Ellsberg is another one of our summas and a very good man, indeed. I don’t think he measures up to John Meyer, but is probably in the Henderson and Eckstein category. Since I promised you six names, I will add that of [???] Miller who came to us this year from California. I have really seen nothing of him, and consequently, can no give you a first-hand judgement. My colleagues, however, think he is very good.

With best wishes, I am

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Ed
Edward S. Mason
Dean

ESM:rrl

____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Office of the Chairman

M-8 Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

January 5, 1959

Professor Theodore Schultz
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois

Dear Ted:

It was good to see you even though it was for a very short period. As you know, we include on our list of available men only those who have requested to be put on the list or who have given us their permission to have their name included in the list. It represents men who are either already Ph.D.’s or will receive their Ph.D. within the year, and who are actually available for the coming year.

[Daniel] Ellsberg will be getting his Ph.D. this year, but he is going to Rand at a salary of about $10,000. [Franklin] Fisher will not have his Ph.D. until June 1960. He is just out of college three years and has been offered an assistant professorship at Carnegie Tech. We have now promised him a similar appointment, and in fact he said he would prefer to be at Harvard.

Among other young men of talent who are now here but are not on our permanent roster are the following: Leon Moses who teaches half time in the department and does research with the [Wassily] Leontief project half time. There is a good chance that Moses will go to Pittsburgh, particularly in order to work on the metropolitan project with [Edgar M.] Hoover. Moses is an excellent man in every way and certainly of permanent quality: the same holds for Alfred Conrad who is in somewhat the same position as Moses. Incidentally, both of them have a leave for next year: There is also André Daniere who will be an assistant professor next year and who works primarily with Leontief. Daniere is another good man, though probably not quite as good as the others.

Then there are Otto Eckstein, James Henderson, Jaroslav Vanek and Louis Lefeber. They are all excellent men and in the running for a permanent appointment. Actually, during the next few years we will have but one or two openings and obviously we cannot keep all these men. There is little to choose among them and we will have a tough time making a decision. Please keep this in the highest confidence.

With kind regard, I am,

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Sey
Seymour E. Harris
Chairman

SHE/jw

____________________________

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Department of Economics and Social Science

Cambridge 39, Massachusetts

January 14, 1959

Professor Theodore W. Schultz
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois

Dear Ted:

Your letter of January 6, regarding [Robert L.] Slighton is not quite easy to answer. I do not know [Daniel] Elsberg [sic] or [Franklin] Fisher well enough to make comparisons, but I will try to compare Slighton with [Martin J.] Bailey and [Marc] Nerlove. From the point of view of statistical and mathematical ability, Nerlove stands in a class all by himself, and I do not think that Slighton’s comparative advantage is in those fields. As far as Bailey is concerned, he may have flashes of ideas at times superior to Slighton’s. On the other hand, I would credit Slighton with greater solidity, more common sense and better judgment. As far as long-run contributions are concerned, I don’t know on whom of the two I would bet at the moment, but Slighton would be a serious contender in any such betting.

Lloyd [Metzler]’s session went quite well. He was greeted by the audience most warmly and was pleased about the whole works very much. I am very happy that that meeting was arranged and that I could participate in it.

Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Evsey D
Evsey D. Domar

EDD:jr

Source:  University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics, Records. Box 42, Folder 9.

Categories
Economist Market Economists Harvard

Harvard. Responses of Wassily Leontief to Questionnaire from Committee to Investigate Walsh-Sweezy Case, 1937

 

For background on the 1937 case involving the Harvard economics instructors Alan R. Sweezy (brother of Paul Sweezy) and John Raymond Walsh, whose appointments were not renewed in spite of positive recommendations from the department of economics, see

Lovejoy, Arthur O. “Harvard University and Drs. Walsh and Sweezy: A Review of the Faculty Committee’s Report.” Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors (1915-1955), vol. 24, no. 7, 1938, pp. 598–608. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40219387. 

The artifact of value that concludes this post is a draft of Wassily Leontief’s responses to fifteen questions sent out to junior instructional officers at Harvard by the Faculty Committee tasked to review the case and which ultimately released two reports:

Report on the terminating appointments of Dr. J.R. Walsh and Dr. A.R. Sweezy, by the special committee appointed by the President of Harvard University. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938.

Report on some problems of personnel in the Faculty of arts and sciences by a special committee appointed by the president of Harvard university. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939.

__________________________

Conant Appoints Committee to Investigate Walsh-Sweezy Case
Dodd, Morison, Morgan, Perry, Murdock, Schlesinger, Shapley, Frankfurter, Kohler Named

The Harvard Crimson, May 28, 1937

The complete text of President Conant’s report to the Overseers may be found in column four. [next item below]

Admitting “the existence of substantial doubt within the University as to the justice or wisdom of the University’s action” in regard to the Walsh-Sweezy case, President Conant wrote a letter to the Overseers dated May 26th in which he announced he had appointed a committee to investigate the affair.

The committee will be made up of the nine professor who received a memorandum from 131 junior teachers requesting a report on the issues involved.

At the same time President Conant wrote both Walsh and Sweezy announcing that he very much regretted the misconstruction of the University’s April 6th statement “as a reflection on your teaching capacity and scholarly ability.” In the last paragraph of the letter the President pointed out that the committee will investigate not only the case of the two men but also “the larger questions involved in the promotion of younger men.

The text of the President’s letters to Walsh and Sweezy follow:

Text of Letter

“I understand that the University’s statement issued on April 6 has been misconstrued in some quarters as a reflection on your teaching capacity and scholarly ability. I very much regret this. No such reflection was intended; the statement in my opinion cannot justly be taken as implying that you are not an able teacher or scholar. All that was meant or implied was that your political views and activities outside the University had nothing to do with the decision and that the choice among several candidates was made according to academic criteria.

“I am writing you this letter, after appointing a committee to investigate your case and some of the larger questions involved in the promotion of younger men, in order that you may not be under any misapprehension as to my personal feelings toward you. “Very sincerely yours,   James B. Conant.”

__________________________

TEXT OF REPORT

The Harvard Crimson, May 28, 1937

“To the Board of Overseers:

“In view of the fact that there is not another stated meeting of the Board until Commencement Day, I am reporting to you in writing concerning the case of the two instructors in Economics which I discussed with the Board at the meeting on April 12.

“On May 18, I was informed by a group of senior professors that they had received a memorandum from 131 junior teaching officers of the University requesting them to report upon the issues raised by the University’s action in respect to Messrs. J. R. Walsh and A. R. Sweezy, instructors in Economics. The memorandum was addressed to the following nine professors: E. Merrick Dodd, Jr., Felix Frankfurter, Elmer P. Kohler, Edmund M. Morgan, Samuel E. Morison, Kenneth B. Murdock, Ralph B. Perry, Arthur M. Schlesinger, and Harlow Shapley.

“This group informed me that they would prefer to have this inquiry conducted by a committee appointed by the President. I have replied that it is clear that the nine men to whom the memorandum was addressed have the confidence of the petitioners. For that reason I have requested them to make the investigation which the petitioners desire and have appointed them a committee for that purpose. I assured them that the University would make available any information they may desire, and I might add that the Chairman of the Department of Economics has informed me that he welcomes the inquiry.

“I expressed the hope that the report of the committee would he available by the middle of the coming academic year. Since the appointments of Dr. Walsh and Dr. Sweezy run for two years, there is ample time for me to reopen their cases if the committee’s report warrants it.

“Inasmuch as there has been some misunderstanding about a public statement issued on April 6, I have written letters to Dr. Walsh and Dr. Sweezy of which copies are appended.

“No further action or comment on my part would seem to be required until the committee have made their report. I should, however, like to say that the existence of substantial doubt within the University as to the justice or wisdom of the University’s action is sufficient ground for welcoming an inquiry.”

__________________________

 

Questionnaire of the Committee on the appointment and promotion of junior teaching officers at Harvard.

Interleaved with a draft copy of Wassily Leontief’s responses.

CONFIDENTIAL

September 20, 1937

Dear Sir:

The undersigned Committee has been appointed by the President to consider certain questions relating to the method of appointment and promotion of junior teaching officers in Harvard College. It will be of great assistance to the Committee if you will write frank answers to the questions below, together with any general comments you care to make on the broad problems involved, and send them before October 9, 1937, to the Secretary of the Committee, Kenneth B. Murdock, Master’s Lodgings, Leverett House, Cambridge. Your answers and comments will be regarded as strictly confidential and shown to no one except members of the Committee. If it seems desirable to quote from or refer to them in the Committee’s final report, this will be done anonymously.

  1. In your opinion, is the treatment of junior teaching officers at Harvard and the administrative policy and procedure in respect to their appointment and promotion satisfactory; or have you suggestions as to how it might be improved so as to create a better opportunity for intellectual development and professional advancement?

Leontief: For the lower ranks of the teaching staff the problem of creating a “better opportunity for intellectual development” is fundamentally a question of firing and not of hiring and promoting.
As long as the position of instructorship is considered to be a temporary one and while only a small proportion of the junior staff can be absorbed by promotion into the higher ranks, the position of the average junior officer will necessarily be precarious. No administrative devices can obviate the necessity of discharging annually a large number of tutors and instructors. At best it might be possible to secure new jobs for some of these the university could help the parting[?] men in their search[?] for new positions, In any case it is well to avoid in parting any at worst [it] should be possible to avoid unnecessary affront to their personal sensibilities. ([The] case Sweezy, Walsh is a good example of how it should not be done).

  1. Has any pressure been exerted upon you to publish, as a condition of your appointment or promotion at Harvard? If so, do you consider this pressure advantageous or harmful to your intellectual development? From whom has the pressure come?

Leontief: The pressure to publish comes from the fact that no man can be promoted without having shown some printed results of his scientific work. It is not personal pressure but pressure of “circumstances”. I find that this pressure is harmful only insofar as it is associated with the presumption that articles are not “real” publications and thus puts a premium on wordiness.

  1. Has your research and publication grown continuously out of your doctor’s thesis and graduate studies; or has there been a conflict or change of interest? If the latter, specify the causes and nature of the conflict or change.

Leontief: My research and publications developed rather continuously, without serious conflicts.

  1. Have you been given a clear definition of what you should do, in scholarly work and teaching, in order to merit appointment or promotion? By whom? Has such advice been helpful or misleading? In answering this question specify your relations to senior members of your Department, the Dean of the Faculty, senior colleagues or personal friends in other Departments.

Leontief: I never asked anybody for a clear definition of what to do to merit promotion. I was told, however, by the head of the department that since I am working in a rather new field it will be necessary to wait and see what the ultimate results will be before deciding whether or not I am to be kept on. I spoke with the Dean of the faculty once; I discuss my current academic problems with the head of the department two or three times a year; among my close friends I have senior as well as junior members of the department. My relations to all others are quite cordial.

  1. Have you felt any conflict between research and teaching, either in respect to the amount of time given to each, or the type of ability and interest required for each? Have you ever been advised to neglect one in favor of the other? If so, by whom? Can you give an approximate statement of the proportion of your time given to teaching, and the proportion to research?

Leontief: Considering the issue of teaching vs. research from a somewhat more general standpoint than that of your question I wish to call your attention to the fact that in the field of economics it acquires a quite peculiar aspect.
The problems, methods and the general body of knowledge change so frequently that one not actively engaged in the process of scientific work would most likely be ignorant of the most significant present day developments.
While a “good teacher” in physics or history can naturally be expected to command a solid, up to date knowledge of his subject, the “good teacher” in economics—if not engaged in active research—lacks with a very few exceptions this elementary prerequisite of pedagogical activity. This applies not only to graduate instruction but also to the higher type undergraduate courses. I personally have never experienced any conflict between my research and teaching activities for the simple reason that both coincided in their subject matter. Approximately one third of my time is devoted to actual teaching.

  1. To what extent have you received help and encouragement from your senior colleagues, in your teaching, and in your research?

Leontief: With some of my colleagues I maintain a very close contact in research as well as collaboration in teaching. In one instance, for example, we visit each other’s lectures (advanced courses) with a view to closer coordination of subject matter and methods.

  1. At what point in his career does it seem to you that a teacher at Harvard should have definite assurance of permanent tenure?

Leontief: [Blank]

  1. By what standards, and by whom, do you feel that your qualifications for permanent appointment are likely to be appraised? Do you feel confident that the appraisal will be just? If not, what method can you suggest for securing a just appraisal?

Leontief: So far as I know, in the department of Economics appointment to associate professorship is discussed and decided by a “committee of full professors” or the “executive committee” which comprises also associate professors. I have no reason to believe that an “appraisal” by such a committee would not be just.
I think that my standing as a scientist and teacher will determine the opinion of the senior members of the department in the first instance. Secondary considerations of “strategic” character however are also likely to influence in greater or smaller degree their attitude.
In order to achieve a greater uniformity of standards and reduce the influence of various subjective motivations to a minimum it would be advisable in my opinion to
a) define more rigidly the membership of the appointing committee.
b) to require each member of the committee to submit a written, motivating opinion (however short) which would be forwarded to the president of the university together with the final vote of the committee.

  1. Do you believe that serving at Harvard prior to any decision as to your permanent appointment has been beneficial to you as regards your teaching, your scholarship, and your professional career?

Leontief: Yes.

  1. Have you refused offers from other institutions since you have been at Harvard? What reasons led you to refuse them?

Leontief: No.

  1. Do you believe that your personal opinions, in relation to your own field or to other subjects, have in any way influenced your treatment at Harvard? If so, what evidence have you to support this belief? Has a regard for your position or advancement at Harvard limited your freedom of opinion either within or outside of your own field?

