Category: Johns Hopkins

MIT. Francis Amasa Walker Eulogized by Charles F. Dunbar in 1897

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2016-02-29

Francis Amasa Walker only lived to the age of 56. Reading this biographical sketch written by his Harvard colleague Charles F. Dunbar, one wonders how Walker was able to get it all done. Maybe stress got him in the end. Anyway I have pepped up the biography with links to the published works referred to in this memorial piece. Also: Carroll D. Wright, “Francis Amasa Walker.” Publications of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 5, n.s. No. 38, June 1897, pp. 245-275.

A later post provides the bibliography of Walker’s writings.

____________________________

FRANCIS AMASA WALKER.

[by Charles F. Dunbar, 1897]

Francis Amasa Walker, late President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a Fellow of this Academy from October, 1882, was born in Boston, July 2, 1840, and died of apoplexy in that city, January 5, 1897.

His father, the late Amasa Walker of North Brookfield, was a well known figure in the political life of Massachusetts for many years. He was a leader in the Free Soil movement of 1848, and in the subsequently combined opposition to the Whig party. He served in each branch of the Legislature, was for two years Secretary of the Commonwealth, was a Presidential Elector in 1860, and a member of the lower House of Congress for the session of 1862-63. From 1842 to 1848 he lectured on political economy in Oberlin College, and was afterwards a frequent writer for periodicals, especially upon topics connected with finance and banking, in which he also showed special interest when in Congress. From 1859 to 1869 he was Lecturer upon Political Economy in Amherst College, publishing during that time his well known book, the “Science of Wealth,” and died in 1875. [Memoir of Hon. Amasa Walker, LL.D. by Francis A. Walker, Boston: 1888]

Francis Amasa Walker, the son, thus grew up with an inherited predilection and aptitude for economic study, strengthened by the associations of boyhood and youth. When he graduated from Amherst College in 1860, however, his first step was to enter as a student of law the office of Charles Devens and George F. Hoar of Worcester, — both gentlemen destined, like himself, soon to attain national reputation. On the breaking out of the Civil War in 1861, Mr. Devens at first took the field as an officer of militia, and, when later he raised the Fifteenth Regiment of Massachusetts Infantry in Worcester County, young Walker enlisted and was mustered into the service as Sergeant Major, August 1, 1861. Ten days later, he was commissioned and assigned to the staff of General Couch. From that time he was upon duty with the Army of the Potomac, serving with advancing rank upon the staff of Generals Warren and Hancock through some of the severest campaigns of the war. He resigned his commission in January, 1865, from illness contracted while a prisoner within the Confederate lines, received the brevet rank of Brigadier General “for distinguished service and good conduct,” and returned to civil life bearing the honorable scars of the brave. It afterwards fell to his lot, in his “History of the Second Army Corps” (1886), and his “Life of General Hancock” (1894), to write the narrative of events no small part of which had passed before his eyes. Little of his own history is to be found in those glowing pages, but every line bears witness to the intense enthusiasm with which he never failed to kindle when he recalled his army life, and to his devotion to the great captains under whom he served.

Like many other young men, who, as soldiers in the War for the Union, drank the wine of life early, General Walker came home with his character matured, his capacities developed, his intellectual forces aroused and trained, — a man older than his years. The career in which he was to win new distinction did not open for him at once upon the sudden return of peace. For three years he was a teacher of the classics in Williston Seminary, and in 1868, being compelled by an attack of quinsy to seek a change of occupation, he became an assistant of Mr. Samuel Bowles, editor of the Springfield Republican. From this place he was drawn into the public service at Washington, by the agency of Mr. David A. Wells, who was then Special Commissioner of the Revenue, and in search of a new Chief for the Bureau of Statistics. The work of the Bureau had fallen into some discredit, and was far in arrears, and the inability of the former Chief of the Bureau to command the confidence of Congress seriously embarrassed the continuance of an important work. By Mr. Wells’s advice General Walker was made Deputy Special Commissioner and placed in charge of the Bureau, and a new career was at once opened before him, for which he was fitted in a peculiar manner both by his intellectual interests and his administrative capacity. The Bureau was reorganized and its reputation was regained. The monthly publications were resumed, and soon showed that progressive improvement which has made them one of the most valuable repositories in existence for the study of the commercial and financial activity of a great country.

From his appointment to the charge of the Bureau of Statistics the steps in General Walker’s new career followed in rapid succession. In 1870 he was appointed Superintendent of the Ninth Census of the United States; in 1871 he was appointed Commissioner of Indian Affairs; in 1872 be was made Professor of Political Economy and History in the Sheffield Scientific School of Yale College; in 1876 he was Chief of the Bureau of Awards for the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia; in 1878 he was sent as a Commissioner for the United States to the International Monetary Conference at Paris; in 1879 he was appointed Superintendent of the Tenth Census of the United States; in 1881 he was made President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; in 1882 he was elected President of the American Statistical Association; in 1885 he was elected first President of the American Economic Association; in 1891 he was elected Vice-President of the National Academy of Sciences; in 1893 he was President-adjunct of the International Statistical Institute, at its session in Chicago.

General Walker’s successive appointments as Superintendent of the Census of 1870 and of that of 1880 were the direct result of the energy and skill with which, during the months of his service in the Bureau of Statistics, he had effected the reorganization of that office and its work. The opportunities given to him as a statistician, by having charge of these two censuses, were of a remarkable kind. The census of 1870, being the first taken after the Civil War, was for that reason by far the most interesting and important since 1790. It was to show the social and economic changes wrought by four years of prodigal expenditure both of life and of resources, and by the unparalleled revolution in the industrial organization of the former slave States. It was also to ascertain and record the conditions under which the nation entered upon a new and wonderful stage of its material growth. The census of 1880 was the unique occasion for what General Walker designed as a “grand monumental exhibit of the resources, the industries, and the social state of the American people,” made approximately at the close of a century of national independence.

The Census of 1870, to the great regret of all who had any scientific interest in the subject, was left by Congress to be taken under the provisions of the Census Act of 1850, by persons neither selected nor controlled by the Census Office. In the still disturbed condition of some of the Southern States, the work was thus thrown into the hands of men notoriously unfit for such employment, and the returns, especially of the black population, were vitiated at their source. In his Report of 1872, and in his Introduction to the “Compendium of the Census of 1880,” [Volume I, Volume II] General Walker described in strong language the difficulties which thus beset the work in 1870; and again in the Publications of the American Statistical Association for December, 1890, writing upon the “Statistics of the Colored Race in the United States,” he used his freedom from official relations in exposing the mischief done by legislative failure to provide intelligently for an important public service. As a whole, however, the Census of 1870 was the best and the most varied in its scope that had yet been obtained for the United States. It was, after all, a signal proof of what can be done by a competent head, even with imperfect legislation, and established the reputation of the Superintendent as an administrative officer, at the same time that his fresh and vigorous discussion of results secured him high rank among statistical writers. Great interest was excited, moreover, by the remarkable use made of the graphic method in presenting the leading results of this census, in his “Statistical Atlas of the United States” (1874).

The Act providing for the Census of 1880 was greatly modified, by General Walker’s advice, and the working force was for the first time organized upon an intelligent system, by the employment of specially selected enumerators in place of the subordinates of the United States marshals, to whom the law had previously intrusted the collection of returns. Highly qualified experts were also employed for the historical and descriptive treatment of different industries and interests, as demanded by the monumental character of the centennial census. Various causes delayed the completion of this gigantic undertaking. Those to whom a census is merely a compendious statement of passing facts became impatient at the slow issue of the twenty-two stately quartos, and complained that the work was on such a scale as to be obsolescent before its appearance. General Walker, in an article in the Quarterly Journal of Economics for April, 1888, explained some of the special causes of the delay in publication and took upon himself perhaps an undue share of responsibility for the difficulties caused by an original underestimate of the total cost of the census. But notwithstanding its misfortunes, the Census of 1880 is a great work of enduring value and not excessive cost,— great in its breadth of design, worthy of the nation and of the epoch, and a lasting monument of the power of its Superintendent to conceive and to execute. Following the Census of 1870, it won for him universal recognition as one of the leading statisticians of his time.

In the article to which reference has just been made, General Walker, in his discussion of future arrangements for the national census, offered as the fruits of his own experience some valuable suggestions, which deserve more attention than they have yet received. It is hardly necessary, however, to enter upon them here, except to recall the fact that he advised the organization of the Census Office as a permanent establishment, in order to secure the improved service and economy of a trained force of moderate size, constantly employed. Upon an office thus organized could be laid, at the regular intervals, the duty of collecting and preparing the returns of population and of agriculture for the decennial census required by the Constitution, and perhaps for an intermediate fifth year enumeration, and also in the intervals the systematic prosecution of other statistical investigations, to be charged upon the office from time to time as occasion might require.

General Walker’s appointment as Professor in the Sheffield Scientific School, in 1872, carried him beyond the boundary of statistics into the general field of political economy. His training for this extended range of work, although obtained by a less systematic process than is now usual, had begun early, and as opportunity offered was carried on effectively. In one of his prefaces, he remarks that he began writing for the press upon money in 1858, probably having in mind a series of letters to the National Era of Washington, beginning soon after the crisis of 1857, and continued for some months, noticeable for sharply defined views on the subjects of banking and currency, and also as to the merits of Mr. Henry C. Carey as an economist. In 1865, before going to Williston Seminary, he lectured upon political economy for a short time at Amherst in his father’s absence, and in I866 his father recognized with pride his important assistance in finishing the “Science of Wealth.” From the close of the war. he is otherwise known to have been a keen student of economics, although a student under such limitations and so hampered by pressing occupations as to make it difficult for him to do equal justice to all parts of his outfit. It was perhaps from this cause, in part, that his earliest important publications as an economist were two treatises on widely separated topics, “The Wages Question” and “Money.”

The earlier of these two books, “The Wages Question” (1876), instantly attracted the attention both of economists and of the general public by its lively and strong discussion of the central topic of the day, then more commonly treated either as a matter of dry theory, or as a problem to be settled by sentiment. Following Longe and Thornton, the author made an unsparing attack upon the wages fund theory, and, arguing that wages are paid from the product of labor and not from accumulated capital, he set forth with great vigor the influences which affect the competition between laborer and employer in the division of this product. General Walker’s earliest public statement of his now familiar opinions touching the wages fund, and the payment of wages from the product, was made, it is believed, in an address delivered before the literary societies of Amherst College, July 8, 1874, and he further developed the subject in an article contributed to the North American Review for January, 1875. Few books in political economy have taken a place in the foreground of scientific discussion more quickly than “The Wages Question.” Many economists followed the author’s lead with little delay, and those who were slower to admit that the object of his attack was in fact the wages fund of the older school, recognized his assault as by far the most serious yet made. Unquestionably it compelled an immediate review of a large body of thought by the great mass of economic students in the English speaking countries.

In “The Wages Question,” General Walker drew the line clearly between the function of the capitalist and that of the employer, or entrepreneur, and between interest, which is the return made to the former, and profits, which are the reward of the latter. It was however in his “Political Economy” (1883 [3rd ed., 1888]), that he worked out his theory of the source of business profits and of the law governing the returns secured by the employing class. This enabled him to lay down a general theory of distribution, to be substituted for that associated with the wages fund theory, which he regarded as completely exploded, and indeed “exanimate.” Of the four parties to the distribution of the product of industry, three, the owner of land, the capitalist, and the employer, in his view, receive shares which are determined, respectively, by the law of Ricardo, by the prevailing rate of interest, and by a law of business profits analogous to the law of rent. These shares being settled, each by a limiting principle of its own, labor becomes the “residual claimant,” be the residue more or less, and any increase of product resulting from the energy, economy, or care of the laborers “goes to them by purely natural laws, provided only competition be full and free.” So too the gains from invention enure to their benefit, except so far as the law may interfere by creating a monopoly. This striking solution of the chief problem of economics attracted wide attention, and was further expounded and defended by its author in the discussions which it provoked, as may be seen by reference to the earlier volumes of the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Indeed, in his last published work, “International Bimetallism” (page 283), he prefaces a statement of his theory by saying, “I have given no small part of my strength during the past twenty years to the advocacy of that economic view which makes the laborer the residual claimant upon the product of industry.”

General Walker published his treatise, “Money” (1878), at a moment singularly opportune for the usefulness of the book and the advancing reputation of its author. Public opinion in the United States was in extreme confusion on the questions involved in the return to specie payment; there was a formidable agitation for the repeal of the Resumption Act, and Congress was entering upon its long series of efforts to rehabilitate silver as a money metal. At this juncture, when every part of the theory of money was the subject of warm discussion, scientific and popular alike, General Walker, using the substance of a course of lectures delivered by him in the Johns Hopkins University in 1877, laid before the public an elaborate and broad-minded survey of the whole field, claiming little originality for his work, but giving material help in concentrating upon scientific lines a discussion which was wandering in endless vagaries. On the general subject his views had no doubt been formed early, under the influence of his father, to whom, in more than one passage of this book, he makes touching allusion, and later in life he found in them little to change, although the long regime of paper money and its consequences suggested many things to be added. In 1879 he published, under the title of “Money in its Relations to Trade and Industry,” what was in some sense an abridgment of the larger work, made for use in a course of lectures in the Lowell Institute; and in his “Political Economy” [3rd ed., 1888] he again condensed his arguments and conclusions as to money, as part of his discussion of the grand division, Exchange.

When the International Monetary Conference met in 1878, by invitation of the United States, General Walker went to Paris as one of the commissioners for this country. His discussion of bimetallism had not been carried in “Money” much beyond a careful statement of the question and of the arguments on each side, but it was carried far enough to show that international bimetallism, and not the simple remonetization of silver by the United States, was, in his view, the proper method of securing what he deemed an adequate supply of money for this country and for the commercial world. Great emphasis was laid, in “Money, Trade, and Industry,” upon the necessity for “concerted action by the civilized states,” and this ground was consistently held by him until his share in the discussion ended with the publication of “International Bimetallism” (1896), a few months before his death. In this book, which was the outcome of a course of lectures delivered in Harvard University, after reviewing the controversy over silver, which had more and more engaged his attention as time went on, he declared more vigorously than ever his opinion of the futility of the policy of solitary action, adopted by the United States in the Act of 1878. “International Bimetallism” appeared in the midst of a heated Presidential canvass, in which the issues had taken such form that some, who like himself were supporters of “sound money,” found a jarring note in what they regarded as needless concessions to “free silver,” and in the sharp phrase in which his ardor and deep conviction sometimes found expression. But the book was not written for effect upon an election; it was the last stroke of a soldier, in a world-wide battle, — soon to lay aside his arms.

It was General Walker’s good fortune to enter the field as an economist when the study of economics was gaining new strength in the United States from the powerful stimulus of the Civil War, and of the period of rapid material development and change which followed. The revision of all accepted theories which set in did not displease him, and he took his share in the ensuing controversies, whether raised by himself or others, with equal zest. His own tendency, however, was towards a rational conservatism, and his modes of thought never ceased to show the influence of writers, French and English, of whom he appeared to the superficial observer to be the severe critic. “A Ricardian of the Ricardians” he styled himself in his Harvard lectures on land, published under the title of “Land and its Rent” (1883). His theory of distribution, if enunciated by one of narrower sympathies than himself, might have been thought to be designed as a justification of the existing order of things. In his monetary discussions he contended for a return to what he deemed the safe ways of the past. As for his view of the future, in a public address in 1890, after a remarkable passage describing the sea of agitation and debate which had submerged the entire domain of economics, and threatened to sweep away every landmark of accepted belief, he said, “I have little doubt that in due time, when these angry floods subside, the green land will emerge, fairer and richer for the inundation, but not greatly altered in aspect or in shape.”

The election of General Walker as the first President of the American Economic Association, in recognition of his acknowledged eminence, deserves a passing notice at this point. The Association was organized at Saratoga in 1885, under circumstances which threatened to make it the representative of a school of economists rather than of the great body of economic students in America, and with a dangerous approach to something like a scientific creed. General Walker cannot be said to have represented any particular school. He was both theorist and observer, the framer of a theory of distribution, and also an industrious student of past and current history. By a happy choice the new Association strengthened its claim upon public attention by electing him its resident, in his absence; and be wisely took his place at its head, with the conviction that its purposes were better than the statement made of them, and that the membership of the new organization gave promise of good results for economic science. Under his administration, which lasted until 1892, the basis of the Association was broadened, all appearance of any test of scientific faith disappeared, and American economists found themselves associated in catholic brotherhood. In part this change was no doubt due to the marked subsidence of the debate as to the deductive and the historical methods, but in part also it was due to the good judgment, personal influence, and perhaps in some instances the persuasive efforts of the President, who thus rendered no small service to economic science.

Which of General Walker’s contributions to economic theory are likely to have lasting value, is a question not yet ready for decision. The subjects to which he specially devoted his efforts are still under discussion. His theory of distribution is not yet established as the true solution of the great problem; the wages fund has not yet ceased to be controversial matter; it is not yet settled whether the advocates or the opponents of bimetallism are to triumph in the great debate of this generation. But whether as a theoretical writer he is to hold his present place or to lose it, there can be no question as to the importance of his work, in imparting stimulus and the feeling of reality to all economic discussions in which he had a part. His varied experience and wide acquaintance with men had made him in a large sense a man of affairs, lie watched the great movements of the world, not only in their broad relations, but as they concern individuals. He was apt to treat economic tendencies, therefore, not only in their abstract form, but also as facts making for the happiness or the injury of living men. Economic law was reasoned upon by him in much the same way as by others, but he never lost his vivid perception of the realities among which the law must work out its consequences. In his pages, therefore, theory seemed to many to be a more practical matter and nearer to actual life than it is made to appear by most economists. His words seemed to carry more authority, his illustrations to give more light, the whole science to become a lively exposition of the trend and the side movements of a world of passion and effort. A great English economist has said that Walker’s explanation of the services rendered by the entrepreneur remind one of passages of Adam Smith. A great service has been rendered to the community by the writer who, in our day, has been able thus to command attention to political economy as a discussion belonging to the actual world.

General Walker’s election to the Presidency of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in 1881, placed him at the head of an institution badly in need of a vigorous, confident, and many-sided administrator, for the development of its great possibilities. The plan on which it should work had been prepared and its foundations laid broad and deep by President Rogers, but the work itself was still languishing, endowment and equipment were scanty, and the number of students declining. General Walker’s administration was signalized by a sudden revival of the school. Funds were secured, new buildings were built, the confidence of the public won, and at General Walker’s death the school of barely two hundred students, still maintaining the severe standard of work set by its founder, had upon its register nearly twelve hundred students and maintained a staff of one hundred and thirty professors and instructors of different grades. Of the qualities as an educator and administrator of a great technical school displayed by General Walker in this brilliant part of his career, a striking description, made from close observation, has been given by Professor H. W. Tyler of the Faculty of the Institute, in the Educational Review for June, 1897 [with portrait].

There was doubtless much in the circumstances attending the foundation of the Institute of Technology which any disinterested friend of scientific education must now regret. But time has healed wounds and removed jealousies which divided a former generation, and none can now be found to question either the practical or the scientific value of the great institution conceived by Rogers, and brought to its present deserved eminence under the successor of whose day he lived to see little more than the dawn.

At no period of General Walker’s life did he fail to take an active interest in the work of the community in which he lived. That he was already charged with great responsibilities was a reason, both with his fellow citizens and with himself, for increasing the load. An early instance of this was his service as Commissioner of Indian Affairs for one year while still in charge of the census of 1870, — a service marked by an annual report remarkable for its thorough review of the whole subject, and by the appearance of his book, “The Indian Question” (1874). At different times, in New Haven and in Boston, he was a member of the local School Board and of the State Board of Education. He was a Trustee of the Boston Public Library and of the Museum of Fine Arts, one of the Boston Park Commissioners, and an almost prescriptive member of any more temporary board or committee. In some of these capacities his labors have left their traces in his written works, n others his name gave weight to organizations in which he was not called upon for active effort. The number and variety of the appointments thus showered upon him marked not only the unbounded range of his own interests, but the confidence of others that every appeal to public spirit would stir his heart.

The bibliography of his written work, prepared at the Institute of Technology and revised with great care since his death, will be found in the Publications of the American Statistical Society for June, 1897. It is a remarkable record of intellectual activity, maintained for nearly forty years, and resulting in a series of important contributions to the thought of his time, — a manifold claim to eminence in the world of science and letters.