Leontief: I do not think that my personal opinion (as distinct from my “personality” in general) has influenced my position in Harvard, nor did a regard for my position or advancement influence or limit the freedom of my opinion.

  1. Have you engaged in any “outside activities”? If so, what proportion of your time have they occupied? How have they been related to your scholarly activities? Do you believe that such outside activities have in any way influenced or jeopardized your appointment or promotion at Harvard? If so, what evidence can you offer in support of this belief?

Leontief: I have hardly ever been engaged in any “outside” activity.

  1. Has your salary been sufficient to meet your living expenses? Has it seemed to you appropriate and just? In answering this and the following question, state whether you are married or unmarried; and, if married, give the size of your family.

Leontief: I am married and have one child. Since the time of my marriage five years ago I have been able to put aside $600. My wife’s medical expenses connected with an automobile accident absorbed all these savings. This financial situation is not typical because unlike most of my colleagues I do not receive any supplementary income from instruction in Radcliffe College or in the Harvard Summer School.

  1. Have you found living conditions, housing, schooling, etc. satisfactory in Cambridge?

Leontief: I find the cost of living comparatively high, the public schools inadequate and private schools beyond the reach of my budget.

  1. Have you been delayed in completing your research by inability to finance publication or by the cost of securing requisite materials not available in Cambridge? What remedy do you suggest?

Leontief: My research work is supported by the Harvard Committee for Research in Social Sciences which has nearly without exception granted all my requests for financial assistance.

In answering the above questions, the Committee hopes that you will support and illustrate your comments by specific citations from your own experience, or that of others.

Very truly yours,

Ralph Barton Perry, Chairman
Professor of Philosophy

Elmer Peter Kohler
Professor of Chemistry

William Scott Feguson
Professor of History

Felix Frankfurter
Professor of Law

Edmund Morris Morgan
Professor of Law

Edwin Merrick Dodd, Jr.
Professor of Law

Arthur Meier Schlesinger
Professor of History

Harlow Shapley
Professor of Astronomy

Kenneth B. Murdock, Secretary
Professor of English

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Wassily Leontief (HUG 4517.7). Box: Personal correspondence etc. Dates mainly from 1920’s and 1930’s. Folder: [W.L.-Personal]

Image Source: Wassily Leontief in Harvard Class Album 1934.

Categories
Boston College Economics Programs Economist Market Economists

Boston College. Annual Economics Newsletters, 1978-2020

 

While preparing the previous post, I stumbled across an old departmental newsletter for Boston College archived at the website of Boston College’s economics department. A little more digging revealed that all departmental newsletters since 1978, when the first newsletter was prepared, can be downloaded from the Wayback Machine internet archive of web.archive.org. Forty-three years’ worth of newsletters provides us a treasure chest of detail. A link to an archived webpage with all the Boston College graduate economics placements from 2002-2019 has been appended to this post.

The inaugural doctoral programs in economics, education and history at Boston College were established in the academic year 1952—1953.

_____________________

Economic Newsletters of Boston College’s Department of Economics

1978 1979a
1979b
1980a
1980b
1981a
1981b
1982a
1982b
1983a
1983b
1984a
1984b

1985

1986

1987 1988 1989 1990
1991 1992 1993 1994

1995

1996

1997 1998 1999 2000
2001 2002 2003 2004

2005

2006

2007 2008 2009 2010
2011 2012 2013 2014

2015

2016

2017 2018 2019

2020

_____________________

Other stuff

Archived News from the Department of Economics.  From Dec 29, 2002 to September 13, 2007.

Boston College Economics Graduate Placements 2002-2019.

Categories
Economist Market Economists Gender Harvard

Harvard. Galbraith suggests Barbara Bergmann for Women’s Studies Professorship, 1983

 

The departments of anthropology, english and psychology at Harvard appear to have been relatively quick to respond to the 1983 opportunity of hiring a professor in women’s studies. The Harvard Dean then wrote a memo to encourage other departments to come up with candidates as well. John Kenneth Galbraith put forward the name of Barbara Bergmann for the serious consideration of the department. Perhaps someone knows whether his suggestion was able to obtain any search traction?

___________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

A. Michael Spence
Chairman

Littauer Center 200
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
(617) 495-2144

October 31, 1983

 

TO: Members of the Faculty, Economics Department

FROM: A. Michael Spence [Signed initials: AMS]

The attached is self-explanatory. Does anyone have ideas? Please let me know.

___________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Faculty of Arts and Sciences

Office of the Dean

5 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
(617) 495-1566

October 4, 1983

TO: Chairmen of the Departments of Classics, Comparative Literature, Economics, Government, History, Philosophy, and Sociology

FROM: Henry Rosovsky

RE: Tenured Position in Women’s Studies

Last spring, the Committee on Women’s Studies informally notified several departments of the opportunity to nominate a distinguished scholar in the area of women’s studies. The appointment would be made entirely within a department with the understanding that the individual would devote at least half of his or her teaching time to Women’s Studies and play an active role in the future development of teaching and scholarly activities in that area.

Several departments (Anthropology, English, and Psychology) have already reported active searches; some have advanced to the short list stage. If your department is interested in pursuing this opportunity, please let my office know as soon as possible. If you wish to nominate a candidate, you should write to me describing the candidate (and the search procedure), and indicating what advantages will accrue to the department and to the Women’s Studies program if the position is assigned to your department. I expect that an assignment will be made by the end of the calendar year unless there is some compelling reason to delay.

dmg

___________________

John Kenneth Galbraith
Harvard University
Cambridge

207 Littauer Center
November 10, 1983

Professor A. Michael Spence
Littauer 200

Dear Michael:

Would you think of Barbara Bergmann, now at University of Maryland? She is one of our Ph.D.s, a brilliant economist, articulate in written and oral expression and both deeply and intelligently concerned with women’s issues. When President of the AEA I established as you know the Committee on the State of Women I the profession. Barbara took an alert and effective part in its work. I have no thought as to her availability; I do urge that she be considered. It would be very good, indeed, to have her back.

Yours faithfully,
[signed]
John Kenneth Galbraith

JG/all

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. John Kenneth Galbraith Personal Papers. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 526. Folder: “Harvard Department of Economics: General, 1975-1988”

Image Sources:  Barbara Bergmann in a Center for the History of Political Economy at Duke University spotlight web post. John Kenneth Galbraith (22 Feb. 1982) at “Top Management Forum” in Hilton Hotel in Amsterdam. Wikimedia Commons, from the Dutch National Archives.

 

 

 

Categories
Bibliography Economics Programs Economist Market Economists Indiana Sociology

Oberlin. Sociology bibliography by John R. Commons, 1891-1892

 

The core of this post is a twelve printed page bibliography of sociology prepared by the institutional economist, John R. Commons (1862-1945), during the one year he taught at his alma mater, Oberlin College in 1891-92. I have been able to provide links to close to 100% of the items he has listed. From the Oberlin College catalogue for that year I have transcribed the course offerings and their brief descriptions. A brief chronology of Commons’ education and professional career was put together from his very readable autobiography, Myself (1934) for this post.

_____________________

John Rogers Commons
Education and Professional Career

John R. Commons graduated from Oberlin College with an A.B. in 1888; A.M. (honorary) awarded in 1890.

1888-1890. Two trustees of Oberlin College lent Commons a total of $1,000 to finance his first two years of graduate work at Johns Hopkins University.

“Within a year and a half came my usual fate. I failed completely on a history examination. This ruined my hopes of a fellowship to carry me through the third year. So I had only two years of graduate work and never reached the degree of Ph.D., the sign manual of a scholar.” Myself, p. 42.

1890-91. Taught at Wesleyan ($1000 salary). Commons’ contract was not renewed, he was considered a poor teacher.

“Three months before the year was ended President Raymond notified me that I would not be needed the next year, because I was a failure as a teacher. My students were not interested.” Myself, p. 45.

1891-92. Associate Professor of Political Economy at Oberlin. The salary at Oberlin $1,200 “would not pay expenses, to say nothing of debts”.  Sociology bibliography from that time transcribed below.

1892-95. Indiana University. Increase in salary of $800 to $2,000 was his reason to leave Oberlin to move to Bloomington, Indiana. There he received a job offer for $2,500 at Syracuse in 1895 and went to the president of Indiana, hoping to negotiate a counter-offer. “Evidently he [the President] was loaded, for he immediately pulled the trigger: ‘Accept the offer at once.’”

1895-99. Syracuse University. Mr. Huyler of “Huyler Candy” fame established a chair in sociology at Syracuse.

“Afterwards, when sociology was separated from political economy in university teaching, charity was transferred to sociology. I never could reconcile myself to this separation. I taught “sociology” at Syracuse University and got out a book in 1895 on machine politics, which was to be cured, I thought, by proportional representation.” Myself, p. 43.

“I taught ethnology, anthropology, criminology, charity organization, taxation, political economy, municipal government, and other things, all under the name of sociology.” Myself, p. 53.

The chair for sociology was abolished after the university was confronted with serious resistance from donors who wanted Commons fired for having taken a public stand both against professional baseball with ticketed admission on Sundays and for the right of workers to play baseball on their day off, i.e. Sunday.

1899-1904. Odd jobbing.

Set up a Bureau of Economic Research in New York. Published the first weekly index of wholesale prices. Commons’ sponsor, George Shipley, did not like the fact that the index number stopped showing  a decline in prices and cancelled Commons’ contract with him in September 1900. The index number project was discontinued but within a few weeks a former student, E. Dana Durand, hired Commons to finish a report on immigration for the Industrial Commission.

“It was a comparison of ten to fifteen races of immigrants from Eastern and Southeastern Europe, where they knew only dictatorship, in two great American industries to which they had come for what they thought was liberty. In one of these industries, clothing, they knew, at that time, only the cycle of revolution and dissolution. In the other, coal mining, they were learning fidelity to contracts—their trade agreements—in forming which they themselves had participated through representative government. It was their first lesson in Americanization, the union of Liberty and Order. Afterwards I wrote a series of articles for the Chautauqua Magazine and revised them at Madison for a book on Races and Immigrants in America, which was the title of one of my first courses of lectures at the University.” Myself, pp. 73-74.

Commons participated  as immigration and labor expert in the writing of the Final Report of the Industrial Commission, Vol. XIX (1902).

Move back to New York, hired as an assistant to the secretary of the National Civic Federation, Ralph M. Easley. Worked on taxation and labor conciliation.

“It was here that I first learned to distrust the ‘intellectuals’ as leaders in labor movements. I have known scores of them since then and have found other scores in my long study of the history of labor movements. Gompers, the clearest and most outspoken of all trade unionists, denounced them as the ‘fool friends’ of labor. I always look for them and try to clear them out from all negotiations between capital and labor, and from the councils of labor. My friends, the economists, often deplored this antagonism of American labor organizations toward the intellectuals. But they simply did not know the kind of intellectuals that come to leadership in labor movements. The kind is not the studious economist and statistician who cannot make an oratorical public speech, and who takes a broad social point of view which neither capitalists nor laborers understand. Such an intellectual is discarded and overwhelmed by the passions and cheers for a speaker who can hold a great audience. I have tried it and know. Such intellectuals are ‘class conscious’ instead of ‘wage conscious,’ to use the distinction proposed by my friend Selig Perlman. But the studious economist is nearly always ‘social conscious.’” Myself, p. 87.

1904-33. University of Wisconsin.

This period is worth its own post, sometime.

Source: John R. Commons, Myself, New York: Macmillan, 1934.

____________________

Course Offerings at Oberlin 1891-1892

Political Science and Sociology.

  1. Political Economy.—Ely’s Introduction to Political Economy, and monographs on special topics. Professor Commons.
    Spring Term. Mo., Tu., Th., Fr., Sa. 55 hours.
    Elective for Sophomores.

This course is mainly historical and descriptive, showing the development of modern industrial conditions and the significance of modern problems. It serves as a necessary introduction to the courses in sociology and economics.

  1. Sociology.—Lectures and Recitations on assigned readings. Professor Commons.
    Through the year. We., Fr. 71 hours.
    Elective for Juniors and Seniors who have taken Political Science 1.

This course is introductory to Courses 4 and 5 of the Senior year. In the Fall term primitive society is studied with reference to beliefs, the institutions of the family, clan and tribe, and the origins of property and social classes. In the Winter and Spring terms social classes and institutions are traced through English history from the Saxon invasion to the present time. In the latter part of the Spring term the same line of study is followed in the American field. The aim is to show the evolution of modern social classes, and the development of poor laws and class legislation. Students will be examined upon the outlines of English history. It is expected that those who elect the course will continue it through the year.

  1. American Institutional History.—Fiske’s Civil Government in the United States. Professor Commons.
    Spring Term. We., Fr. 22 hours.
    Elective for Juniors who have taken Political Science 2.

The work is a continuation of the political side of Sociology into American History. Students are examined upon the outlines of American History.

  1. General Sociology.—Lectures, Readings, and Recitations. Professor Commons.
    Fall Term. Tu., Th., Sa. 38 hours.
    Elective for Seniors who have taken Political Science 1 and 2.

The attempt is here made to formulate the general principles of social organization and evolution. Attention is given to the history of social and political theories, and the works of the principal sociologists are studied and compared.

  1. Social Problems.—Lectures and Recitations. Professor Commons.
    Winter Term. Tu., Th., Sa. 35 hours.
    Elective for Seniors who have taken Political Science 1, 2, and 4.

The study of Charities, Pauperism, Intemperance, Penology, Education, Immigration, Race Problems, the Family, and Plans for social reform. Reports are made by students on assigned readings and investigations.

  1. Finance.—Ely’s Taxation in American States and Cities. Adams’ Public Debts, with lectures. Professor Commons.
    Fall and Winter Terms. Tu., Th., Sa. 73 hours.
    Elective for Juniors and Seniors who have taken Political Science 1.

Attention is given to the history and practice of taxation, to Public Debts and Public Industries. Students are required to consult public documents and to make reports on assigned topics. Those who elect the course are required to continue it through both terms.

  1. Corporations and Railways.—Lectures, Readings, and Reports. Professor Commons.
    Fall Term. Tu., Th., Sa. 38 hours.
    Omitted in 1892-93.
    Elective for Juniors and Seniors.

The history of corporation laws is studied, and the laws of the United States are compared with those of other countries. Railways are then studied in the same manner.

  1. Financial History of the United States.—Lectures, Readings, and Reports. Professor Commons.
    Winter Term. Tu., Th., Sa.
    Omitted in 1892-93.
    Elective for Juniors and Seniors.

Historical investigations are made of the different sources of income of the National Government, of the public debt and paper money.

  1. Economic Investigations.—Two hours per week through the year, counting as a three hours’ course. Professor Commons.
    Elective for Seniors who have shown proficiency in economic studies and are able to read German.

The investigations of students are guided by the instructor. Reports on the progress of work are made, and informal discussions and lectures are conducted by both instructor and students. The College libraries are well supplied with material for original study. In 1892-93, the investigations are concerned with economic theories and the distribution of wealth.
Students electing this course are required to continue it through the year.

  1. Advanced Political Economy.—Lectures with discussions. Professor Monroe.
    Original papers by the class.
    Spring Term. Tu., We., Th., Fr., Sa. 54 hours.
  2. English Constitution and Government.—The English and American governmental institutions compared. Lectures. Professor Monroe.
    Winter Term. Tu., We., Th., Fr., Sa. 58 hours.

Source: Catalogue of Oberlin College for the year 1891-1892, pp. 79-81.

____________________

A POPULAR BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIOLOGY
JOHN R. COMMONS,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL ECONOMY,
OBERLIN COLLEGE.

OBERLIN, OHIO: THE OBERLIN NEWS PRESSES, 1892.

 

A POPULAR BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIOLOGY.

The aim in compiling this Bibliography has been to furnish the general reader, especially the Christian minister and worker, a list of the best available books on important Sociological problems. Specialists, or those who desire to carry their studies further, can find extensive references in many of the books here mentioned to works in English and other languages. A more complete bibliography is the “Readers’ Guide in Economic, Social, and Political Science,” published by the Society for Political Education, New York.

Useful suggestions have been received from Gen. R. Brinkerhoff, of Mansfield, Ohio; Rev. Samuel W. Dike, LL. D., secretary of the National Divorce Reform League; Prof. Richard T. Ely, of Johns Hopkins University; Mr. W. B. Shaw, of the State Library, Albany, N. Y.; A. G. Warner, Ph. D., Superintendent of Charities of the District of Columbia.

The prices given are the publishers’ retail prices. Re ductions can usually be secured from any bookseller.

This is the first of a series of bulletins which the library of Oberlin College hopes to publish from time to time. It can be obtained free of charge on application to A. S. Root, Librarian of Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio.

GENERAL SOCIOLOGY.

Ely, Professor Richard T. Social Aspects of Christianity. N. Y., T. Y. Crowell & Co. 132 pages, price 90 cents.

This is the first book recommended for study by the Christian Social Union. It is a reprint of essays given at different times and places. It gives a forcible statement of the present attitude of the church toward social problems, and suggests principles and plans for social reform. It is well suited to arouse interest in, and show the importance of, Christian Sociology.

Ely, Professor Richard T. An Introduction to Political Economy. N. Y., Chautauqua Press, Hunt & Eaton, 1889. 358 pages, price $1.

A solid basis for studies in Sociology can be obtained only by beginning with that branch of Sociology which has reached most scientific development — Political Economy. This book is historical and descriptive, and furnishes an admirable introduction to Sociology. It contains selected bibliographies.

Ward, Lester F. Dynamic Sociology. N. Y., D. Appleton & Co., 1883. 2 vols., price $5. [Volume I; Volume II]

The ablest systematic treatise in English on Sociology. Superior to Comte or Spencer. The author, however, is biassed by grossly materialistic views of Christianity. He should be read with constant reference to works like those of Fremantle and Westcott, mentioned below.

Fremantle, Canon W. H. The World as the Subject of Redemption. N. Y., 1885. 443 pages, price $3.50. A cheaper edition is announced to appear soon by Longmans, Green & Co., N. Y.

“A magnificent description of the purpose of Christianity.” — Professor Ely. It should be in the hands of every minister of the gospel. The author discusses admirably the fundamental principles involved in the practical application of Christianity to Sociology.

Westcott, Canon B. F. Social Aspects of Christianity. London and N. Y., Macmillan & Co., 1887. 202 pages, price $1.50.

Sermons delivered at Westminster in 1886. Many good points.

Crooker, J. H. Problems in American Society. Boston, G. H. Ellis & Co. 293 pages, price $1.25.

Contains chapters on education, scientific charity, temperance, politics, religion. Good.

Social Science Library of the best authors. Edited by Rev. W. D. P. Bliss. N. Y., Humboldt Publishing Co. There have been issued seven numbers, as follows: (1) Rogers, Six Centuries of Work and Wages; (2) the Socialism of John Stuart Mill; (3) and (4) The Socialism and Unsocialism of Thomas Carlyle [Volume I; Volume II]; (5) William Morris, Poet, Artist, Socialist; (6) The Fabian Essays; (7) The Economics of Herbert Spencer. Price, paper cover, 25 cents each, or $2.50 a year for twelve numbers. Cloth extra, 75 cents each, or $7.50 a year for twelve numbers.

Public Opinion. Washington, D. C., Public Opinion Co. Weekly, price $3 per year.

Contains well-selected extracts from representative periodicals, giving all sides of current social and economic discussions. Sample copies may be obtained free on application.

Economic Review. Published quarterly for the Oxford University Branch of the Christian Social Union. First number, January, 1891. American agents, James Pott & Co., N Y. Subscription $2.50, single copies 75 cents.

The Christian Social Union is an organization inside the Established Church for the study of social questions. The Economic Review has been also adopted as the organ of the American Branch of the Union.

 

THE STATE.

Bluntschli, J. K. Theory of the Modern State. Translated from the sixth German edition. London and N. Y., Macmillan, 1885. 518 pages, price $ 3. 25.

This book is for the Modern State what Aristotle’s Politics is for the Ancient. It cannot be too highly praised, both for its historical and its philosophical insight. It presents the State as the outcome of social and economic forces, and in this regard its discussion of social classes is especially able and important.

Wilson, Woodrow. The State. Boston, D. C. Heath & Co., 1890. 686 pages, price $ 2.

A condensed description of the origin and growth of political institutions, and comparisons of Ancient and Modern States. Able chapters on law and the functions of government.

Adams, Henry C. The Relation of the State to Industrial Action. Baltimore, American Economic Association, 1888. 85 pages, price $1. (Vol. I, No. 6 of its “Publications.”).

An able presentation of fundamental principles regarding the industrial activities of the State.

Bryce, James. The American Commonwealth. [Volume I; Volume II, 3rd ed., 1897)] N. Y., Macmillan & Co., 1891. 2d edition, price $ 2.

 

THE FAMILY.

Westermarck, E. The History of Human Marriage. London, Macmillan, 1891. 664 pages, price 145.

“The best single book on the history of the Institution.” — Dr. Dike.

Starcke, C. N. The Primitive Family. Translated. N. Y., D. Appleton & Co., 1889. 315 pages, price $ 1. 75.

A valuable collection of facts and review of theories.

The English Bible for the family in Hebrew life.

Coulanges, Fustel de. The Ancient City. Translated from the French by Willard Small. Boston, Lee & Shepard, 1874. 529 pages.

Best for the family in Greco-Roman life.

Report of the United States Commissioner of Labor on Marriage and Divorce. Washington, 1889. 1074 pages.

The most complete source of information regarding the law and statistics of Marriage and Divorce in the United States and Europe. A second edition is already nearly exhausted.

Reports of the National Divorce Reform League contain useful discussions and references to literature. Published annually, 1886 to date. Rev. Samuel W. Dike, LL. D., corresponding secretary, Auburndale. Mass.

Reference should be made to chapters in other works. To writers on Social Ethics: Lotze, Practical Philosophy, translated and edited by Prof. G. T. Ladd, Ginn & Co. Hegel, edited by Prof. S. P. Morris. Wuttke, Christian Ethics, [Volume 1 History of Ethics; Volume II Pure Ethics] American edition. Writers on Political Science: Mulford, The Nation; Bluntschli, The Theory of the State; Woolsey, Political Science [Volume I; Volume II]. Writers on Law and Social Institutions: Sir Henry Maine’ s works, Gomme, Village Communities, Seebohm, The English Village Community. Law Books: Gray, Husband and Wife; Franklin, Marriage and Divorce.

 

LABOR.

Besides the following, there are also books mentioned under the heading “Remedies,” which describe the history and present conditions of the working classes.

Ely, Richard T. The Labor Movement in America. N. Y., T. Y. Crowell & Co., 1886. 383 pages, price $1.50.

A historical account of Labor organizations and communistic and socialistic movements in the United States. An Appendix gives platforms of Labor organizations and illustrative extracts from labor literature. The best.

Rogers, J. E. Thorold. Work and Wages. N. Y., Putnam. 591 pages, price $3. London, Swan Sonnenschein & Co. Abridged edition, 206 pages, price 25. 6d. Also abridged edition edited by Rev. W. D. P. Bliss, Humboldt Publishing Co., New York. Price, cloth 75 cents, paper 25 cents.

A history of English labor during the past six centuries, condensed by the author from his original investigations. A standard work.

Toynbee, Arnold. Industrial Revolution in England. London, Rivington, 1884. N. Y., Humboldt Publishing Co., 1890. Paper 60 cents, cloth $1.

Contributes admirably to a clear understanding of the rise and causes of present industrial problems.

Booth, C., ed. Labour and Life of the People. London, Williams & Norgate, 1889-’91. 2 vols. Vol. 1, East London, 10s. 6d; vol. 2, London, 215.

By far the most comprehensive and scientific investigation yet made into the actual conditions of a city’ s working population. No student of social science can dispense with it.

Riis, Jacob A. How the Other Half Lives. N. Y., Scribner, 1889. 304 pages, price $ 2.50.

The best description of New York tenements.

Campbell, Helen. Prisoners of Poverty. Boston, Roberts Bros., 1887. 257 pages, price $1.

A startling revelation of the life of women wage -workers in New York city, “based upon the minutest personal research.”

Campbell, Helen. Prisoners of Poverty Abroad. Boston, Roberts Bros., 1890. 248 pages, price $1.

A useful book.

Willoughby, W. F., and Graffenried, Miss Clare de. Child Labor. American Economic Association, 1890. 149 pages, price 75 cents. (Publications of the Am. Econ. Ass’n, vol. 5, No. 2.)

Two prize essays. The first is historical, and deals with general principles. The second gives the results of personal observations. The best.

Smith, R. M. Emigration and Immigration. N. Y., Scribner, 1890. 316 pages, price $1.40.

The best work on an important subject. Contains extensive bibliography.

Howell, George. The Conflicts of Capital and Labour. London and N. Y., Macmillan. 2d edition, revised, 1890, 536 pages, price $2.50.

The best description of trade-unions. Written by a trade-unionist and labor representative in Parliament. The author is not in sympathy with the “new trades unions” and the socialistic movements.

McNeill, Geo. E., ed. The Labor Movement, the Problem of To-day. Boston, A. M. Bridgman & Co., 1886. 650 pages, price $3.75

A co-operative work. Professor E. J. James contributes three chapters on the history of labor and labor legislation in Europe. The editor gives the history of labor in the United States. Leading representatives of labor organizations describe the growth of their own organizations. There are also chapters on arbitration, co -operation, industrial education, the land question and “army of the unemployed.” An important work.

Lloyd, H. D. Strike of Millionaires against Miners, the story of Spring Valley. N. Y., Belford, Clarke & Co., 1890. 264 pages, price $ 1; paper, 50 cents.

A good instance of evasion of responsibility on the part of stockholders for corporate management.

Burnett, John and others. The Claims of Labour. Edinburgh, Co-operative Printing Co., 1886. 275 pages, price 1s.

Contains an able chapter on “Irregularity of Employment and Fluctuations of Prices,” by H. S. Foxwell, professor of economics, University College, London.

Clark, J. B. The Philosophy of Wealth. Boston, Ginn & Co., 1889. 239 pages, price $1.10.

A thoughtful work. Treats of the functions of the church.

Gunton, G. Wealth and Progress. N. Y., Appleton, 1887. 382 pages, price $1; paper, 50 cents.

A discussion of the law of wages and an argument for eight -hour legislation.

Journal of the Knights of Labor. 841 North Broad street, Philadelphia. Price $1 per year.

The best of the labor press. Indispensable for the student of current labor problems.

Reports of Labor Bureaus, especially Massachusetts and the United States Department of Labor. Valuable reprints from Massachusetts reports can be obtained on payment of postage. Reports of the United States Department of Labor are free. Write to the Commissioner of Labor, Washington, D. C., and to the Chiefs of the Bureaus of Labor Statistics of the States, at the State Capitals.

Reports of Factory Inspectors of Ohio, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts. Can be obtained on payment of postage by writing to the Factory Inspectors at the Capitals of the States.

 

PAUPERISM. CHARITIES.

Dugdale, R. L. The Jukes; a story in Crime, Pauperism and Heredity. N. Y., G. P. Putnam, 1888, 4th edition. 121 pages price $1.