A complete list of the honorary degrees and other marks of distinction conferred upon General Walker by public bodies, at home and abroad, cannot be undertaken here. It is enough to say that he was made Doctor of Laws by Amherst, Columbia, Dublin, Edinburgh, Harvard, St. Andrews, and Yale, and Doctor of Philosophy by Amherst and Halle; that he was a member, regular or honorary, of the National Academy of Sciences, the Philosophical Society of Washington, the Massachusetts Historical Society and this Academy, of the Royal Statistical Society of London, the Royal Statistical Society of Belgium, the Statistical Society of Paris, the French Institute, and the International Statistical Institute; and that he was an officer of the French Legion of Honor.

General Walker was endowed by nature with peculiar gifts for a career of distinction. Iu any company of men he instantly drew attention by his solid erect form and dignified presence, by his deep and glowing eye, and by his dark features, cheerful, often mirthful, always alive. His instant command of his intellectual resources gave him the confidence needed for a leading place, and his friendly bearing, strong judgment, and easy optimism made others welcome his leadership. His convictions were deep, and his opinions, once formed, were shaken with difficulty, for in discussion he had the soldier’s quality of not knowing when he is beaten. His ambition was strong, and he liked to feel the current of sympathy and approval bearing him on, but he did not shrink from his course if others refused to follow. From first to last, he grappled with large undertakings and large subjects, conscious of powers which promised him the mastery. Such as his contemporaries saw him he will live for the future reader in many a sentence and page, — cheerful, courageous, hopeful.

Charles F. Dunbar.

Source: Charles F. Dunbar, “Francis Amasa Walker” Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences Vol. 32, No. 17 (Jul., 1897), pp. 344-354

Image Source: Hoar, George Frisbie. Meetings held in commemoration of the life and services of Francis Amasa Walker. Boston, 1897, Frontpiece.

Tags Dunbar, WalkerFrancis

Cornell Economists Germany Johns Hopkins Michigan Socialism

Cornell. Germany and Academic Socialism. Herbert Tuttle, 1883.

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2016-02-20

The Cornell professor of history Herbert Tuttle, America’s leading expert on all matters Prussian, wrote the following warning in 1883 against the wholesale adoption of German academic training in the social sciences. Here we see a clear battle-line that was drawn between classic liberal political economy in the Anglo-Saxon tradition and mercantilism-made-socialism from the European continent.

In the memorial piece upon Tuttle’s death (1894) written by the historian Herbert B. Adams of Johns Hopkins University following Tuttle’s essay, it is clear that Tuttle wrote his essay on academic socialism as someone intimately acquainted with European and especially German scholarship and political affairs. In the 1930s European ideas were transplanted to American universities typically by European-born scholars. During the latter part of the nineteenth century, the American graduate school model was essentially established by young Americans returning from Germany. Cf. my previous posting about the place of the research “seminary” in graduate education. One wonders whether Herbert B. Adams deliberately left out mention of Tuttle’s essay on academic socialism in his illustrative listing of Tuttle’s “general literary activity”.

I have added boldface to highlight a few passages and names of interest.

____________________________

ACADEMIC SOCIALISM
By Herbert Tuttle

Atlantic Monthly,
Vol. 52, August 1883. pp. 200-210.

It is a striking tribute — and perhaps the most striking when the most reluctant — to the influence and authority of physical science, that the followers of other sciences (moral, not physical) are so often compelled, or at least inclined, to borrow its terms, its methods, and even its established principles. This adaptation commonly begins, indeed, in the way of metaphor and analogy. The natural sympathy of men in the pursuit of truth leads the publicist, for example, and the geologist to compare professional methods and results. The publicist is struck with the superiority of induction, and the convenience of language soon teaches him to distinguish the strata of social development; to dissect the anatomy of the state to analyze political substance; to observe, collect, differentiate, and generalize the various phenomena in the history of government. This practice enriches the vocabulary of political science, and is offensive only to the sterner friends of abstract speculation. But it is a vastly graver matter formally and consciously to apply in moral inquiries the rules, the treatment, the logical implements, all the technical machinery, of sciences which have tangible materials and experimental resources constantly at command. And in the next step the very summit of impiety seems to be reached. The political philosopher is no longer content merely to draw on physical science for metaphors, or even to use in his own way its peculiar methods, but boldly adopts the very substance of its results, and explains the sacred mystery of social progress by laws which may first have been used to fix the status of the polyp or the cray-fish.

It is true that this practice has not been confined to any age. There is a distinct revelation of dependence on the method, if not on the results, of the concrete sciences in Aristotle’s famous postulate, that man is “by nature” a political being. The uncompromising realism of Macchiavelli would not dishonor a disciple of Comte. And during the past two hundred years, especially, there is scarcely a single great discovery, or even a single great hypothesis, which, if at all available, has not been at once appropriated by the publicists and applied to their own uses. The circulation of the blood suggests the theory of a similar process in society, comparative anatomy reveals its structure, the geologic periods explain its stages, and the climax was for the time reached when Frederick the Great, whose logic as well as his poetry was that of a king, declared that a state, like an animal or vegetable organism, had its stages of birth, youth, maturity, decay, and death. Yet striking as are these early illustrations, it is above all in recent times, and under the influence of its brilliant achievements in our own days, that physical science has most strongly impressed its methods and principles on social and political investigation. Mr. Freeman can write a treatise on comparative politics, and the term excites no protest. Sir Henry Maine conducts researches in comparative jurisprudence, and even the bigots are silenced by the copiousness and value of his results. The explanation of kings and states by the law of natural selection, which Mr. Bagehot undertook, is hardly treated as paradoxical. The ground being thus prepared — unconsciously during the last century — consciously and purposely during this, for a close assimilation between the physical and the moral sciences, it is natural that men should now take up even the contested doctrine of evolution, and apply it to the progress of society in general, to the formation of particular states, and to the development of single institutions.

Now, if it be the part of political science merely to adapt to its own use laws or principles which have been fully established in other fields of research, it would of course be premature for it to accept as an explanation of its own phenomena a doctrine like that of evolution, which is still rejected by a considerable body of naturalists. But may not political science refuse to acknowledge such a state of subordination? May it not assert its own dignity, and choose its own method of investigation? And even though that method be also the favorite one of the natural philosopher, may not the publicist employ it in his own way, subject to the limitations of his own material, and even discover laws contrary to, or in anticipation of, the laws of the physical universe? If these questions be answered in the affirmative, it follows that the establishment of a law of social and political evolution may precede the general acceptance of the same law by students of the animal or vegetable world.

At present, however, such a law is only a hypothesis, — a hypothesis supported, indeed, by many striking facts, and yet apparently antagonized by others not less striking. A sweeping glance over the course of the world’s history does certainly reveal a reasonably uniform progress from a simpler to a more complex civilization. This may also be regarded in one sense as a progress from lower to higher forms; and if the general movement be established, temporary or local interruptions confirm rather than shake the rule. But flattering as is this hypothesis of progressive social perfection to human nature, it is still only a hypothesis, and far enough from having for laymen the authority of a law. The theologians alone have positive information on the subject.

If evolution be taken to mean simply the production of new species from a common parent or genus, and without implying the idea of improvement, the history of many political institutions seems to furnish hints of its presence and its action. Let us take, as an example, the institution of parliaments. The primitive parent assembly of the Greeks was probably a body not unlike the council of Agamemnon’s chieftains in the Iliad; and from this were evolved in time the Spartan Gerousia, the Athenian Ecclesia, and other legislatures as species, each resembling the original type in some of its principles, yet having others peculiar to itself. Out of the early Teutonic assemblies were produced, in the same way, the Parliament of England, the States-General of France, the Diet of Germany, the Congress of the United States.

Yet it may be questioned whether even this illustration supports the doctrine of evolution, and in regard to other institutions the case is still more doubtful. Take, for example, the jury system. The principle of popular participation in trials for crime has striven for recognition, though not always successfully, in many countries and many ages. But from at least one people, the Germans, and through one line, the English, it maybe traced along a fairly regular course down to the present day. Montesquieu calls attention to another case, when, speaking of the division of powers in the English government, he exclaims, “Ce beau système est sorti des bois!” that is, the forests of Germany. But in all such instances it depends upon the point of view, or the method of analysis, whether the student detects the production of new species from a common genus, or original creation by a conscious author.

Even this is not, however, the only difficulty. Evolution means the production of higher, not simply of new, forms; and the term organic growth implies in social science the idea of improvement. But this kind of progress is evidently far more difficult to discern in operation. It is easy enough to trace the American Congress back historically to the Witenagemot, to derive the American jury from the Teutonic popular courts, to connect the American city with the municipality of feudal Europe, or of Rome, or even of Greece. The organic relation, or at least the historical affinity, in these and many other cases is clear. But it is a widely different thing to assert that what is evidently political development or evolution must also be upward progress. This might lead to the conclusion that parliamentary institutions have risen to Cameron and Mahone; that the Saxon courts have been refined into the Uniontown jury and that the art of municipal government has culminated in the city of New York.

The truth is that there are two leading classes of political phenomena, the one merely productive, the other progressive, which may in time, and by the aid of large generalizations, be made to harmonize with the doctrine of evolution, but which ought at present to be carefully distinguished from the manifestations ordinarily cited in its support. The first class includes the appearance, in different countries and different ages, of institutions or tendencies similar in character, but without organic connection. The other class includes visible movements, but movements in circles, or otherwise than forward and upward. Both classes may be illustrated by cogent American examples, but it is to the latter that the reader’s attention is now specially invoked.

Among the phenomena which have appeared in all ages and all countries, with a certain natural bond of sympathy, and yet without a clearly ascertainable order of progress, one of the earliest and latest, one of the most universal and most instructive, is that tendency or aspiration variously termed agrarian, socialistic, or communistic. The movement appears under different forms and different influences. It may be provoked by the just complaints of an oppressed class, by the inevitable inequality of fortunes, or by a base jealousy of superior moral and intellectual worth. To these and other grievances, real or feigned, correspond as many different forms of redress, or rather schemes for redress. One man demands the humiliation of the rich or the great, and the artificial exaltation of the poor and the ignorant; another, the constant interference of the state for the benefit of general or individual prosperity; a third, the equalization of wealth by discriminating measures; a fourth, perhaps, the abolition of private property, and the substitution for it of corporate ownership by society. But widely as these schemes differ in degree, they may all be reduced to one general type, or at least traced back to one pervading and peremptory instinct of human nature in all races and all ages. It is the instinctive demand that organized society shall serve to improve the fortunes of individuals, and incidentally that those who are least fortunate shall receive the greatest service. Between the two extreme attitudes held toward this demand, — that of absolute compliance, and that of absolute refusal — range the actual policies of all political communities.