A wonderful book. Well worth careful study. Shows by personal investigations of a single pauper tribe, traced back a hundred and fifty years, the relations of heredity and crime.

McCulloch, Rev. Oscar C. The Tribe of Ishmael; a story of Social Degradation. With diagram. Indianapolis, Ind., Charity Organization Society. 8 pages, price 50 cents.

A striking summary of investigations into two hundred and fifty related pauper families, extending through five generations. Based on personal investigations and the records of the Charity Organization Society, of Indianapolis.

Loch, C. S. Charity Organization. London, Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 1890. 106 pages, price 2s. 6d.

The best description of the principles and methods of organized charity.

Lowell, Josephine Shaw. Public Relief and Private Charity. N. Y., G. P. Putnam, 1884. 111 pages; price, paper, 40 cents.

An excellent little manual.

Fields, Mrs. James T. How to Help the Poor. Boston, Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1883. Price 60 cents; paper, 20 cents net.

Describes the work of the Boston Associated Charities. Practical and Helpful.

Peek, F. Social Wreckage; Laws of England as they Affect the Poor. London, Isbister, 1889. Price 3s. 6d.

A short work, but valuable.

Hill, Florence Davenport. Children of the State. Edited by Fanny Fowke. N. Y., Macmillan & Co., 1889. 2d edition. Price $1.75.

Treats of the important subject of the care of dependent and delinquent children. Gives experience in different countries. Opposes “institutions.”

Reports of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections, Mrs. I. C. Barrows, ed., 141 Franklin street, Boston, Mass. Published annually, 1876 to date. The earlier numbers are out of print. Price $1.50; paper, $1.25 each.

“Its sixteen volumes constitute a library upon these subjects of more practical value than all others combined.’—Gen. Brinkerhoff.

Reports of the Boards of State Charities, especially of Ohio, Illinois and New York, which should be secured from the beginning, and Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. These reports can be obtained by asking for them of the secretaries of the boards, at the State Capitals.

Charities Review, A Journal of Practical Sociology. Published for the Charity Organization Society, of the City of New York. The Critic Co. First number, November, 1891. Price $1 per year.

Contains contributions from the ablest specialists in sociological work and study.

 

CRIME AND PRISONS.

Baker, T. B. L. War with Crime. London and New York, Longman’s, 1890. 300 pages, price $4.

This book is a posthumous edition made up of papers and pamphlets published during the lifetime of the writer, and does not present a digested system, but it is a mine of gold. No other man in England in this generation is the peer of Baker. — Gen. Brinkerhoff.

Winter, Alexander. The New York State Reformatory at Elmira. London, Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 1891. 172 pages, price $1.

This reformatory has done more than any other institution in the world for the solution of the problem of the proper treatment of criminals. Eighty-three per cent. of its commitments are cured. This book well describes the institution and its methods.

Ellis, Havelock. The Criminal. New York, Scribner & Welford, 1890. 337 pages, price $1.

An able summary of recent investigations in criminal anthropology. The best in English.

Morrison, W. D. Crime and Its Causes. London, Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 1890. Price 2s. 6d.

A work of special value. The author antagonizes some of the current opinions. He has had an experience of fourteen years in connection with H. M. Prison at Wandsworth, England.

Wines, E. C. The State of Prisons and Child-Saving Institutions. Cambridge, Mass., J. Wilson & Son., 1880. 919 pages, price $5.

The most comprehensive and exhaustive work extant. Indispensable for a wide knowledge of the subject.

Du Cane, Sir Edmund F. The Punishment and Prevention of Crime. English Citizen Series. London and New York, Macmillan, 1885. 255 pages, price $1.

The writer for years past has had the charge of the entire prison system of England.

Tallack, W. Penological and Preventive Principles. London, Howard Association, Wertheimer, Lea & Co., 1889. 414 pages, price 8s.

A standard work on prison management, yet lagging behind in some lines of progress and to be accepted with allowance.

Rylands, L. G. Crime, Its Causes and Remedy. London, T. Fisher Unwin, 1889. 264 pages, price 6s.

An interesting work. There is a chapter on the prevention of drunkenness. The writer lays special emphasis on the care of children.

Brace, Charles Loring. The Dangerous Classes of New York and Twenty Years Work Among Them. Third edition. New York, Wynkoop & Hallenbeck, 1880. 468 pages, price $1.25.

Mr. Brace was founder of the New York Childrens’ Aid Society. This book, though written in 1872, is still valuable in many points. It deals especially with juvenile delinquents.

Round, W. M. F. Our Criminals and Christianity. New York, Funk & Wagnalls, 1888. 16 pages; price, paper, 15 cents.

Encyclopedia Britannica. Ninth edition. Also American Supplement.

The articles on “Prison Discipline” and “Reformatories” give the best birds-eye view of the whole subject.

Reports of the National Prison Association. W. M. F. Round, secretary, 35 E. 15th street, New York. Published annually, 1885 to date. Price $1.25 each. [Index to the Reports of the national Prison Association, 1870, 1873, 1874, 1883-1904. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1906.]

Lalor’s Cyclopedia of Political Science.

Contains a valuable article on “Prisons and Prison Discipline,” by F. H. Wines.

 

INTEMPERANCE.

This subject has received indifferent scientific treatment. The best attempts are here given.

Mitchell, Kate, M. D. The Drink Question. London, Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 1891. Price 25. 6d.

A useful discussion.

Richardson, B, W., M. D. Ten Lectures on Alcohol. N. Y., National Temperance Society, 1883. 190 pages, price $1; paper, 50 cents.

Describes the physiological effects of alcohol.

Kerr, Norman, M. D. Inebriety; Its Etiology, Pathology, Treatment and Jurisprudence. London, H. K. Lewis, 1888. 415 pages, price 12s. 6d.

Clum, Franklin D., M. D. Inebriety; Its causes, Its Results, Its Remedy. Philadelphia, Lippincott Company, 1888. 248 pages, price $1.25.

A careful discussion of the causes of intemperance, and interesting suggestions for its cure.

 

REMEDIES.

Price, L. L. F. R. Industrial Peace; its advantages, methods and difficulties. N. Y., Macmillan, 1887. 127 pages, price $1.50.

Describes the practical workings of arbitration.

Weeks, Joseph D. Labor Differences and their Settlement. N. Y., Society for Political Education. Price 25 cents.

Favors arbitration.

Gilman, N. P. Profit Sharing Between Employer and Employee. Boston, Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1889. 460 pages, price $1.75.

The standard work on this subject.

History of Co-operation in the United States. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, vol. 6, 1888. 540 pages, price $3.

A comprehensive work. The best covering the entire field in the United States.

Dexter, Seymour. Co-operative and Loan Associations. N. Y., D. Appleton & Co., 1889. 299 pages price $1.25.

The best treatise on Building and Loan Associations. Explains their advantages and workings, tells how to organize them, and gives the laws of several states.

Schaeffle, A. Quintessence of Socialism. Translated from the German, London, Sonnenschein & Co. 1891. 127 pages, price 25. 6d. N. Y., The Humboldt Publishing Co., paper, 15 cents.

“The clearest account of Socialism that can be obtained in anything like the same compass.” — The translator.

Kirkup, T. Inquiry into Socialism. London and New York, Longmans, 1887. 188 pages, price $1.50.

The best presentation of a reasonable and moderate kind of Socialism.

Bellamy, Edward. Looking Backward, 2000. 1887. Boston, Houghton, Mifflin & Co. Price $1; paper, 50 cents.

Has had greater influence in propagating socialistic views among English-speaking people than any other book.

Hyndman, H. M. Historical Basis of Socialism in England. London, Kegan Paul, 1883. 492 pages, price 8s. 6d.

A summary of the works of Karl Marx and Rodbertus. The best introduction to the theories of Socialism.

Gronlund, Laurence. The Co-operative Commonwealth; an Exposition of Modern Socialism. Boston, Lee & Shepard, 1884. Price $1. Also N. Y., G. W. Lovell & Co., paper, 30 cents; London, Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 2s. 6d.

An explanation of Socialism as applied to the United States.

Laveleye, Emil de. The Socialism of To-day. Translated by G. H. Orpen. London, Field & Tuer, 1885. 331 pages, price 6s.

A valuable history of European Socialism, and a lucid statement of Socialistic doctrines.

Marx, Karl. Capital. Translated from the third German edition by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling. N. Y., Appleton & Co., 1889. Price $3.

The “Bible of Socialism.” Very difficult reading, except in the historical parts. Marx’s arguments are summarized by other writers, especially Hyndman.

Barnett, Rev. and Mrs. Samuel A. Practicable Socialism; essays on social reform. London and New York, Longmans, Green & Co., 1888. 212 pages, price $1.

Reprints of magazine articles which appeared during the years 1879 to 1887. The authors are devoted workers in Whitechapel, London. The book gives a vivid picture of their life and work among the poor.

George, H. Progress and Poverty, an inquiry into the causes of industrial depressions, and of the increase of want with the increase of wealth. N. Y., Henry George & Co., 1888. 250 [sic] pages, price $1; paper, 35 cents.

A remarkable extension of the older economic theory, and a proposition to impose a “single tax” on land -values in order to appropriate for the public the “unearned increment.”

Ely, Professor R. T. Taxation in American States and Cities. N. Y., T. Y. Crowell & Co., 1888. 544 pages, price $1.75

Contains descriptions of the present systems and suggestions for better equalization of taxes.

Ely, R. T. Problems of To-day. N. Y., T. Y. Crowell & Co., 2d edition, 1890. Price $1.50.

Reprint of newspaper and magazine articles on protection and natural monopolies. Contains suggestions for reform.

U. S. Department of State. Consular Report No. 117, June, 1890, contains a valuable description, with illustration, of the municipal artisan’s dwellings of Liverpool. The report of October, 1888, No. 98, contains “Homes of the German Working People.” Washington, D. C., Department of State. Free on application.

Woodward, C. M. The Manual Training School. Boston, D. C. Heath & Co., 1887. Price $2.

The best. Contains exposition of the methods and scope of manual training, and discusses its educational, social and economic bearings.

Abel, Mary Hinman. Practical Sanitary and Economic Cooking, adapted to persons of moderate and small means. Rochester, N. Y., American Public Health Association. 182 pages, price 40 cents; paper, 35 cents.

Contains analyses of foods showing nutritive value, and suggestions for varying the diet at small expense.

Booth, General W. In Darkest England and the Way Out. N. Y., Funk & Wagnalls, 1890. 300 pages, price $1; paper 50 cents.

A notable scheme for rescuing the “submerged tenth” of England by means of city refuges, farm colonies, colonies over the sea, and other agencies, to be administered by the Salvation Army.

Loomis, S. L. Modern Cities and their Religious Problems. Introduction by J. Strong. New York, Baker & Taylor, 1887. 219 pages, price $1.

The results of personal study and experience. A useful book.

Gladden, Rev. W. Applied Christianity; moral aspects of social questions. Boston, Houghton, Mifflin & Co, 1886. 320 pages, price $1.25.

Sensible chapters on the relations of Christianity to the problems of the distribution of wealth.

Gladden, Rev. W., ed. Parish Problems. N. Y., The Century Co., 1887. 479 pages, price $2.

An useful hand-book for Christian workers. Valuable chapters by eminent writers on the relations of pastor and people to the community.

Reports of the Convention of Christian Workers of the United States and Canada. Rev. John C. Collins, secretary, New Haven, Conn., price $1. Published annually since 1886.

Valuable reports and discussions on methods of Christian work.

Reports of the Evangelical Alliance, especially the report of the meeting at Washington in 1887, published under the title “National Perils and Opportunities.” Price $ 1.50, paper $1. Parts of this report have been printed in two separate volumes by The Baker & Taylor Co., N. Y., the first entitled “Problems of American Civilization,” the second, “Co-operation in Christian Work.” Price 60 cents each, paper 30 cents. The Report for the meeting at Boston in 1890, entitled “National Needs and Remedies.” Same publishers and prices.

Leaflets of the Christian Social Union in the United States. Professor Richard T. Ely, secretary, Baltimore, Md. Free on application.

 

Source: Oberlin College Library Bulletin. January, 1892. Volume I, No. 1. Oberlin, Ohio: The Oberlin News Presses, 1892.

Image Source: John R. Commons in the Oberlin College yearbook Hi-oh-hi, 1892 (page 43).

Categories
Cornell Economist Market Economists Michigan

Michigan. Henry Carter Adams’ Plea on Own Behalf, 1887

 

The dirtiest my hands have ever become from archival work was during my exploration of Columbia University’s collection of John Maurice Clark’s papers. Now having the luxury of digital images to scroll through, I can work without forsaking the pleasures of biting my finger nails, rubbing my eyes and scratching my nose. The younger Clark was quite a paper hoarder so it pays to return to my folders with the images of  his documents.

This post builds on notes Clark took after a talk given by his colleague Joseph Dorfman on the economist Henry Carter Adams. Clark was struck by a phrase used by Adams, “all power carries responsibility,” that was a recurring theme in Clark’s own “preaching”. Attached to his brief note was a typed copy of a transcribed letter that Henry Carter Adams had written to the President of the University of Michigan to plead the case that he wished to be judged for a professorial appointment for the right reasons, i.e. not for any particular policy positions he might be thought not to hold but for exhibiting high scholarly virtues in his research and teaching.

Adams had earlier managed to attract the ire of a Cornell trustee, businessman Henry Williams Sage, much in the way Paul Samuelson was to attract the ire of the former member of the M.I.T. corporation, Lamott Dupont II, some 60 years later. Clearly not wanting his Cornell history to repeat itself, Henry Carter Adams successfully went pro-active with the University of Michigan in lobbying on his own behalf. He did get the appointment.

_________________________

Socialist Tease?

Henry C. Adams along with Richard T. Ely was attacked for “Coquetting with Anarchy” in The Nation (September 9, 1886), pp. 209-210. In that article Adams was incorrectly identified as President [C. K.] Adams of Cornell. The correction was immediately forthcoming in the following issue, September 16, 1886 issue, p. 234. The essay by Henry Carter Adams being attacked was “Principles that Should Control the Interference of the States in Industries” that was read before the “Constitution Club”of New York City.

_________________________

Several biographical accounts of Adams

Joseph Dorfman. The Economic Mind in American Civilization, vol. 3. Pp. 164-174.

S. Lawrence Bigelow, I. Leo Sharfman, and R. M. Wenley, “Henry Carter Adams,” The Journal of Political Economy, April 1922, pp. 201-11 (includes a selected bibliography);

Memorial to Former President Henry C. Adams,” The American Economic Review, September 1922, pp. 401-16.

Mark Perlman’s review of the 1954 publication of Henry Carter Adams’ Relation of the State to Industrial Action (1887) and his American Economic Association Presidential Address (1896) edited by Joseph Dorfman with introductory essay. [Note: this re-publication of two of Adams’ essays includes the letter transcribed from Dorfman’s copy in J. M. Clark’s papers.]

A. W. Coats. Henry Carter Adams: A Case Study in the Emergence of the Social Sciences in the United States, 1850-1900. Journal of American Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2 (October 1968), pp. 177-197.

Nancy Cohen. The Reconstruction of American Liberalism, 1865-1914. University of North Carolina Press, 2002. (Especially Chapter 5 “The American Scholar Revisited”, pp. 154-158, 162-164, 169-174)

_________________________

Henry C. Adams, some early publications

The Position of Socialism in the Historical Development of Political Economy. Penn Monthly, April 1870, pp. 285-94.

Outline of Lectures upon Political Economy (Baltimore: privately printed, 1881); (second edition, Ann Arbor: privately printed, 1886).

The Labor Problem,” Sibley College Lectures.—XI. Scientific American Supplement, August 21, 1886.

Adams’ statement in The Labor Problem, edited by William E. Barns (New York: Harper, 1886), pp. 62-63.

Principles that Should Control the Interference of the States in Industries” read before the “Constitution Club” of the City of New York. [Fun Fact: Frank Taussig’s copy]

Relation of the State to Industrial Action. Publications of the American Economic Association, 1887. Pp. 471-549.

Public Debts: An Essay in the Science of Finance (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1887).

_________________________

Note by John Maurice Clark attached to transcribed copy of Henry Carter Adams’ letter

Letter of Henry Carter Adams (1851-1921)
to President James B. Angell, March 15, 1887.

J.M.C. Nov. 27, 1951, Comment, from memory of Dorfman’s remarks yesterday.

President Angell appointed Adams professor after receipt of this letter, and Thomas Cooley (father of Charles Horton Cooley?) who was on the original Interstate Commerce Commission, got Adams the job of chief statistician of the Commission, where he created the system of control of accounts of railroads aiming at enough uniformity to make financial and operating reports comparable, so totals for the country and comparisons of companies would mean something.

Adams had already commented on Jevon’s “The State in Relation to Labor[”] and Adams’ original paper on this theme was later (later than Mar 15, 1887) worked over and enlarged, and came to be regarded as a classic by economists between Adams’ generation and mine.

_______________

[Clark’s note] This is the letter of a man 36 years old who had earned his academic freedom by a sober and responsible attitude. From my standpoint, it is especially interesting because Adams gives such central importance to the principle that all power carries responsibility (presumably inner responsibility plus subjection to checks and controls where appropriate). This is the principle I’ve been preaching (or announcing factually) as the only alternative to regimentation or chaos.

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

COPY

Ithaca, N.Y. March 15, 1887.

Dear Dr. Angell:

I don’t think there is any danger of my misunderstanding your letter or the spirit in which it was written. Last year, your questions came to me with the shock of a complete surprise, but I am coming to be pretty well accustomed to such expressions now.

You ask if I can help you any more so you can see your way clear on my nomination. I don’t see as I can, except it be to suggest that, in my opinion, your point of view in this matter is not the right one. If you make a man’s opinions the basis of his election to a professorship, you do, whether you intend it or not, place bonds upon the free movement of his intellect. It seems to me that a board has two things to hold in view. First, is a man a scholar? Can he teach in a scholarly manner? Is he fair to all parties in the controverted questions which come before him? Second, is he intellectually honest? If these two questions are answered in the affirmative, his influence upon young men cannot be detrimental.

Upon these points, certainly, nothing new can be said. I have served for five years as an apprentice and you have had opportunity to know. Or, with regard to the fairness in which topics are presented in the classroom, you have the outline of (the) lectures. My conscious purpose in teaching is two-fold. To portray social problems to men as they will find them to be when they leave the University and to lead men to recognize that morality is an every day affair.

But all this, you will say, is by the point. You say you do not know what my views are on capital and labor. I am not surprised at that for I have intentionally withheld them. No one knows them and I had madeup my mind to keep them to myself until I had worked through my study of the industrial society. My reason for such a decision was, that, in my study of social questions I had found myself on all sides of the question, I started as an individualist of the most pronounced type. But my advocacy of it led me to perceive its errors, and my criticisms were formulated before I read any literature of socialism. But when, upon coming into contact with socialistic writers I found their criticisms were the same as my own I was for a while carried away by their scheme. But upon further study, I found their plans to be, not only as I though impracticable, but contrary to the fundamental principles of English political philosophy, in which I still believed. You can imagine that was not a pleasant condition for one appreciative of logical symmetry. You said a year ago that my views were not logical, that is, that some of my expressions were contradictory to each other. I don’t doubt that they appeared so, it seems bad logic to admit the purpose of individualism and the criticism of socialists at the same time. You say now in your letter that I have not worked out my ideas into clear and definite shape. That is true, but I am doing it as fast as I can and in my own way. My book upon Pub. Debts is one stage in this direction.

But to go back to the development of this subject in my own mind. The illogical position into which my mind had drifted as the result of the first five years of study, was the occasion of keen intellectual pain: but the sense of the necessity of harmony led me finally to discover a principle, which I thought, and still think, adequate to bridge over the chasm between the purpose of individualism and the criticisms of socialism. This principle is the principle of personal responsibility in the administration of all social power, no matter in what shape that power may exist. This principle has given form to our political society: I wish it to be brought over into industrial relations. Its realization will cure the ills of which socialists complain, without curbing or crushing that which is the highest in the individual. I thought, at first, this principle to be so simple that its statement must gain for it quick recognition. But when I tried to make that statement, and work the theory out, I was at once surprised and chagrined to see what a task lay before me. It is useless to deny that the interests of the privileged classes in our civilization is against responsible administration of industrial power. I worked at it for a year, and then came to the conclusion that I did not yet know enough, nor was I sure enough of my position, to make public the thought which had assumed direction of my studies. It was then that I took up the study of finance and went to work upon Pub. Debts. This is the most simple of any of the topics which must be treated as the subject of constructive economics opened before me: it was also furthest removed from the points likely to cause controversy. I thought I might, perhaps, gain the reputation of a sound thinker so that expressions of views more unusual might attract a candid reading from scholarly men. It has taken a year and a half longer than I had anticipated, and now that it is done seems to have dwarfed in importance.

I do not think this narration will relieve you from embarrassment. I do not see that anything can do that, except a promise on my part to give expression only to orthodox views of social relations. But it has relieved me somewhat and I trust you will consider that an adequate apology. I have of course full confidence in your personal friendship: I only wish you might have equal confidence in my scholarly purposes.

Very truly yours,
H.C. ADAMS.

P.S.

May I add a postscript, for I am sure it is an unjustifiable pride which kept me from inserting it in the body of the letter. I presume the expression(s) of my views which have given you the greatest solicitude are to be found in the Sibley address of last year, and in the syndicate article which I wrote on the Knights of Labor. I do not wish to recall anything said, but I am willing to say that these expressions were as unwise as they were unpremeditated. In justice to myself I should say: that the Sibley address was on Friday afternoon and my invitation was on the Wednesday previous. Professor [R. H.] Thurston said he had been disappointed in his lecturer for the afternoon, that he did not like to postpone the meeting, and that he would like me to open a discussion on the labor problem. He told me, who besides myself would speak, and they were all decidedly opposed to any expression of sympathy with the struggle of the Knights then going on. After my opening address, the man against whom I talked, who, it was said, would reply to me, took his hat and left. Others spoke, among them President [Charles Kendal] Adams, Mr. Smith [sic, perhaps Mr. Frank B. Sanborn?] and Henry [W.] Sage. The President was not dogmatical but did not understand what I tried to say. The others were. My part in the discussion has cost me a professorship, for I do not see how, with the views of Mr. Sage to the functions of a teacher, he can vote for me. It was after the address was made that the talk began, and I thought it then cowardly not to let it be printed, and dishonest to change it. So it went in, as nearly as I could remember as it was given. I think it unfair to judge of my classroom work on this address.

With regard to the syndicate article [“What Do These Strikes Mean?”, a copy attached to Adams’ letter to James B. Angell dated March 25, 1887], I confess myself to have been deceived by the attitude of the Knights of Labor during their strike on the Gould system or I should not have written it. In their articles of complaint, they said certain things which I believed to be true, and I thought the men who drew them up had thought the labor problem through to its end, and had made a stand on a principle in harmony with English Liberties. If so, it was time for men of standing to declare themselves. But it turns out that the Knights hit the mark by a chance shot. They did not know what they were about and got whipped as they deserved. The result of this unfortunate venture is, that I believe more strongly than ever in the necessity of scholarship as one element in the solution of this terrible question that is upon us.

Have you seen “The Ind. Revolution” by Arnold Toynbee? His death is a loss. The scraps of his lectures and letters show him to have had much the same purpose as myself in his studies.

Respectfully
H.C.A.

Source: Columbia University Archives. John M. Clark Collection, Economic Theory and Methodology, Box 28. Folder “Group Power carries moral responsibility”.

Image Source: Johns Hopkins University Sheridan Libraries, graphic and pictorial collection. Henry Carter Adams (Ph.D., Johns Hopkins, 1878). Photograph by Sam B. Revenaugh (1847-1893), Ann Arbor, Mich.

Categories
Chicago Economics Programs Economist Market Economists

Chicago. Memos discussing guests to teach during summer quarter, 1927

 

 

Apparently the 1926 summer quarter course planning at the Chicago department of political economy in 1926 was so wild that the head of the department, Leon C. Marshall, decided to start the discussion for 1927 on the second day of Summer, 1926. Four of the seven colleagues responded with quite a few suggestions.

This post provides the first+middle names where needed in square brackets. Also links to webpages with further information about the suggested guests have been added.

______________________

Copy of memo from
Leon Carroll Marshall

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Department of Economics

Memorandum from L. C. Marshall. June 22, 1926

To: C. W. Wright, J. A. Field, H. A. Millis, J. Viner, L. W. Mints, P. H. Douglas, W. H. Spencer

We really must break through the morass we are in with respect to our summer quarter. Partly because of delayed action and partly because of an interminable debating society in such matters we finally get a patched up program which is not as attractive as it should be.

I shall proceed on the basis of the homely philosophy that the way to do something is to do something. I shall try to secure from every member of the group a statement of his best judgment concerning the appropriate course of action for the summer of 1927 and then move at once toward rounding out a program.

Won’t you be good enough to turn in to E57 within the next few days your suggestions and comments with respect to the following issues.

  1. Do you yourself expect to be in residence the summer quarter of 1927?
  2. If you do, what courses do you prefer to teach? Please list more than two courses placing all of the courses in your order of preference. In answering this question, please keep in mind the problem of guiding research. Should you offer a research course?
  3. What are your preferences with respect to hours? Please state them rather fully and give some alternatives so that a schedule may be pieced together.
  4. What courses or subject matter should we be certain to include in the summer of 1927?
  5. What men from outside do you recommend for these courses which we should be certain to include? Please rank them in the order of your preference.
  6. Quite aside from the subject matter which you have recommended above, what persons from the outside ought we try to make contact with if our funds permit? This gives an opportunity to aid in making up the personnel of the summer quarter in all fields.
  7. Please give any other comments or suggestions which occur to you.

Yours very sincerely,

LCM:G

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

Response from
Jacob Viner

The University of Chicago
Department of Political Economy

July 1, 1926

Dear Mr. Marshall

I will want to offer 301 (Neo-class Ec.) & 353 (Int Ec. Pol) as usual next summer, though if we have a good outside theorist to give 301, I would like to give a course on Theory of Int Trade in addition to 353. I think we need someone especially in Banking, next in theory. Beyond these we should offer work in some of the following, if we can get first rankers: statistics, private finance, transportation, economic history of Europe & ec. Hist. of U.S.

I suggest the following from which selections could be made:

Banking

Theory Statistics Transportation

Ec. Hist.

[Eugene E.]
Agger

 

[Benjamin Haggott] Beckhart

 

[Allyn Abbott]
A.A. Young

 

[Chester Arthur]
C. A. Phillips

 

[Oliver Mitchell Wentworth]
Sprague

 

[James Harvey] Rogers

 

[Ernest Minor] E.M. Patterson

[Allyn Abbott]
Young

 

[Jacob Harry]
Hollander[Frank Hyneman] Knight

 

[Albert Benedict] Wolfe

 

[Herbert Joseph] Davenport

[Henry Roscoe] Trumbower

 

[Homer Bews] Vanderblue

[Melvin Moses] M.M. Knight

 

[Abbott Payson] A.P. Usher

As other possibilities I suggest [George Ernest] Barnett, [James Cummings] Bonbright, [Edward Dana] Durand, [Edwin Griswold] Nourse, [Sumner Huber] Slichter, John D. [Donald] Black, Holbrook Working, [Alvin Harvey] Hansen.