For the extremes are open to occupation only by theories; no state can in practice fully accept and carry out either the one or the other. Prussia neglects many charges, or, in other words, leaves to private effort much that a rigid application of the prevailing political philosophy would require it to undertake; while England conducts by governmental action a variety of interests which the utilitarians reserve to the individual citizen. The real issue is therefore one of degree or tendency. Shall the sphere of the state’s activity be broad or narrow; shall it maintain toward social interests an attitude of passive, impartial indifference, or of positive encouragement; shall the presumption in every doubtful case be in favor of calling in the state, or of trusting individual effort? Such are the forms in which the issue may be stated, as well by the publicist as by the legislator. And it is rather by the extent to which precept and practice incline toward the one view or the other, than by the complete adoption of either of two mutually exclusive systems, that political schools are to be classified. This gives us on the one hand the utilitarian, limited, or non-interference theory of the state, and on the other the paternal or socialistic theory.

Now although this country witnessed at an early day the apparent triumph of certain great schemes of policy, such as protection and public improvements, which are clearly socialistic, — I use the term in an inoffensive, philosophical sense, — it is noteworthy that the triumph was won chiefly by the aid of considerations of a practical, economical, and temporary nature. The necessity for a large revenue, the advantage of a diversified industry, the desirability of developing our natural resources, the scarcity of home capital, the expediency of encouraging European immigration, and many other reasons of this sort have been freely adduced. But at the same time the fundamental question of the state’s duties and powers, in other words, the purely political aspect of the subject, was neglected. Nay, the friends of these exceptional departures from the non-interference theory of the state have insisted not the less, as a rule, on the theory itself, while even the exceptions have been obnoxious to a large majority of the most eminent publicists and economists, that is to say the specialists, of America. If any characteristic system of political philosophy has hitherto been generally accepted in this country, whether from instinct or conviction, it is undoubtedly the system of Adam Smith, Bentham, and the Manchester school.

There are, however, reasons for thinking that this state of things will be changed in the near future, and that the new school of political economists in the United States will be widely different from the present. This change, if it actually take place, will be due to the influence of foreign teachers, but of teachers wholly unlike those under whose influence we have lived for a century.

It has been often remarked that our higher education is rapidly becoming Germanized. Fifty years ago it was only the exceptional and favored few — the Ticknors and Motleys — who crossed the ocean to continue their studies under the great masters of German science; but a year or two at Leipsic or Heidelberg is now regarded as indispensable to a man who desires the name of scholar. This is especially true of those who intend themselves to teach. The diploma of a German university is not, of course, an instant and infallible passport to employment in American colleges, but it is a powerful recommendation; and the tendency seems to be toward a time when it will be almost a required condition. The number of Americans studying in Germany is accordingly now reckoned by hundreds, or even thousands, where it used to be reckoned by dozens. It is within my own knowledge that in at least one year of the past decade the Americans matriculated at the University of Berlin outnumbered every other class of foreigners. And “foreigners” included all who were not Prussians, in other words, even non- Prussian Germans. That this state of things is fraught with vast possible consequences for the intellectual future of America is a proposition which seems hardly open to dispute; and the only question is about the nature, whether good or bad, of those consequences.

My own views on this question are not of much importance. Yet it will disarm one class of critics if I admit at the outset that in my opinion the effects of this scholastic pilgrimage will in general be wholesome. The mere experience of different academic methods and a different intellectual atmosphere seems calculated both to broaden and to deepen the mind; it corresponds in a measure to the “grand tour,” which used to be considered such an essential part of the education of young English noblemen. The substance, too, of German teaching is always rich, and often useful. But in certain cases, or on certain subjects, it may be the reverse of useful; and the question presents itself, therefore, to every American student on his way to Germany, whether the particular professor whom he has in view is a recognized authority on his subject, or, in a slightly different form, whether the subject itself is anywhere taught in Germany in a way which it is desirable for him to adopt.

In regard to many departments of study, doubts like these can indeed hardly ever arise. No very strong feeling is likely to be excited among the friends and neighbors and constituents of a young American about the views which he will probably acquire in Germany on the reforms of Servius Tullius, or the formation of the Macedonian phalanx, or the pronunciation of Sanskrit. Here the scientific spirit and the acquired results of its employment are equally good. But there are other branches of inquiry, in which, though the method may be good, the doctrines are at least open to question.

One of these is social science, using the term in its very broadest sense, and making it include not only what the late Professor von Mohl called Gesellschafts-Wissenschaft, that is, social science in the narrower sense, but also finance, the philosophy of the state, and even law in some of its phases.

The rise of the new school of economists in Germany is undoubtedly one of the most remarkable phenomena of modern times. The school is scarcely twenty years old. Dr. Rodbertus, the founder of it, had to fight his cause for years against the combined opposition of the professors, the governments, the press, and the public. Yet his tentative suggestions have grown into an accepted body of doctrine, which is to-day taught by authority in nearly every German university, is fully adopted by Prince Bismarck, and has in part prevailed even with the imperial Diet.

The Catheder-Socialisten are not unknown, at least by name, even to the casual reader of current literature. They are men who teach socialism from the chairs of the universities. It is not indeed a socialism which uses assassination as an ally, or has any special antipathy to crowned heads: it is peaceful, orderly, and decorous; it wears academic robes, and writes learned and somewhat tiresome treatises in its own defense. But it is essentially socialistic, and in one sense even revolutionary. It has displaced, or rather grown out of, the so-called “historical school” of political economists, as this in its time was a revolt against the school of Adam Smith. The “historical” economists charged against the English school that it was too deductive, too speculative, and insisted on too wide an application of conclusions which were in fact only locally true. Their dissent was, however, cautious and qualified, and questioned not so much the results of the English school as the manner of reaching them. Their successors, more courageous or less prudent, reject even the English doctrines. This means that they are, above all things, protectionists.

It follows, accordingly, that the young Americans who now study political economy in Germany are nearly certain to return protectionists; and protectionists, too, in a sense in which the term has not hitherto been understood in this country. They are scientific protectionists; that is, they believe that protective duties can be defended by something better than the selfish argument of special industries, and have a broad basis of economic truth. The “American system” is likely, therefore, to have in the future the support of American economic science.

To this extent, the influence of German teachings will be welcome to American manufacturers. But protection is with the Germans only part of a general scheme, or an inference from their main doctrine; and this will not, perhaps, find so ready acceptance in this country. For “the socialists of the chair” are not so much economical as political protectionists. They are chiefly significant as the representatives of a certain theory of the state, which has not hitherto found much support in America. This will be belter understood after a brief historical recapitulation.

The mercantile system found, when it appeared two centuries ago, a ready reception in Prussia, both on economic and on political grounds. It was singularly adapted to the form of government which grew up at Berlin after the forcible suppression of the Diets. Professor Roscher compares Frederick William I. to Colbert; and it is certain not only that the king understood the economic meaning of the system, but also that the administration which he organized was admirably fitted to carry it out. Frederick the Great was the victim of the same delusion. In his reign, as in the reign of his father, it was considered to be the duty of the state to take charge of every subject affecting the social and pecuniary interests of the people, and to regulate such subjects by the light of a superior bureaucratic wisdom. It was, in short, paternal government in its most highly developed form. But in the early part of this century it began, owing to three cooperating causes, to decline. The first cause was the circumstance that the successors of Frederick were not fitted, like him and his father, to conduct the system with the patient personal attention and the robust intelligence which its success required of the head of the state. The second influence was the rise of new schools of political economy and of political philosophy, and the general diffusion of sounder views of social science. And in the third place, the French Revolution, the Napoleonic wars, and the complete destruction of the ancient bases of social order in Germany revealed the defects of the edifice itself, and made a reconstruction on new principles not only possible, but even necessary.

The consequence was the agrarian reforms of Stein and Hardenberg, the restoration to the towns of some degree of self-government, the agitation for parliaments, which even the Congress of Vienna had to recognize, and other measures or efforts in the direction of decentralization and popular enfranchisement. King Frederick William III. appointed to the newly created Ministry of Instruction and Public Worship William von Humboldt, the author of a treatise on the limits of the state’s power, which a century earlier would have been burned by the common hangman. In 1818 Prussia adopted a new tariff, which was a wide departure from the previous policy, and in its turn paved the way for the Zollverein, which struck down the commercial barriers between the different German states, and practically accepted the principle of free trade. The course of purely political emancipation was indeed arrested for a time by the malign influence of Metternich, but even this was resumed after 1848. In respect to commercial policy there was no reaction. That the events of 1866 and 1870, leading to the formation, first, of the North German Confederation, and then of the Empire, were expected to favor, and not to check, the work of liberation, and down to a certain point did favor it, is matter of familiar recent history. The doctrines of the Manchester school were held by the great body of the people, taught by the professors, and embodied in the national policy, so far as they concerned freedom of trade. On their political side, too, they were accepted by a large and influential class of liberals. Few Germans held, indeed, the extreme “non-interference” theory of government; but the prevailing tone of thought, and even the general policy of legislation, was, until about ten years ago, in favor of unburdening the state of some of its usurped charges; of enlarging in the towns and counties the sphere of self-government; and of granting to individuals a new degree of initiative in respect to economical and industrial interests.

But about the middle of the past decade the current began to turn. The revolt from the doctrines of the Manchester school, initiated, as has been stated, by a few men, and not at first looked on with favor by governments, gradually acquired both numbers and credit. The professors one by one joined the movement. And finally, when Prince Bismarck threw his powerful weight into the scale, the utilitarians were forced upon the defensive. They had to resist first of all the Prussian scheme for the acquisition of private railways by the state, and they were defeated. They were next called upon to defend in the whole Empire the cause of free trade. This battle, too, they lost, and in an incredibly short space of time protection, which had been discredited for half a century, was fully restored. Then the free city of Hamburg was robbed of its ancient privileges, and forced to accept the common yoke. Some minor socialistic schemes of the chancellor have been, indeed, temporarily frustrated by the Diet, but repeated efforts will doubtless break down the resistance. The policy even attacks the functions of the Diet itself, as is shown both by actual projects and by the generally changed attitude of the government toward parliamentary institutions.

Now, so far as protection is concerned, this movement may seem to many Americans to be in principle a return to wisdom. In fact, not even American protectionists enjoy the imposition of heavy duties on their exported products; but the recognition of their system of commercial policy by another state undoubtedly gives it a new strength and prestige, and they certainly regard it as an unmixed advantage that their sons, who go abroad to pursue the scientific study of political economy, will in Germany imbibe no heresies on the subject of tariff methods. Is this, however, all that they are likely to learn, and if not, will the rest prove equally commendable to the great body of thoughtful Americans? This is the same thing as asking whether local self-government, trial by jury, the common law, the personal responsibility of officials, frequent elections, in short, all the priceless conquests of Anglican liberty, all that distinguishes England and America from the continent of Europe, are not as dear to the man who spins cotton into thread, or makes steel rails out of iron ore, as to any free-trade professor of political economy.

To state this question is to answer it; for it can be shown that, as a people, we have cause not for exultation, but for grave anxiety, over the class of students whom the German universities are annually sending back to America. If these pilgrims are faithful disciples of their masters, they do not return merely as protectionists, with their original loyalty to Anglo-American theories of government otherwise unshaken, but as the advocates of a political system which, if adopted and literally carried out, would wholly change the spirit of our institutions, and destroy all that is oldest and noblest in our national life.

Protection, it was said above, is not the main doctrine of the German professors, but only an inference from their general system. It is not an economical, much less a financial, expedient. It is a policy which is derived from a theory of the state’s functions and duties; and this theory is in nearly every other respect radically different from that which prevails in this country. It assumes as postulates the ignorance of the individual and the omniscience of the government. The government, in this view, is therefore bound, not simply to abstain from malicious interference with private enterprises, not simply so to adjust taxation that all interests may receive equitable treatment, but positively to exercise a fatherly care over each and every branch of production, and even to take many of them into its own hands. All organizations of private capital are regarded with suspicion; they are at best tolerated, not encouraged. Large enterprises are to be undertaken by the state; and even the petty details of the retail trade are to be controlled to an extent which would seem intolerable to American citizens.

And this is not the whole, or, perhaps, the worst.

The “state,” in this system, means the central government, and, besides that, a government removed as far as possible from parliamentary influence and public opinion. The superior wisdom, which in industrial affairs is to take the place of individual sagacity, means, as in the time of Frederick the Great, the wisdom of the bureaucracy. Now it may be freely granted that in Prussia, and even throughout the rest of the Empire, this is generally wisdom of a high order. It is represented by men whose integrity is above suspicion. But the principle of the system is not the less obnoxious, and its tendencies, if introduced in this country, could not be otherwise than deplorable.

This proposition, if the German school has been correctly described, needs no further defense. If Americans are prepared to accept the teachings of Wagner, Held, Schmoller, and others, with all which those teachings imply, — a paternal government, a centralized political authority, a bureaucratic administration, Roman law, and trial by executive judges,— the new school of German publicists will be wholly unobjectionable. But before such a system can be welcome, the American nature must first be radically changed.

There are, indeed, evidences other than that of protection — which it has been shown is not commonly defended on political grounds — that this change has already made some progress. One of these is the growing fashion of looking to legislation, that is, to the state, for relief in cases where individual or at least privately organized collective effort ought to suffice. It is a further evil, too, that the worst legislatures are invariably the ones which most promptly respond to such demands. The recent act of the State of New York making the canals free, though not indefensible in some of its aspects, was an innovation the more significant since the leading argument of its supporters was distinctly and grossly socialistic. This was the argument that free canals would make low freights, and low freights would give the poor man cheaper bread. For this end the property of the State is henceforth to be taxed. A movement of the same nature, and on a larger scale, is that for a government telegraph; and if successful, the next scheme will be to have the railways likewise acquired by the separate States, or the Union. Other illustrations might be given, but these show the tendency to which allusion is made. It is significant that such projects can be even proposed; but that they can be seriously discussed, and some of them actually adopted, shows that the stern jealousy of governmental interference, the disposition rigidly to circumscribe the state’s sphere of action, which once characterized the people of the republic, has lost, though unconsciously, a large part of its force. No alarm or even surprise is now excited by propositions which the founders of the Union would have pronounced fatal to free government. Some other symptoms, though of a more subtle kind, are the multiplication of codes; the growing use of written procedure, not only in the courts and in civil administration, but even in legislation; and, generally speaking, the tendency to adopt the dry, formal, pedantic method of the continent, thereby losing the old English qualities of ease, flexibility, and natural strength.

But, as already said, the bearings of schemes like those above mentioned are rarely perceived even by their strongest advocates. They are casual expedients, not steps in the development of a systematic theory of the state. Indeed, their authors and friends would be perhaps the first to resent the charge that they were in conflict with the political traditions of America, or likely to prepare the way for the reception of new and subversive doctrines. Yet nothing better facilitates a revolution in a people’s modes or habits of thought than just such a series of practical measures. The time at length arrives when some comprehensive genius, or a school of sympathetic thinkers, calmly codifies these preliminary though unsuspected concessions, and makes them the basis of a firm, complete, and symmetrical structure. It is then found that long familiarity with some of the details in practice makes it comparatively simple for a people to accept the whole system as a conviction of the mind.

Such a school has not hitherto existed in this country. There have of course always been shades of difference between publicists and philosophers in regard to the speculative view taken of the state and the division between governmental patronage and private exertion has not always been drawn along the same line. But these differences have been neither great nor constant. They distinguished rather varieties of the same system than different and radically hostile systems. The most zealous and advanced of the former champions of state interference would now probably be called utilitarians by the pupils of the new German school.

It has been the purpose of this paper to describe briefly the tendencies of that school, and to indicate the effects which its patronage by American youth is likely to have on the future of our political thought. The opinion was expressed that much more is acquired in Germany than a mere belief in the economic wisdom of protection. And it may be added, to make the case stronger, that the German system of socialism may be learned without the doctrine of protection on its economic side. For the university socialists assert only the right, or at most the duty, of the state actively to interfere in favor of the industrial interests of society. The exercise of this right or the fulfillment of this duty may, in a given case, lead to a protective tariff; in Germany, at present, it does take that form. But in another case it may lead to free trade. The decision is to be determined by the economic circumstances of the country and the moment; only it is to be positive and active even if in favor of free trade, and not a merely negative attitude of indifference. In other words, free trade is not assumed to be the normal condition of things, and protection the exception. Both alike require the active intervention of government in the performance of its duty to society.

But with or without protection, the body of the German doctrine is full of plausible yet vicious errors, which few reflecting Americans would care to see introduced and become current in their own country. The prevailing idea is that of the ignorance and weakness of the individual, the omniscience and omnipotence of the state. This is not yet, in spite of actual institutions and projected measures, the accepted American view.

Now I am not one of those who are likely to condemn a thing because it is foreign. It may be frankly conceded that in the present temper of German politics, and even of German social and political science, there is much that is admirable and worthy of imitation. The selection of trained men alone for administrative office, the great lesson that individual convenience must often yield to the welfare of society, the conception of the dignity of politics and the majesty of the state, — these are things which we certainly need to learn, and which Germany can both teach and illustrate. But side by side with such fundamental truths stand the most mischievous fallacies, and an enthusiastic student is not always sure to make the proper selection.

It seems to me that in political doctrine, as in so many other intellectual concerns of society, this country is now passing through an important crisis. We are engaged in a struggle between the surviving traditions of our English ancestors and the influence of different ideas acquired by travel and study on the continent. It is by no means certain, however desirable, that victory will rest with those literary, educational, and political instincts which we acquired with our English blood, and long cherished as among our most precious possessions. The tendency now certainly is in a different direction, as has already been discovered by foreign observers. Some of Tocqueville’s acute observations have nearly lost their point. Mr. Frederic Pollock, in an essay recently published by an English periodical, mentions the gradual approach of America toward continental views of law and the state. There is, undoubtedly, among the American people a large conservative element, which, if its attention were once aroused, would show an unconquerable attachment to those principles of society and government common to all the English peoples, under whatever sky they may be found. But at present the current is evidently taking a different course.

It would, however, be a grave mistake to regard this hostile movement as a forward one. Not everything new is reform; but the socialist revival is not even new. Yet it is also not real conservatism. The true American conservatives, in the present crisis, are the men who not only respect the previous achievements of Anglo-Saxon progress, but also wisely adhere to the same order of progress, with a view to continued benefits in the future; while their enemies, though in one sense radicals, are in another simply the disguised servants of reaction, since they reject both the hopes of the future and the lessons of the past. They bring forward as novelties in scholastic garb the antique errors of remote centuries. The same motives, the same spirit, the same tendency, can be ascribed to the agrarian laws of the Gracchi, the peasant uprisings in the Middle Ages, the public granaries of Frederick the Great, the graduated income-tax of Prussia, the Land League agitation in Ireland, the river and harbor bills in this country. They differ only in the degree in which special circumstances may seem to render a given measure more or less justifiable.

The special consideration is, however, this: these successive measures and manifestations, whether they have an organic connection or only an accidental resemblance, reveal no improvement whatever in quality, no progress in social enlightenment. The records of political government from the earliest dawn of civilization will be searched in vain for a more reckless and brutal measure of class legislation than the Bland silver bill, which an American Congress passed in the year 1878.

It is the same with the pompous syllogisms on which the German professors are trying to build up their socialistic theory of the state. Everything which they have to say was said far better by Plato two thousand years ago. If they had absolute control of legislation, they could not surpass the work of Lycurgus. It is useless for them to try to hide their plagiarism under a cloud of pedantic sophistry; for the most superficial critic will not fail to see that, instead of originating, they are only borrowing, and even borrowing errors of theory and of policy which have been steadily retreating before the advance of political education.

If the question were asked, What more, perhaps, than anything else distinguishes the modern from the ancient state, and distinguishes it favorably? the unhesitating reply from every candid person would be, The greater importance conceded to the individual. We have attained this result through a long course of arduous and painful struggles. The progress has not, indeed, been uninterrupted, nor its bearings always perceived; but the general, and through large periods of time uniform, tendency has been to disestablish and disarm the state, to reduce government to narrow limits, and to assert the dignity of the individual citizen. And now the question is, Shall this line of progress be abruptly abandoned? Shall we confess that we have been all this time moving only in a circle; that what we thought was progress in a straight line is only revolution in a fixed orbit; and that society is doomed to return to the very point from which it started? The academic socialism invites us to begin the backward march, but must its invitation be accepted?

Herbert Tuttle.

____________________________

THE HISTORICAL WORK OF PROF. HERBERT TUTTLE.

Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1894, pp. 29-37.
Washington, D. C.: GPO, 1896.