[signed]
J Viner

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

Response from
Paul Howard Douglas

The University of Chicago
The School of Commerce and Administration

June 29, 1926

Professor L. C. Marshall
Faculty Exchange

Dear Mr. Marshall:

You have hit the nail on the head in your proposal to get under way for next summer, and I am very much pleased at your action. Answering your questions specifically may I say—

  1. That I do not expect to be in residence for the summer quarter of 1927.
  2. &3. Since I shall not be in residence no answers to these questions are, I take it, necessary.

 

  1. We should, I think, be certain to include adequate work in the following fields (a) Economic theory, (b) Monetary and banking theory, (c) Labor problems, (d) Statistics and quantitative economics, (e) Taxation and Public finance, (f) Economic history.
  2. As regards men from outside, I would recommend the following in each field: (a) Economic theory—[Herbert Joseph] H. J. Davenport, [John Rogers] J. R. Commons, [Frank Hyneman] F. H. Knight; (b) Monetary and banking theory—[Allyn Abbott] A. A. Young, [Oliver Mitchell Wentworth] O.M.W. Sprague, [James Waterhouse] James W. Angell; (c) Labor problems—Selig Perlman, Alvin [Harvey] H. Hansen; (d) Statistics and quantitative economics—[Frederick Cecil] F. C. Mills, [Robert Emmet] R. E. Chaddock, [William Leonard] W. L. Crum; (e) Taxation and public finance—[Harley Leist] H. L. Lutz, [William John] William J. Shultz; (f) Economic history—[Norbert Scott Brien] N. S. B. Gras.
  3. As people from outside to try for, might it not be possible to secure some one from England, such as [John Atkinson] John A. Hobson, Henry Clay, or [Dennis Holme] D. H. Robertson? Might it not also be possible to get Charles Rist from France or [Werner] Sombart from Germany?

Faithfully yours,
[signed]
Paul H. Douglas

P.S. The news that [Henry] Schultz and [Melchior] Palyi are to be with us next year is certainly welcome. Should we not let everyone know that they are coming, and should not a news note to this effect be sent on to the American Economic Review? [Handwritten note here: “Mr. Wright doing this”]

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

Response from
Lloyd Wynn Mints

The University of Chicago
The School of Commerce and Administration

July 16, 1926

Memorandum to L. C. Marshall from L. W. Mints, concerning the work of the summer quarter, 1927.

  1. It is my present intention not to be in residence during the summer quarter, 1927, although I will be in the city, I suppose.
  2. It appears to me that we should attempt to get men from the outside who would represent some of the newer points of view rather than the orthodox fields. I should suppose that it would be desirable to have a man in statistics and, if he could be found, somebody to do something with quantitative economics. For the statistics I would suggest [William Leonard] Crum, [Frederick Cecil] Mills, [Frederick Robertson] Macaulay, [Willford Isbell] King, [Bruce D.] Mudgett, [Robert] Riegel. I am ignorant of the particular bents of some of the statistical men, but I should suppose that in quantitative economics [Holbrook] Working, [Alvin Harvey] Hansen, or [William Leonard] Crum might do something. Perhaps [Edmund Ezra] Day should be added to the men in Statistics.
    In economic history, as I remember it, we have had no outside help for a long time. I should like to see either [Noman Scott Brien] Gras or Max [Sylvius] Handman give some work here in the summer.
    Particular men who represent somewhat new points of view, and who might be had for the summer, I would suggest as follows: [Lionel Danforth] Edie, [Oswald Fred] Boucke, [Morris Albert] Copeland, [Sumner Huber] Slichter.
    In addition I should like very much to see either [Edwin Robert Anderson] Seligman or [John Rogers] Commons here for a summer.

[signed]
L.W.M.

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

Response from
Harry Alvin Millis

Answers to questions re Summer Teaching, 1927

  1. Yes, I feel that I must teach next summer unless that plan you have been interested in goes through.
  2. 342 [The State in Relation to Labor] and 440 [Research].
  3. 342 at 8; 440 hour to be arranged.
  4. 5. 6.: Should get a better rounded program than we have had. Should have an outstanding man in economic theory and another in Finance. For the former I would mention [John] Maurice Clark, [John Rogers] Commons, and [Frank Hyneman] Knight—in order named. For the latter I would mention [Allyn Abbott] Young, [James Harvey] Rogers. If we can get the money I should like to see [George Ernest] Barnett brought on for statistics and a trade union course.

 

  1. Would it be possible to have a seminar which would bring together the outside men and some of the inside men and our mature graduate students—these hand-picked? It might be made very stimulating.

[Signed]
H. A. Millis

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

Response from
Chester Whitney Wright

The University of Chicago
The Department of Political Economy

Memorandum to Marshall from Wright

Summer 1927
First term some aspects of economic history
1:30 or 2:30
May have to teach the whole summer but hope I can confine it to first term.
Can teach any phases of subjects in any fields suitable for term.

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

Response from
James Alfred Field

[No written answer in the folder: however L. C. Marshall noted that Field would not be teaching in the summer term of 1927]

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

Response from
William Homer Spencer

The University of Chicago
The School of Commerce and Administration
Office of the Dean

July 12, 1926

Mr. L. C. Marshall
The Department of Political Economy

My dear Mr. Marshall:

As Mr. [Garfield Vestal] Cox does not wish to teach during the Summer Quarter of 1927, I wish the Department of Political Economy would try to get Mr. [Edmund Ezra] Day of Wisconsin [sic, Michigan is correct] who could give both a course in statistics and a course in forecasting. Forecasting is not given this summer and unless we get someone from the outside to give it, I presume it will not be given next summer.

Why does not the Department of Political Economy for the coming summer get someone like Mr. [Leverett Samuel] Lyon to give an advanced course in economics of the market for graduate students? The Department of Political Economy could handle half of his time and I perhaps could handle the other half for market management

Now that it appears that the Department of Political Economy cannot get any promising young men in the Field of Finance, why do you not try for [Chester Arthur] Phillips of Iowa? He will give good courses and will draw a great many students from the middle west to the University.

So far as my own program is concerned, I have not made much progress. I tried to get [Roy Bernard] Kester of Columbia, but he turned me down. I am placing a similar proposition before [William Andrew] Paton of Michigan. In the Field of Marketing, I am trying for [Frederic Arthur] Russell of the University of Illinois to give a course in salesmanship primarily for teachers in secondary schools. Otherwise I have made no progress in getting outside men for next summer.

Yours sincerely,
[signed]
W. H. Spencer

WHS:DD

Source:  University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics. Records. Box 22, Folder 7.

Categories
Berkeley Columbia Dartmouth Economist Market Economists Germany Iowa Northwestern

Columbia. Economics Ph.D. alumnus who killed his Dean and self at Syracuse. Beckwith, 1913

 

Imagine what can possibly go wrong when a narcissist finds himself (herself) terminated from nine jobs over the course of a decade. The worst case scenario of murder-suicide as the culmination of professional decline and fall for the 1913 Columbia Ph.D. alumnus, Holmes Beckwith, is documented below using a few contemporary press accounts. His story was sensational and reported widely across the country.

For this post I have added a chronology along with a pair of genealogical tables to help readers distinguish among the members of the Beckwith and the Holmes families mentioned. Warning: I have encountered numerous errors in the contemporary newspaper accounts.

The final entry included in the post paints a much more sympathetic portrait of Holmes Beckwith, reminding us all of the tragedy of mental illness.

The annual reports of the Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society served as a sort of “Alumni notes” with contact information as well as personal and professional news that were useful in keeping track of Holmes Beckwith’s movements over his brief professional career.

Useful genealogical information found at a roots.web Beckwith page.

Note: Holmes Beckwith does not appear to have been closely related (if at all) to William Erastus Beckwith, husband of 1925 Radcliffe Ph.D. Ethelwynn Rice).

_________________________

Chronology

1884. Born October 5 in Haiku, Maui of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Parents: Frank Armstrong Beckwith (1854-1885) and Ellen Warren Holmes.

1900. Lived with his mother (Ellen), sister (Ruth), and aunt (Mary G. Holmes) in Los Angeles.

Holmes went to high school in Los Angeles.

Attended Pacific Theological School at Berkeley, CA, completing about half the course, transferred to University of California.

1906. Address: 2231 Dana St., Berkeley, CA. (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1907. Address: 2231 Dana St., Berkeley, CA. (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1908. B.L. from University of California, Berkeley.

Address: 2223 Atherton St., Berkeley, CA. (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1909. M.L. from University of California, Berkeley.

Address: 2223 Atherton St., Berkeley, CA. (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1909. June 22. Marriage to Helen Frances Robinson in Berkeley, CA. (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1910. Address: Columbia University, New York City. (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1911. Address: Columbia University, New York City. (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1911. Summer. Research trip to Germany for dissertation.

“To learn at first hand from German experiences, I spent the summer of 1911 investigating industrial education in Germany. The cities visited were selected with a view to their importance industrially and include a number of the chief industrial centers in various lines of manufacture. The following cities were visited: The city State of Hamburg; Leipzig, Dresden, Chemnitz, and Plauen in Saxony; Munich in Bavaria; Mannheim, in Baden; and Berlin, Magdeburg, Frankfort on Main, Coblenz, Cologne, Dusseldorf, Elberfeld, Barmen, Dortmund, Essen, Duisburg, Crefeld, Munchen-Gladbach, Rheydt, and Aachen, in Prussia.” From the Preface of his dissertation.

1911-12. Dartmouth College. Instructor in economics.

Entered Federal service, Children’s Bureau (the Bureau of Education published his dissertation). The Children’s Bureau was established April 9, 1912 by President William Howard Taft. Initially part of the Department of Commerce and Labor. After 1913 it became part of the Department of Labor.

1913. Ph.D. from Columbia University.

German Industrial Education and its Lessons for the United States. Printed in the U.S. Bureau of Education [Department of the Interior], Bulletin No. 19, 1913. [Professor Henry R. Seager acknowledged in the preface]

1913-14. University of California. Assistant in economics and political economy.

“The Rev. F. H. Robinson of 2809 Russell street, Berkeley, his former father-in-law, states that his severity toward the students at that time caused them to demand his resignation.” The San Francisco Examiner. 3 April 1921, p. 8.
“According to colleagues in the department of economics in the university, he was ‘very eccentric.’” Oakland Tribune, Apr. 2, 1921, p. 1.

1914. Address: 3008 Benvenue Ave., Berkeley, CA.  “Mr. Holmes Beckwith is a professor in the State University at Berkeley, Calif., and has recently received the degree of Ph.D.” (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1914. August-December as bank examiner with the California State Banking Commission.

“Officials of the commission said the bankers complained he ‘lectured them like students’ on the theories of their own business instead of confining himself to the actual examination work”. New York Herald, April 3, 1921, p. 17.

1915. Address: Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1915-16. Officers’ training camp at Plattsburgh. [according to NYT: discharged for physical disability.] First Lieutenant of artillery (?), U.S. Army. [Note: I have not been able to confirm the reported military service claims yet.]

1916-17. Grinnell College.

“Several years ago a Holmes Beckwith was an assistant professor in the department of business administration at Grinnell college. He was here about a year and was never popular with the students. He left Grinnell about the middle of 1917.” The Gazette (Ceder Rapids, Iowa), April 2, 1921, p. 1.

1917. Address: Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1918. Address: Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.  (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1919. Address: 1724 Chicago Ave., Evanston, Ill. (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1918-19Northwestern University, Assistant Professor of Banking.

“…where he was described as being nervous and erratic.” New-York Tribune April 4, 1921, p. 5.

1919-20. Colorado College, College Springs, CO.

“He had a penchant for telling stories that were considered risqué for a Christian college.” New York Herald, April 3, 1921, p. 17.

1920. Address: 817 N. Tejon St., Colorado Springs, Col. (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1920-21. Syracuse University, College of Business Administration. Instructor in Insurance.

1921. April 2. Suicide (+Murder). See below.

_________________________

Cast of relatives
[boldface denotes persons mentioned in the newspaper accounts]

Holmes Beckwith: Father’s side

(Grandparents)
Edward Griffin Beckwith (1826-1909)

(Granduncle)
George Ely Beckwith (1828-1898)
m. Harriet

(father)
Frank Armstrong Beckwith (1854-1885)

m. Ellen Warren Holmes in Montclair NJ

(Aunt)
Martha Warren Beckwith
(1871-1959)
(Aunt)
Mary E. Beckwith (1867-) teacher, artist
Holmes Beckwith
(1884-1921)
m. Helen Frances Robinson in 1909.
(sister)
Ruth Beckwith
(1882-1968)
m. Amasa Archibald Bullock

Note: (Professor) Aunt Martha Beckwith in Poughkeepsie, N.Y. had been a protégé of Columbia anthropologist Franz Boas. She became chair of the Vassar folklore department.

Holmes Beckwith: Mother’s side

(maternal grandparents)
Samuel Holmes (1824-1897) and Mary Howe Goodale (1829-1899)

(mother)
Ellen Warren Holmes (1857-1902) m. Frank Armstrong Beckwith in 1881
(uncle)
David Goodale Holmes (1865-1944) m. Elizabeth Ann Bates (1862-1940) in 1886
(aunt)
Mary Goodale Holmes (1862-1960)

(uncle)
George Day Holmes (1867-1953) m. Julia Georgiana Rogers Baird, (1868-1928) in 1896.

Note: Uncle David Goodale Holmes of East Orange, N.J. was President of the Utility Company, 636 West Forty-fourth Street, New York City according to the report of New York Times, April 4, 1921, p. 17. Uncle George Day Holmes lived with his wife Julia in Montclair, N.J. Since she died in 1928, we can presume she was the ill aunt (presumably Aunt “Hattie”) who was not to be told of Holmes’ death.

_________________________

Professor Slays Dean, and Himself
Former U.C. Instructor Ends His Life After Fatal Shooting At Syracuse University; Note Tells of Plans
Dr. Holmes Beckwith, Once Employed As Examiner for State Banking Commission, Well Known in Berkeley

Oakland Tribune
02 Apr 1921, Page 1

By Associated Press.

SYRACUSE, N. Y., April 2. — J. Herman Wharton, dean of the College of Business Administration, Syracuse University, was shot and killed by Holmes Beckwith, professor of financial and insurance subjects, in the college this morning. Beckwith then turned the gun on himself and committed suicide. The shooting occurred in. the office of the School of Administration, in the College of Agriculture building. Professor Beckwith had been unpopular with the students, it was said, and petitions had been circulated among the student body asking for his removal.

Note tells of plan to commit suicide

In a statement issued soon after the shooting, Chancellor Day declared that it was his belief that Dean Wharton died trying to prevent Professor Beckwith from committing suicide. [Later reports note this is incorrect.] This was indicated in a note left for Dean Wharton by Prof. Beckwith, the chancellor said, in which he intimated that he was going to kill himself and referred to alleged unjust treatment of himself based on the fact that he had been dismissed, the dismissal to take effect at the end of the year. Dean Wharton’s chair, a stout one, was broken. He evidently leaped from it when Beckwith tried to kill himself, the gun was turned on him and the dean was shot through the head. Beckwith was shot in the chest. He also stabbed himself to make death certain. [This is apparently incorrect, though he was found to have had knife with him.]

Suicide was once artillery lieutenant

Dr. Beckwith was a first lieutenant, field artillery, in the world war. He joined the Syracuse University Faculty last September [1920]. He was head of the department of finance and insurance. Dean Wharton was a graduate of Syracuse university and has been an instructor there for the last few years. Two years ago he conceived the idea of a college of business administration and he was appointed to carry out the plan.

San Francisco, April 2. — Dr. Holmes Beckwith was an examiner for the State Banking Commission from August to December, 1914, and was dismissed upon complaint of the banks that he was not a proper person for the position, according to the commission’s records. These records show that he obtained the highest marks of those who participated in the test for examiner.

Beckwith was well known on U. C. campus Berkeley, April 2. — Holmes Beckwith was well known in Berkeley. At the University of California, where he was both a student and an instructor, he bore a reputation for being somewhat peculiar. According to colleagues in the department of economics in the. university, he was very eccentric.

Beckwith was a graduate of the State University of the class of 1908 and took his master’s degree a year later. Going East to study, he was granted a doctor of philosophy degree in Columbia in 1913. After receiving the Columbia degree he came to the University of California from Los Angeles to occupy a place on the college faculty. For the college year 1913-14 he was an assistant in economics at the university. He was reappointed for the following year of 1914-15, but did not serve.

_________________________

The Philadelphia Inquirer
April 3, 1921, pp. 1, 10.

“Beckwith failed to attend a meeting of the college faculty yesterday afternoon [April 1] and instead sent a letter to Dean Wharton, intended to be read at the meeting. The letter was found on Professor Wharton’s desk today after the murder.”

_________________________

Fires Five Bullets into Victim’s Body; Commits Suicide
John Herman Wharton of Syracuse University Slain by Prof. Beckwith in Revenge for Dismissal of Latter — Apparently Crazed by An Obsession of Persecution, as He Had Written of Impending Tragedy.

The Buffalo Times
April 3, 1921 [pp. 21-2.]

By Associated Press.

SYRACUSE, N. Y., April 2. — Dr. Holmes Beckwith, a former United States army lieutenant and California bank examiner, shot and killed his superior, Dean John Herman Wharton at Syracuse University, this morning, before commiting suicide himself, was probably insane as a result of chagrin over losing his position here, according to statements made by the authorities and Chancellor James R. Day of the University late tonight.

That Beckwith had premeditated suicide had not been clearly established, the instructor having left several letters showing his intention in that respect.

At first it was believed that Dr. Wharton had been killed in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent Beckwith’s suicide but this theory has now been cast aside.

Shot After Quarrel.

Coroner C. Ellis Crane, District Attorney Frank Malpass and Chancellor James R. Day are all agreed in the belief that Dr. Wharton was shot following an argument when Beckwith presented a letter in answer to Wharton’s notification that the university would have no need of Beckwith’s services after the close of college in June.

Five bullets were found in Dr. Wharton’s body indicating that Beck with had made sure his superior was dead before he turned his revolver upon himself and committed suicide.

Dean Wharton was in his 32d year and had been an instructor at Syracuse University since his graduation from that institution eight years ago. He was made dean of the College of Business Administration two years ago and Beckwith was one of the instructors under him.

Beckwith had been the butt of several jokes by the college student body during the last year. He had established the practice of locking the doors of the class room at the exact minute passes were due to begin and he would not admit tardy pupils.

He was strict in discipline and in the matter of time devoted to his classes and he had some peculiarities which made him more or less of a victim for students’ pranks and he was decidedly unpopular with them. It is claimed they circulated a petition for his discharge last fall.

University authorities had convinced themselves that Beckwith was a liability rather than an asset and last Monday he received his notification to look elsewhere for a teaching assignment next fall.

He protested but his arguments were without avail.

“Cornered Rat Will Fight.”

Friday night, it has been established, he spent hours in his room writing letters, one of which was addressed to Dean Wharton. It was lengthy document saying among other things, a “cornered rat will fight.”

His uncle Holmes of Montclair, N. J., be notified and that his action be kept from an aunt who is ill.

He wrote two aunts, Dr. Martha Beckwith and Miss Mary Beckwith of No. 50 Market Street, Poughkeepsie. N. Y., and to “Aunt Hattie,” believed to reside in Montclair. The letters thanked the relatives for their love and care assuring them that he loved them.

That he had a rather turbulent career and regarded at least two persons, outside of Syracuse, who had figured in his troubles in the educational world, as being worthy subjects for murder is shown in the story of his life, written under date of March 30, and turned over, according to his written wishes, to Prof. John O. Simmons, a faculty member here.

Discussing his discharge at Colorado College, Dr. Beckwith speaks of a Mr. Howbert, a bank president, apparently one of the board of governors, and writes:

“Mr. Howbert’s anger knew no bounds, I have never met him. I think a man to take the action he did is so unjust he should be shot.”

In his written story of his life he discusses troubles he had at Grinnell College in Iowa, which evidently culminated while he was serving in the army. He wrote:

“I would have murdered Mr. Main who certainly deserves this end in having treacherously betrayed one in his country’s service. Then I would have shot my self.”

Born in Hawaii.

The story of Beckwith’s life shows he was born October 5, 1884, in Kaiku, Island of Maui, then one of the Hawaiian kingdom. His father and grandfather were Congregational ministers and his one sister, Ruth Beckwith Bullock, is a missionary in Siang-Tan, China. He attended the Pacific Theological School at Berkeley, Calif., but did not complete the course. In 1911 he was graduated from Columbia, to which university he transferred in 1908. He married Helen Frances Robinson in California before entering Columbia. They had separated some time ago.

After graduation he spent a short time in Germany and returned to America as a teacher at Dartmouth. He condemned Dartmouth “as the toughest college In America, all men, the dominant element of whom delights in toughness.” He had trouble there, blaming his trouble on Prof. George R. Wicker, of whom he says “this humane cur, Wicker, has since died.”

His story tells of engagements in California, Colorado and Iowa, finally reverting to Syracuse.

Dismissed as Bank Examiner.

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif., April 2. — Dr. Holmes Beckwith was an examiner for the State Banking Commission from August to December, 1914, and was dismissed upon complaint of the banks that he was not a proper person for the position, according to the commission’s records.

The records show that he obtained the highest marks of those who participated in the test for examiner but was unable to meet the standards of the position in the financial field. Officials of the commission said that the bankers complained that he “lectured them like students” on the theories of their own business instead of confining himself to the actual examination work. He went to the banking commission from the University of California, where he was an instructor in economics and political economy.

Letter Beckwith Wrote Shows He Resented Wharton’s Act

SYRACUSE, April 2. — The following letter, written to Dean Wharton by Professor Beckwith, was found on Dean Wharton’s desk. In it the professor claims that he was in difficulties with the students only because he refused to permit them to run his classes.

“My attitude toward the students is that of seeking their best good,” Professor Beckwith wrote, protesting against his dismissal.

His letter follows:

The School of Business Administration.
John Herman Wharton, Director.
Department of Banking and Finance.

Holmes Beckwith,
Early Childs.
April 1, 1921.

To Dean John Herman Wharton and to whom it may concern:

I received last Saturday morning a letter from you stating that you did not care for further services on this faculty after this year. This was a great surprise to me, despite several conferences we have had in which some friction with students was discussed. I thought the matter was solving itself. I visited you at your home on Monday afternoon, and we discussed the matter, and I protested to you against the injustice done me. This was in vain.

Your only statement of causes was that certain disciplinary troubles and friction had arisen in my classes, and that I was not popular with my students. Now popularity Is NOT always easy to explain, or the lack of it, but certainly a man’s right to his position should not be dependent on such a fickle force. I believe that it is evident in the present case that this unpopularity is due primarily to my maintenance of relatively high scholastic standings, and to my suppressing certain tendencies toward running of the class by students.

The chief trouble was in money and banking class in the first semester. There was a very large registration, yet the whole number only filtered into class days late. This delayed the process of dividing into sections and started a spirit of unrest. Then the students objected to assignments averaging about two hours’ preparation per hour of recitation or lecture, which is I believe a proper standard for bona fide institutions. They walked out in a body on the day of any important game. The net result was, in one direction, that their grades suffered severely, and I had, after very careful consideration, to mark 33 out of 50 as failed. Those who failed, or many of them, I am told, objected seriously to this, and called me unfair.

I deny the charge, and assert that I have tried to be entirely fair throughout, and believe I have been so. I have no motive to be otherwise; and justice means much to me, not only toward myself, but towards others. These facts stated above explain any opposition on the part of any students, I believe sufficiently.

The dean says that other instructors have not had similar trouble. I know positively that some others have had. Though not so much as I. He says “force has its limitations in controlling students, and personality” must be used. I recognize this, and neither used force nor authority exclusively, nor failed to use personality.

Here inconsistency is shown by his suggesting at one time greater strictness, at another time less. My attitude toward my students is that of always seeking their best good. But that best good is not to be sought by slipshodness and making things too easy. I may say, without pressing the point, that a number of the faculty on the hill are too lax in standards, both of scholarship and discipline, seeking and obtaining popularity in degree thereby. These men constitute unfair competition to those of us who try to bring the students to higher levels in these respects. I am not naturally strong as a disciplinarian but with any proper students and any proper administration or support do well.

My subjects are technical and my students find them hard. This explains some of their reasons. They are not as a group, willing to pay the price for this knowledge and ability. Among them, I am glad to say, are some, whose earnestness is excellent and a few quite capable students. The student attitude in my classes, and I believe toward me personally, has been bettering. Dean Wharton did not care to consider this. Syracuse University is notably low in scholarship and low in discipline, honesty and general student morale. These facts are notorious, every faculty man knows and deplores them; many students also.

The dean’s action follows the line of least resistance, and shows little or no principle. It is easier to suit a number of disaffected students than one professor; to do injustice to one and to support that one in maintaining or securing some one higher standard. And certainly as to scholarship, who knows better or as well what is a requisite standard than the specialist in charge?

Such treatment is not new to me. This may seem to excuse the treatment but does not, I leave this point to ethical students. My rights are independent of the misconduct of others, as in the present instance, students or certain students. Unfortunately, by consent of the general student body, or of all in a class, the tone is often given more by the poorer or less desirable student than by the better element. It is the psychology of the mob in a degree. This matter at present is slowly improving in the college, due to student co-operation action.

I have a right to earn my living, to serve and be served. The world owes me a living — provided I can earn it. This right, is independent of whether I am given an opportunity to earn it or not. I am entitled to that opportunity in proportion to my ability. My physical qualifications are admittedly high and there is no criticism, expressed or implied as to them, or as to my technical conduct of teaching, or ability to impart. My recommendations on file in the dean’s office bear sufficient testimony to my ability.

[New York Herald,  Apr 3, 1921, p. 17 reported the previous paragraph followed by the following two paragraphs.]

Even a cornered rat will fight. With others primarily, as I believe, at fault, should I alone bear the burden? I have written a general statement of my earlier experiences, which will aid in interpreting me for any who so desires.”

(This paragraph reported in other accounts as the end of Beckwith’s longer, autobiographical letter) “I shall cease to exist. My consciousness, a function or product, in some sense of my whole organic life, will cease and will remain a memory only. I trust I have bettered the world rather than the reverse. Om mane padne om! (The dew droops slips into the shining sea).”]

What did I mean by claiming right? The cynic denies that there is such a thing. The political scientist sometimes says there are no rights in society, organized as a State, has not formally granted by law.

Unfortunately the right to earn a living is not one of those thus far recognized by law. I believe it is a right notwithstanding. I am not embracing the so-called rights fallacy — or not the fallacious part of it. This fallacy consists in thinking that there are any rights, always and anywhere valid, not dependent on circumstances. Yet the heart of the doctrine is true that right exist, whether men recognize them or not. I consider that rights in the best sense, that is expedient or rational rights, are claims which are within accord with social or public expediency — mine for continuous employment in accord with my abilities and recognition of such abilities? Social interest in this case requires, I believe, administrative support, continuous support, and pressure, to raise the student standard, rather than the ousting of me. I have only asked reasonable standards of them and even compromised to the extent of raising every student 10 per cent, in most classes, who would thereby pass.