By Prof. Herbert B. Adams, of Johns Hopkins University.

Since the Chicago meeting of the American Historical Association one of its most active workers in the field of European history has passed away. Prof. Herbert Tuttle, of Cornell University, was perhaps our only original American scholar in the domain of Prussian history. Several of our academic members have lectured upon Prussia, but Tuttle was an authority upon the subject. Prof. Rudolf Gneist, of the University of Berlin, said to Chapman Coleman, United States secretary of legation in Berlin, that Tuttle’s History of Frederick the Great was the best written. The Pall Mall Gazette, July 11, 1888, in reviewing the same work, said: “This is a sound and solid piece of learning, and shows what good service America is doing in the field of history.”¹

¹One of Professor Tuttle’s Cornell students, Mr. U. G. Weatherby, wrote to him from Heidelberg, October, 1893: “You will probably be interested to know that I have called on Erdmannsdörffer, who, on learning that I was from Cornell, mentioned you and spoke most flatteringly of your History of Prussia, which he said had a peculiar interest to him as showing an American’s views of Frederick the Great. Erdmannsdörffer is a pleasant man in every way and an attractive lecturer.” The Heidelberg professor is himself an authority upon Prussian history. He has edited the Urkunden und Aktenstücke zur Geschichte des Kurfürsten Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg, a long series of volumes devoted to the documentary history of the period of the Great Elector.

It is the duty of the American Historical Association to put on record the few biographical facts which Professor Tuttle’s friends have been able to discover. Perhaps a more complete account may some day be written.

Herbert Tuttle was born November 29, 1846, in Bennington, Vt. Upon that historic ground, near one of the battlefields of the American Revolution, was trained the coming historian of the wars of Frederick. Herbert Tuttle went to college at Burlington, where he came under the personal influence of James B. Angell, then president of the University of Vermont and now ex-president of the American Historical Association. Dr. Angell was one of the determining forces in Mr. Tuttle’s later academic career, which began in the University of Michigan.

Among the permanent traits of Mr. Tuttle’s character, developed by his Vermont training, were (1) an extraordinary soundness of judgment, (2) a remarkably quick wit, and (3) a passionate love of nature. The beautiful environment of Burlington, on Lake Champlain, the strength of the hills, the keenness of the air, the good sense, the humor, and shrewdness of the people among whom he lived and worked, had their quickening influence upon the young Vermonter. President Buckham, of the University of Vermont, recently said of Mr. Tuttle: “I have the most vivid recollection of his brilliancy as a writer on literary and historic themes, a branch of the college work then in my charge. We shall cherish his memory as one of the treasures of the institution.”

Herbert Tuttle, like all true Americans, was deeply interested in politics. The subject of his commencement oration was “Political faith,” and to his college ideal he always remained true. To the end of his active life he was laboring with voice and pen for the cause of civic reform. Indeed, his whole career, as journalist, historian, and teacher, is the direct result of his interest in politics, which is the real life of society. From Burlington, where he was graduated in 1869, he went to Boston, where for nearly two years he was on the editorial staff of the Boston Advertiser. His acuteness as an observer and as a critic was here further developed. He widened his personal acquaintance and his social experience. He became interested in art, literature, and the drama. His desire was quickened for travel and study in the Old World.

We next find young Tuttle in Paris for nearly two years, acting as correspondent for the Boston Advertiser and the New York Tribune. He attended lectures at the Sorbonne and Collège de France. He made the acquaintance of Guizot, who recommended for him a course of historical reading. He contributed an article to Harper’s Monthly on the Mont de Piété. He wrote an article for the Atlantic Monthly in 1872 on French Democracy. The same year he published an editorial on the Alabama claims in the Journal des Débats. About the same time he wrote letters to the New York Tribune on the Geneva Arbitration. Tuttle’s work for the Tribune was so good that Mr. George W. Smalley, its well-known London representative, recommended him for the important position of Berlin correspondent for the London Daily News. This salaried office Tuttle held for six years (1873-1879), during which time he enjoyed the best of opportunities for travel and observation in Germany, Austria, Russia, and the Danube provinces. Aside from his letters to the London Daily News, some of the fruits of these extended studies of European politics appear in a succession of articles in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1872-73: “The parliamentary leaders of Germany;” “Philosophy of the Falk laws;” “The author of the Falk laws;” “Club life in Berlin.”

In 1876 was published by the Putnams in New York, Tuttle’s book on German political leaders. From 1876 to 1879, when he returned to America, Tuttle was a busy foreign correspondent for the great English daily and a contributor to American magazines. Among his noteworthy articles are: (1) Prussian Wends and their home (Harper’s Monthly, March, 1876); (2) Naturalization treaty with Germany (The Nation, 1877); (3) Parties and politics in Germany (Fortnightly Review, 1877); (1) Die Amerikanischen Wahlen (Die Gegenwart, (October, 1878); (5) Reaction in Germany (The Nation, June, 1879); (6) German Politics (Fortnightly Review, August, 1879).

While living in Berlin Mr. Tuttle met Miss Mary McArthur Thompson, of Hillsboro, Highland County, Ohio, a young lady of artistic tastes, whom he married July 6, 1875. In Berlin he also met President Andrew D. White, of Cornell University, who was then our American minister in Germany. Like Dr. Angell, President White was a determining influence in Tuttle’s career. Mr. White encouraged him in his ambitious project of writing a history of Prussia, for which he began to collect materials as early as 1875. More than one promising young American was discovered in Berlin by Mr. White. At least three were invited by him to Cornell University to lecture on their chosen specialties: Herbert Tuttle on history and international law, Henry C. Adams on economics, and Richard T. Ely on the same subject. All three subsequently became university professors.

Before going to Cornell University, however, Mr. Tuttle accepted an invitation in September, 1880, to lecture on international law at the University of Michigan during the absence of President Angell as American minister in China. Thus the personal influence first felt at the University of Vermont was renewed after an interval of ten years, and the department of President Angell was temporarily handed over to his former pupil. In the autumn of 1881 Mr. Tuttle was appointed lecturer on international law at Cornell University for one semester, but still continued to lecture at Ann Arbor. In 1883 he was made associate professor of history and theory of politics and international law at Ithaca. In 1887, by vote of the Cornell trustees, he was elected to a full professorship. I have a letter from him, written March 10, the very day of his appointment, saying:

You will congratulate me on my election, which took place to-day, as full professor. The telegraphic announcements which you may see in the newspapers putting me into the law faculty may be misleading unless I explain that my title is, I believe, professor of the history of political and municipal institutions in the regular faculty. But on account of my English Constitutional History and International Law, I am also put in the law faculty, as is Tyler for American Constitutional History and Law.

Professor Tuttle was one of the original members of the American Historical Association, organized ten years ago at Saratoga, September 9-10, 1884. His name appears in our first annual report (Papers of the American Historical Association, Vol. I, p. 43). At the second annual meeting of the association, held in Saratoga, September 10, 1885, Professor Tuttle made some interesting remarks upon “New materials for the history of Frederick the Great of Prussia.” By new materials he meant such as had come to light since Carlyle wrote his Life of Frederick. After mentioning the more recent German works, like Arneth’s Geschichte Maria Theresa, Droysen’s Geschichte der preussischen Politik, the new edition of Ranke, the Duc de Broglie’s Studies in the French Archives, and the Publications of the Russian Historical Society, Mr. Tuttle called attention to the admirable historical work lately done in Prussia in publishing the political correspondence of Frederick the Great, including every important letter written by Frederick himself, or by secretaries under his direction, bearing upon diplomacy or public policy.

At the same meeting of the association, Hon. Eugene Schuyler gave some account of the historical work that had been done in Russia. The author of The Life of Peter the Great, which first appeared in the Century Magazine, and the author of The History of Prussia under Frederick the Great were almost inseparable companions at that last Saratoga meeting of this association in 1885. I joined them on one or two pleasant excursions and well remember their good fellowship and conversation. Both men were somewhat critical with regard to our early policy, but Mr. Tuttle in subsequent letters to me indicated a growing sympathy with the object of the association, which, by the constitution, is declared to be “the promotion of historical studies.” In the letter above referred to, he said:

You will receive a letter from Mr. Winsor about a paper which I suggested for the Historical Association. It is by our fellow in history, Mr. Mills, and is an account of the diplomatic negotiations, etc., which preceded the seven years’ war, from sources which have never been used in English. As you know, I am as a rule opposed to presenting in the association papers which have been prepared in seminaries, but as there will probably be little on European history I waive the principle.

After the appearance of the report of our fourth annual meeting, held in Boston and Cambridge May 21-24, 1887, Mr. Tuttle wrote, October 18, 1888, expressing his gratification with the published proceedings, and adding, “I think the change from Columbus to Washington a wise one.” There had been some talk of holding the annual meeting of the association in the State capital of Ohio, in order to aid in the commemoration of the settlement of the Old Northwest Territory.

From the time of his return to America until the year 1888 Mr. Tuttle continued to make valuable contributions to periodical literature. The following list illustrates his general literary activity from year to year:

1880. Germany and Russia; Russia as viewed by Liberals and Tories; Lessons from the Prussian Civil Service. (The Nation, April.)
1881. The German Chancellor and the Diet. (The Nation, April.)
1881. The German Empire. (Harper’s Monthly, September.)
1882. Some Traits of Bismarck. (Atlantic Monthly, February.)
1882. The Eastern Question. (Atlantic Monthly, June.)
1883. A Vacation in Vermont. (Harper’s Monthly, November.)
1884. Peter the Great. (Atlantic Monthly, July.)
1884. The Despotism of Party. (Atlantic Monthly, September.)
1885. John DeWitt. (The Dial, December.)
1886. Pope and Chancellor. (The Cosmopolitan, August.)
1886. Lowe’s Life of Bismarck. (The Dial.)
1887. The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre. (The Dial, January.)
1887. Frederick the Great and Madame de Pompadour. (Atlantic Monthly, January.)
1888. The Outlook in Germany. (The Independent, June.)
1888. History of Prussia under Frederick the Great, 2 vols. (Houghton, Mifflin & Co.)
1888. The Value of English Guarantees. (New York Times. February.)
1888. The Emperor William. (Atlantic Monthly, May.)

The great work of Professor Tuttle was his History of Prussia, upon which he worked for more then ten years after his return from Germany. From November, 1879, until October, 1883, Mr. Tuttle was engaged upon the preparation of his first volume, which covers the history of Prussia from 1134 to 1740, or to the accession of Frederick the Great. He said in his preface that he purposed to describe the political development of Prussia and had made somewhat minute researches into the early institutions of Brandenburg. Throughout the work he paid special attention to the development of the constitution.

Mr. Tuttle had brought home from Germany many good materials which he had himself collected, and he was substantially aided by the cooperation of President White. Regarding this practical service, Professor Tuttle, in the preface to his Frederick the Great, said:

When, on the completion of my first volume of Prussian history, he [President White] learned that the continuation of the work might be made difficult, or at least delayed, by the scarcity of material in America he generously offered me what was in effect an unlimited authority to order in his name any books that might be necessary; so that I was enabled to obtain a large and indispensable addition to the historical work already present in Mr. White’s own noble library and in that of the university.

Five years after the appearance of the first volume was published Tuttle’s History of Prussia under Frederick the Great. One volume covered the subject from 1740 to 1745; another from 1745 to 1750. At the time of his death Mr. Tuttle left ready for the printer some fifteen chapters of the third volume of his “Frederick,” or the fourth volume of the History of Prussia. He told his wife that the wars of Frederick would kill him. We know how Carlyle toiled and worried over that terribly complex period of European history represented by the wars and diplomacy of the Great Frederick. In his preface to his “Frederick” Mr. Tuttle said that he discovered during a residence of several years in Berlin how inadequate was Carlyle’s account, and probably also his knowledge, of the working system of the Prussian Government in the eighteenth century. Again the American writer declared the distinctive purpose of his own work to be a presentation of “the life of Prussia as a State, the development of polity, the growth of institutions, the progress of society.” He said he had been aided in his work “by a vast literature which has grown up since the time of Carlyle.” The description of that literature in Tuttle’s preface is substantially his account of that subject as presented to the American Historical Association at Saratoga in 1885.

In his Life of Frederick, Mr. Tuttle took occasion to clear away many historical delusions which Carlyle and Macaulay had perpetuated. Regarding this wholesome service the Pall Mall Gazette, July 11, 1888, said:

It is quite refreshing to read a simple account of Maria Theresa’s appeal to the Hungarians at Presburg without the “moriamur pro rege nostro” or the “picturesque myths” that have gathered around it. Most people, too, will surely he glad to learn from Mr. Tuttle that there is no foundation for the story of that model wife and mother addressing Mme. de Pompadour as “dear cousin” in a note, as Macaulay puts it, “full of expressions of esteem and friendship.” “The text of such a pretended letter had never been given,” and Maria Theresa herself denied that she had ever written to the Pompadour.

In the year 1891, at his own request, Professor Tuttle was transferred to the chair of modern European history, which he held as long as he lived. Although in failing health, he continued to work upon his History of Prussia until 1892 and to lecture to his students until the year before he died. A few days before his death he looked over the manuscript chapters which he had prepared for his fourth volume of the History of Prussia and said he would now devote himself to their completion; but the next morning he arose and exclaimed, “The end! the end! the end!” He died June 21, 1894, from a general breakdown. His death occurred on commencement day, when he had hoped to thank the board of trustees for their generous continuation of his full salary throughout the year of his disability. One of his colleagues, writing to the New York Tribune, July 18, 1891, said:

It was a significant fact that he died on this day, and that his many and devoted friends, his colleagues, and grateful students should still he present to attend the burial service and carry his body on the following day to its resting place. A proper site for his grave is to be chosen from amid the glorious scenery of this time-honored cemetery, where the chimes of Cornell University will still ring over his head, and the student body in passing will recall the man of brilliant attainment and solid worth, the scholar of untiring industry, and the truthful, able historian, and will more and more estimate the loss to American scholarship and university life.

One of Professor Tuttle’s favorite students, Herbert E. Mills, now professor of history at Vassar College, wrote as follows to the New York Evening Post, July 27, 1894:

In the death of Professor Tuttle the writing and teaching of history has suffered a great loss. The value of his work both as an investigator and as a university teacher is not fully appreciated except by those who have read his books carefully or have had the great pleasure and benefit of study under his direction. Among the many able historical lecturers that have been connected with Cornell University no one stood higher in the estimation of the students than Professor Tuttle.

Another of Professor Tuttle’s best students, Mr. Ernest W. Huffcut, of Cornell University, says of him:

He went by instinct to the heart of every question and had a power and grace of expression which enabled him to lay bare the precise point in issue. As an academic lecturer he had few equals here or elsewhere in those qualities of clearness, accuracy, and force which go farthest toward equipping the successful teacher. He was respected and admired by his colleagues for his brilliant qualities and his absolute integrity, and by those admitted to the closer relationship of personal friends he was loved for his fidelity and sympathy of a spirit which expanded and responded only under the influence of mutual confidence and affection.

President Schurman, of Cornell University, thus speaks of Professor Tuttle’s intellectual characteristics :

He was a man of great independence of spirit, of invincible courage, and of a high sense of honor; he had a keen and preeminently critical intellect and a ready gift of lucid and forceful utterance ; his scholarship was generous and accurate, and he had the scholar’s faith in the dignity of letters.

The first president of this association, and ex-president of Cornell University, Andrew D. White, in a personal letter said:

I have always prized my acquaintance with Mr. Tuttle. The first things from his pen I ever saw revealed to me abilities of no common order, and his later writings and lectures greatly impressed me. I recall with special pleasure the first chapters I read in his Prussian history, which so interested me that, although it was late in the evening, I could not resist the impulse to go to him at once to give him my hearty congratulations. I recall, too, with pleasure our exertions together in the effort to promote reform in the civil service. In this, as in all things, he was a loyal son of his country.

Another ex-president of the American Historical Association, Dr. James B. Angell, president of the University of Michigan, said of Mr. Tuttle:

Though his achievements as professor and historian perhaps exceed in value even the brilliant promise of his college days, yet the mental characteristics of the professor and historian were easily traced in the work of the young student. * * * By correspondence with him concerning his plans and ambitions, I have been able to keep in close touch with him almost to the time of his death. His aspirations were high and noble. He would not sacrifice his ideals of historical work for any rewards of temporary popularity. The strenuousness with which in his college work he sought for the exact truth clung to him to the end. The death of such a scholar in the very prime of his strength is indeed a serious loss for the nation and for the cause of letters.

At the funeral of Professor Tuttle, held June 23 in Sage Chapel, at Cornell University, Prof. Charles M. Tyler said:

Professor Tuttle was a brilliant scholar, a scrupulous historian, and what luster he had gained in the realm of letters you all know well. He possessed an absolute truthfulness of soul. He was impatient of exaggeration of statement, for he thought exaggeration was proof of either lack of conviction or weakness of judgment. His mind glanced with swift penetration over materials of knowledge, and with great facility he reduced order to system, possessing an intuitive power to divine the philosophy of events. Forest and mountain scenery appealed to his fine apprehensions, and his afflicted consort assures me that his love of nature, of the woods, the streams, the flowers and birds, constituted almost a religion. It was through nature that his spirit rose to exaltation of belief. He would say, “The Almighty gives the seeds of my flowers — God gives us sunshine to-day,” and would frequently repeat the words of Goethe, “The sun shines after its old manner, and all God’s works are as splendid as on the first day.” (New York Tribune, July 15, 1894.)

Bishop Huntington, who knew Mr. Tuttle well, said of him in the Gospel Messenger, published at Syracuse, N. Y.:

He seemed to be always afraid of overdoing or oversaying. With uncommon abilities and accomplishments, as a student and writer, in tastes and sympathies, he may be said to have been fastidious. Such men win more respect than popularity, and are most valued after they die.

Image Source: Herbert Tuttle Portrait. Cornell University. Campus Art and Artifacts, artsdb_0335.

Tags AdamsHenryC, Ely

Amherst Brown Bryn Mawr Columbia Cornell Harvard Indiana Johns Hopkins Michigan Nebraska Pennsylvania Princeton Smith Vassar Wellesley Williams Yale

Economics Courses at 17 U.S. Colleges and Universities 1890-91

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2016-02-06

COURSES IN ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SCIENCE,
AMERICAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.
[1890-91]

Amherst College
Brown University
Bryn Mawr College
Columbia College
Cornell University
Harvard University
Johns Hopkins University
Indiana University
University of Michigan
University of Nebraska
College of New Jersey (Princeton)
University of Pennsylvania
Smith College
Vassar College
Wellesley College
Williams College
Yale University

AMHERST COLLEGE, AMHERST, MASS.

Department of History and Political Science, 1890-91, includes:

History.—The first course extends through Junior year. It begins with an introductory outline of ancient history, in which the aim is acquaintance with the contributions of each period and people to general civilization. In the fuller study of mediaeval and modern history which follows the same aim is pursued. The political development of England and the United States receives particular attention. The second course extends through the first and second terms of Senior year. Its theme is the political and constitutional history of the United States. In each course the means of instruction are text-books, lectures, regular and frequent examinations, abstracts and essays upon topics assigned each student.

Political Economy.—The course extends through Senior year. The first term is devoted to theoretical political economy ; the second to the Labor Question, Socialism, and the relations of the state to transportation; the third to Finance, the Principles of Taxation, Public Credit, and Tariffs.

International Law.—This study is one of the electives of the third term of Senior year.

The methods of instruction in political economy and international law are like those in history.
Annual tuition fee, full college course, $110.
No scholarships nor prizes in department above mentioned.

BROWN UNIVERSITY, PROVIDENCE, R. I.

Department of History and Political Science, 1890-91, includes:

HISTORY.

(4) Political and Constitutional History of European and American States during recent years. 3 hrs., first half-year, Seniors, Prof. Jameson.
(5) History of International Law during recent years. 3 hrs., second half-year, Seniors, Prof. Jameson.
And four Honor Courses.

POLITICAL ECONOMY

(1) Elementary Course. 3 hrs., first half-year, Seniors, Mr. Fisher.
(2) Advanced Course. 3 hrs., second half-year, Seniors, Mr. Fisher.
And Honor Courses.

Tuition fee, $100.
The University has about one hundred scholarships, details concerning which can be learned from the Registrar.

BRYN MAWR COLLEGE, BRYN MAWR, PA. (For Women.)

Programme for 1891 includes:

POLITICAL SCIENCE:
MINOR COURSE.

First Semester.—Political Economy.
Second Semester.—Political Institutions.

MAJOR COURSE.

First Semester.—Advanced Political Economy, Administration.
Second Semester.—International Law, and in alternate years Political Theories.