The present situation is intolerable to me, in the strict sense. This isn’t largely due to the repetition here of similar treatment elsewhere received. Despite similar injunctions I have arisen, by inherent ability and hard work. I have had so many changes of location, also so many different courses, and developed them so much, by mimeographed notes and otherwise, that I have not had time to write for publication yet. My rise has been due to my ability; the obstacles and injustices due to conditions not primarily my fault.

I have been bruised for others’ iniquities.

I informed the dean that he had made the situation intolerable to me and presented my case, asking for justice. He refused, and said his action was final. I cannot continue thus — subject to lack of confidence of those in authority, worry, depression often-times as now marked, lack of incentive and of hope. Some students and others simply do not like my type of man, or the standards which I represent; though I think and many friends think (I believe) that the type is a high one, of much potentialities of good for the world.

Dean Wharton and some others in authority have given way to this pressure, taking “the easiest way” for them, and in doing so repeatedly confirmed my suspicions that the world, as a whole, as indicated by the attitude of those who control the situation, is unfriendly to me. I cannot be hardly accused of ingratitude if I do not accept this opinion and consider that the world has not even given me a semblance of justice. The dean is fully responsible, as he accepted this proposition. He could support me, and should but refuses. Collectively the students who oppose me (I am glad that that does not include all my students, and I believe the dean underestimates the extent of their loyalty to me) have the main responsibility.

[New York Times, p. 14 includes the following:
“They started this and are about to see their handiwork come to fruition. Perhaps they may earn something from this that will benefit themselves and others. The tyranny of the mob over the individual is here very evident, and the individual is not strong enough to permanently stand against the mob.
I do not believe I have been appreciated. I have not done injustice to anyone. I have fought the good fight and my conscience is clear. I am too idealistical ethically, not philosophically, for my own good. I realize that principle means too much to me. Even a cornered rat will fight. With others, I believe, primarily at fault, should I alone bear the burden.
The law was established to settle quarrels, not to establish justice, which is incidental only. I quote from a prominent New York attorney. Since the world has so greatly failed to give me justice, why would not I, as fully as my power permits, attempt to secure a modicum of justice?
If society would have it otherwise, let them establish it.”]

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

Beckwith Butt Of Jokes from First Class Day

SYRACUSE, N. Y., April 2. — Professor Beckwith was the butt of jokes by the students from the first day that he took a class. When he was registering a class in banking and finance, some jokester wrote a fake registration in the name of “Makiswash Blivitz” and turned it in. The professor failed to realize that the name was false, and he put it in his registration book, and never failed to call it out when taking the attendance or calling the roll.

The name of “Blivitz” always drew a laugh from the students. To make their joke more certain, they occasionally imported a law school student, a stranger to Professor Beckwith, who answered to the call of “Blivitz.”

The joke was too good to be retained within the student body. The faculty heard of it, and of course, some of the professors laughed about it, too. Then it reached the ears of Chancellor Day, and he instructed Professor Beckwith to take the name of Blivitz from his lists.

Professor Beckwith refused to do this, however, thinking that some day he would catch the student who sometimes answered to the name and make an object lesson of him. One result was that the newspapers heard of it, and one printed a series of “Blivitz” stories, which annoyed the professor tremendously.

Another thing for which the professor became noted was that he operated his classes under lock and key. As soon as the bell rang for a class he locked the door, and if a student came late he was admitted by the professor himself.

It was also noticed by the students that if Professor Beckwith’s class concluded its work a few minutes ahead of time he always held them in the class room until the exact minute scheduled for closing of classes.

_________________________

Murder and Suicide Verdict Given in Syracuse Tragedy
Dr. Wharton, Victim of Radical Professor’s Bullet,
Was About to Marry a Rich Woman, Friends Say

New York Tribune
April 4, 1921 [p. 5]

SYRACUSE, N. Y., April 3. “Murder and suicide” was the coroner’s verdict to-day in the double tragedy at Syracuse University yesterday when Professor Holmes Beckwith shot and killed Dean John Herman Wharton, of the College of Business Administration, and then, reloading the gun, fired two bullets into his own body, killing himself.

Beckwith fired five bullets into the body of the dean as it lay on the floor turned the revolver on himself and fell ten feet away.

Professor Wharton’s body was removed to his home in Clarendon Street where funeral services will be held. Beckwith’s body has been claimed by David G. Holmes, of East Orange, N.J., an uncle.

Authorities are still delving into the mass of letters, papers, essays and other documents left by the murderer in his home and sent, to various friends and college associates, most of them; written after he had been asked to resign from the Syracuse faculty at the end of the college year. It was learned to-day that Dr. Wharton was about to be married. So far as can be learned he had not given out the name of his prospective bride even among his intimate friends. The woman is understood to have been of independent means. Beckwith’s last literary effort, his life story, given to the public by Professor J. O. Simmons, reveals the entire philosophy of the assassin, American-born in Hawaii, intellectual apostate Christian, athletic dilettante, reader of strange tongues, sociologist, egoist, professed lover of humanity, army officer, dabbler in Far East religions, radical, atheist, murderer and self-slayer.

Among his effects was found a snap-shot photograph of his father and former President Taft as classmates at Yale, where they wore contestants for the presidency of the class.

That the crime was premeditated shown by Beckwith’s own writings. Desperate because of repeated failures to hold a place in the teaching profession, having been dismissed in disgrace from all of the nine places he had he since graduation from the University of California ten years ago, he determined to leave a world in which could not succeed and to take the man he held responsible for his latest failure along with him.

On several other occasions, when he had been dismissed from college faculties, he had planned murder, sometimes suicide in addition. Once was at Northwestern University at Evanston, Ill., where he was described as being nervous and erratic.

_________________________

Suicide and Deathwished in Biography
Slayer in Syracuse Tragedy Was Obsessed With Belief of Persecution at Hands of University Executives
Had Murder of His Employees [sic] in Mind Frequently and Brooded Over Trouble With Wife, His Writings Reveal

Oakland Tribune (California). April 3, 1921, p. 33.

By Universal Service. Leased Wire to Tribune.

Syracuse, N.Y., April 2. —

That death and suicide ran continuously through the mind of Dr. Holmes Beckwith of the college of business administration of Syracuse University, who today shot and killed Dean John Herman Wharton, and then committed suicide, is shown in his farewell biography.

That document shows:

First, that Dr. Beckwith had in his mind the murder of President John Hanson Thomas Main of Grinell College.

Second, that Dr. Beckwith thought that President Irving Howbert, of the First National Bank of Colorado Springs “should be shot.”

Third, that Dr. Beckwith considered the late Dr. George Ray Wicker, his superior at Dartmouth, a “human cur” and a man “who would stab his best friend in the back if he saw an advantage in it.”

Suicide Obsessed by Idea of Persecution

Dr. Beckwith finally was crazed by the obsession that he was the target for persecution at nearly every college where he taught, and this was aggravated by mourning for his wife, who had divorced him and whom, he believed, had married again.

Dr. Wharton had advised Dr. Beckwith that his services would be no longer required at Syracuse after June.

Dr. Beckwith, a native of the Hawaiian Islands, was a former bank examiner in California and expert in finance and statistics. Before coming to Syracuse Dr. Beckwith was professor of similar subjects at Colorado college, Colorado springs. Also he was formerly with Iowa State University [sic, Grinell college] and the school of commerce at Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill. He had degrees of bachelor of law and master of law at the University of California and doctor of philosophy from, Columbia University.

In his farewell biography Dr. Beckwith says:

“In 1909, before going to Columbia I had married Helen Frances Robinson of Berkeley a fellow philosophical student. We also went to Germany together. On return from Germany we settled at Hanover, N.H., where I had a position as instructor in economics in Dartmouth college.

“The start here was extremely unfortunate, as Dartmouth is the toughest college in the country. I had some disciplinary trouble with my students. Another element was the personality of the professor in charge of the beginning course, in which all my work lay. He, Professor George Ray Wicker, is a bright man, an idealist in the abstract, but as my office mate stated, he would “stab his best friend in the back if he saw an advantage in it. He sought my discharge and evidently demanding it from his chief, I was left to shift for myself.”

Wife Finances Him When Out of Work

Later, the Beckwiths landed in New York, “broke.” Beckwith details:

“Karl and his wife, Sadie Robinson, my wife’s first cousin, took us in and got Helen a position as his secretary in a war relief organization. She financed us in the main, all that year, aided by the proceeds or sale of my share and by realty dividends. My wife deserves all credit for this aid, aptly given to a hard-pressed husband.

“In August, 1916, I went to Plattsburgh officers’ training camp at infantry. I then left to take a position as assistant professor of business administration in Grinnell college, Grinnell, Iowa. An affair had developed between Karl Robinson and my wife. She later ceased to love me and the upshot prolonged over a number of heart-rending years (for we had been for years very well and thoroughly married) was that my former wife is now Mrs. Karl Davis Robinson of New York City; the former Mrs. Robinson is now alone with two children; and I am alone. In this matter I may say that the guilty pair have, I believe, the sympathy of no one who knows the case, though their families can not fail to regard them as still blood relations and friends. I am, I am glad to say, still enrapport with my wife’s family and especially, good friends with her mother.”

Then came a period of military service. Discharged for disability, Beckwith went back to Grinnell. The instructor was met with a refusal of his old berth on the faculty. Beckwith held President Main responsible.

“I would have murdered Mr. Main, who certainly deserves this end in thus treacherously betraying one in his country’s service,” he writes.

Colorado College Afford Trouble

Next came his connection with Colorado college. He styles President Diniway as “a weak, unscrupulous man, the tool of the trustees.” He claims President Irving Hawbert, of the Colorado Springs First National bank, demanded his discharge because Beckwith used another bank than his.

An atheistical religious lecture also was involved in the controversy, Beckwith says: “Mr, Judson M. Bemis, self millionaire and founder of the department in which I taught, learned of the religious lecture, took violent opposition thereto and had his private detectives look up all the incumbents of the department chair.”

In conclusion, Beckwith says:

“The world as a whole has not given me justice, or anything like justice. I am comforted in a measure by the loyalty and appreciation of some friends. But it seems that the employing class, the executives who hold my fate in their hands, have been notably unfriendly as a class. Injustice rankles; it cuts like a knife. The worry, the fears, the uncertainty, the depression due to the injustice and lack of appreciation, the constant moves, the lack of incentive to good work, are not permanently endurable. They must end—in some way.”

_________________________

Beckwith Leaves Estate To Aunt; Gives Sister Only $10

Buffalo Courier, April 9, 1921 p. 2

Syracuse, April 8. – Prof. Holmes Beckwith, who shot and killed Dean Wharton and himself at Syracuse university last Saturday, leaves practically his entire estate, valued at $4,500, to an aunt, Mrs. Mary G. Holmes of Los Angeles. The will was filed for probate by David G. Holmes of East Orange, N. J., an uncle, today. A sister, Ruth B. Bullock, doing missionary work in China, is cut off with $10 because, “in my years of severe trouble she, unsister-like, gave me no economic aid and only scant sympathy.”

_________________________

Report from the Hawaiian Children’s Society, 1922

Holmes Beckwith.–The tragic circumstances attending the death of Holmes Beckwith may lead those who did not personally know him to misunderstand his life and character. It was perhaps to the completely feminine control under which he grew up that he owed a sensitiveness almost woman-like. His exacting Puritan ancestry gave him his habit of introspection and his dependence upon an absolute justice which never allowed him the relief of compromise. Intellectually he was as honest and open as the sun. He loved to be out of doors, had disciplined his body to long tramps and his mind to the love of solitude in the open. Yet he was the most social of beings. He was a quick and accurate observer; as a boy of eleven he knew the rigging of every craft in New York harbor. His habit of systematic thinking made him able, without practical experience, to grasp difficult technical subjects with astonishing readiness and clearness and to delight in such acquisition. He collected and sorted knowledge as other men collect objects of value. He was gentle with women. Children adored him. A fellow-boarder who knew him during his last year at Syracuse writes of “his fidelity to intellectual honesty and industry, with an eye single to the welfare of humanity which was his guide and passion in all he said and did,” of “his character sound to the core, the high aspirations, the honesty, simplicity and courage, together with a warm heart, zeal for service and brilliant intellect.” She says, “He cared more for religion even in these last years, than for anything else in the world.”

A friend and fellow-student in his university days writes, “No man held in reverence a higher standard of right in private and in public. He was not like other men, nor did he know men well enough to make allowances for their weaknesses. He applied to them the same rigid exactness he did to himself. His fine strong life and adherence at all costs to what he felt right and true will leave a lasting impression on all students he has studied with. He was always so genuinely interested in every detail of life, and without a cantakerous feeling in the world, was so frank and open and free, I shall always be his debtor. I can see him now as he swung along fast, yet firm down a street, every nerve and both eyes intent on his present plan I can hear his hearty greeting: ‘Hello, Arch, how do you function in your philosophic soul?’ He never lost one whit of his direct boyish appeal and immediate contact with everyone. He took every one straight into his thought just as he tried to get straight into theirs.” Those who knew and appreciated his brilliant capacities and un swerving honesty of life and purpose, and who watched his brave struggle with those inherent difficulties of temperament which blocked his progress among men, can say with confidence that his life was at no moment an unworthy one; and the tragedy of his death was such that those who best knew the circumstances and who suffered most directly from them, have attached to him no blame.

Source: The Seventieth Annual Report of the Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society, 1922, pp. 68-69.

_________________________

Image Source: Pittsburgh Press (April 6, 1921), p. 36.