GRADUATE COURSE INCLUDES:

Modern Theories of Sociology. Franklin H. Giddings, Associate in Political Science.

Tuition irrespective of number courses attended, $100 a year.
Five fellowships are awarded annually, none, however, in foregoing studies. They entitle the holder to free tuition, a furnished room in the college buildings, and $350 yearly.

COLUMBIA COLLEGE, NEW YORK CITY.

University Faculty of Political Science, 1890-91, includes:

HISTORY.

(1) Mediaeval History. 2 hours a week, 1st session, Prof. Dunning.
(2) Modern History to 1815. 2 hours a week, 2d session, Prof. Goodnow.
(3) Modern History since 1815. 2 hours a week, 1st session, Prof. Munroe Smith.
(4) Political and Constitutional History of Europe. 4 hours a week, 1st session. Prof. Burgess.
(5) Political and Constitutional History of England to 1688. 2 hours a week, 1st session, Prof. Osgood.
(6) Political and Constitutional History of England since 1688. 2 hours a week, 2d session, Prof. Osgood.
(7) Political and Constitutional History of the United States. 4 hours a week, 2d session, Prof. Burgess.
(8) History of New York State. 2 hours a week, 2d session, Mr. Whitridge.
(9) History of the Relations Between England and Ireland, 1 hour through the year, Prof. Dunning.
(10) Historical and Political Geography. 1 hour through the year, Prof. Goonnow
(11) Seminarium in European History. 2 hours through the year, Prof. Osgood.
(12) Seminarium in American History. 2 hours through the year. Prof. Burgess.

POLITICAL ECONOMY.

(1) Elements of Political Economy. 2 hours a week, 2d session, Prof. Osgood.
(2) Historical and Practical Political Economy. 3 hours per week through the year, Prof. R. M. Smith.
(3) History of Economic Theories. 2 hours through the year, Prof. Seligman.
(4) Socialism and Communism. 2 hours per week through the year, Prof. R. M. Smith.
(5) Science of Finance. 2 hours per week through the year, Prof. Seligman.
(6) Financial History of the United States. 2 hours per week through the year, Prof. Seligman.
(7) Tariff History of the United States. 2 hours per week, 2d session, Prof. Seligman.
(8) State and Local Taxation. 1 hour per week through the year, Dr. Spahr.
(9) Statistics, Methods, and Results. 2 hours per week through the year, Prof. R. M. Smith.
(10) Railroad Problems. 2 hours per week through the year, Prof. Seligman.
(11) Ethnology. 2 hours per week through the year, Prof. R. M. Smith.
(12) Seminarium in Political Economy. 2 hours per week through the year, Profs. R. M. Smith and Seligman.
(13) Seminarium in Finance. 2 hours per week through the year, Prof. Seligman.
(14) Seminarium in Social Science and Statistics. 2 hours per week through the year, Prof. R. M. Smith.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.

(1) Comparative Constitutional Law of Europe and the United States. 3 hours per week. Prof. Burgess.
(2) Comparative Constitutional Law of the Commonwealths of the United States. 2 hours per week, 2d session, Dr. Bernheim.
(3) Administrative Organization and the Civil Service of Europe and the United States. 3 hours per week, 1st session, Prof. Goodnow.
(4) Administrative Action: Police Power, Education, Public Charity, Transportation, etc. 3 hours a week, 2d session. Prof. Goodnow.
(5) Local Government. 2 hours a week, 1st session. Prof. Goodnow.
(6) Municipal Government. 2 hours a week, 2d session, Prof. Goodnow.
(7) Law of Taxation. 1 hour through the year, Prof. Goodnow.
(8) City and State Politics. 1 hour per week through the year, Dr. Bernheim.
(9) Seminarium in Constitutional Law. 2 hours a week through the year, Prof. Burgess.
(10) Seminarium in Administrative Law. 2 hours a week through the year, Prof. Goodnow.

DIPLOMACY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW.

(1) General History of Diplomacy. 2 hours per week, 1st session, Pi of. Burgess.
(2) Diplomatic History of the United States. 2 hours per week, 2d session, Dr. Bancroft.
(3) Principles of International Law. 2 hours per week, 2d session, Prof. Burgess.
(4) Seminarium in International Law. 2 hours per week through the year. Prof. Burgess and Dr. Bancroft.

LEGAL HISTORY AND COMPARATIVE JURISPRUDENCE.

(1) History of European Law to Justinian. 2 hours a week, 1st session, Prof. Munroe Smith.
(2) History of European Law from Justinian to the present day. 2 hours a week, 2d session, Prof. Munroe Smith.
(3) Comparative Jurisprudence. 2 hours a week through the year, Prof. Munroe Smith.
(4) International Private Law. 1 hour per week through the year. Prof. Munroe Smith.
(5) Seminarium in Comparative Legislation. 2 hours a week through the year, Prof. Munroe Smith.

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.

(1) History of Political Theories, Ancient and Mediaeval. 3 hours a week, 1st session. Prof. Dunning.
(2) History of Modern Political Theories. 3 hours a week, 2d session, Prof. Dunning.
(3) Seminarium in Political Theories of the 19th Century. 2 hours per week through the year, Prof. Dunning.

Some of the foregoing courses are given only in alternate years. During 1891-92 several new courses will be offered in History and in Sociology.

The course of study covers three years. The degree of A. B. or Ph.B. is conferred at the end of the first year, A.M. at the end of the second, and Ph.D. at the end of the third.
Tuition fee $150 a year, reducible on application to $100. Tuition fee for special courses, $10 for each one-hour course. Twenty-four University Fellowships of $500 each with free tuition, designed to foster original research, are awarded to advanced students in the University. A proportionate number are allotted to the Faculty of Political Science. Four additional fellowships of $250 each, with free tuition, are awarded annually to advanced students of Political Science. Three prize lectureships of $500 each for three years are awarded to graduates in Political Science.

For further information address the Registrar.

CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, N. Y.

Department of History and Political Science, 1890-91, includes:

HISTORY.

(4) Political and Social History of Europe During the Middle Ages. 1 hr. thrice a week, Asst. Prof. Burr.
(5) Political and Social History of Europe from the Renaissance to the French Revolution. 1 hr. thrice a week, Asst. Prof. Burr.
(6) Political and Social History of England from the Saxon Invasion to the Close of the Napoleonic Wars. 1 hr. thrice a week, Asst. Prof. Burr.
(7) Political, Social, and Constitutional History of Europe from Beginning of French Revolution of 1789 to the Franco-German War of 1870. 1 hr. thrice a week. Several lectures in this course from ex-Pres. White and Pres. Adams.
(12) American Constitutional History and American Constitutional Law. 1 hr. thrice a week, Prof. Tyler.
(13) American Historical Seminary for Seniors and Graduates, and for Juniors and Seniors. The original investigation of subjects in American Constitutional History. 2 hrs. a week, Prof. Tyler.
(14) History of Institutions. Fall term: General principles of political organization. Winter term: Growth of the English Constitution. Spring term: Methods of municipal administration. 1 hr. thrice a week, Prof. Tuttle.
(15) International Law and History of Diplomacy. 1 hr. twice a week, Prof. Tuttle.
(16) Literature of Political Science. 1 hr. a week, Prof. Tuttle.
(17) General Seminary. Study, from the sources, of obscure political and historical questions. 2 hrs. a week, Prof. Tuttle.

POLITICAL ECONOMY.

(19) Elementary course. Principles of Political Economy. Banking. Financial Legislation of the United States. 1 hr. thrice a week, Prof. Laughlin.
(20) Advanced Course. Discussion of economic writers and systems. Investigation of current economic topics: Bimetallism, Shipping, Railway Transportation. 1 hr. twice a week. Prof. Laughlin.
(21) History of Tariff Legislation of the United States. 1 hr. a week, Prof. Laughlin.
(22) Economic seminary. hrs. a week, Prof. Laughlin.

SOCIAL SCIENCE.

(26) Social Science, including the History and Management of Charitable and Penal Institutions. 1 hr. a week, Prof. Collin.

Tuition fee, $125 a year.

Fellowships, eight in number, yielding $400 for one year, or in cases of remarkable merit for two years, are offered for high proficiency in advanced study, without special reference to foregoing departments.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY, CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

Department of Political Economy, 1890-91, includes:

PRIMARILY FOR UNDERGRADUATES

(1) First half-year: Mill’s Principles of Political Economy. Second half-year: Division A (Theoretical)—Mill’s Principles of Political Economy. Cairnes’ Leading Principles of Political Economy. Division B (Descriptive)—Money, Finance, Railroads; Social Questions; Laughlin’s History of Bimetallism. Dunbar’s Chapters on Banking. Hadley’s Railroad Transportation. Lectures. 1 hr. thrice a week, Asst. Prof. Taussig, assisted by Mr, Cole.

All students in Course 1 will have the same work during the first half-year, but will be required in January to make their election between Divisions A and B for the second half- year. The work in Division A is required for admission to Course 2.

(4) Economic History of Europe and America since the Seven Years’ War. Lectures and written work. 1 hr. thrice a week, Prof. Dunbar, assisted by Mr. Cole.

COURSES FOR GRADUATES AND UNDERGRADUATES.

(2) History of Economic Theory. Examination of Selections from Leading Writers. Socialism. 1 hr. thrice a week, Asst. Prof. Taussig and Mr. Brooks.
(3) Investigation and Discussion of Practical Economic Questions. 1 hr. twice a week (first half-year), counting as a half course, Mr. Brooks.
(6) History of Tariff Legislation in the United States. Half course. 1 hr. thrice a week (second half-year). Asst. Prof. Taussig.
(8) History of Financial Legislation in the United States. 1 hr. twice a week (second half-year), counting as a half-course, Prof. Dunbar.
(7) Public Finance and Banking. Leroy-Beaulieu’s Science des Finances. 1 hr. twice a week, Prof. Dunbar.
(9) Railway Transportation. 1 hr. twice a week (second half-year), counting as a half- course, Asst. Prof. Taussig.

PRIMARILY FOR GRADUATES.

(20) Courses of Research.—Advanced Study and Research. Prof. Dunbar and Asst. Prof. Taussig.

Department of History, 1890-91, includes among Courses for Undergraduates:

(2) Constitutional Government (elementary course). Half course. 1 hr. thrice a week (first half-year), Prof. Macvane.
(9) Constitutional History of England to the Sixteenth Century. 1 hr. thrice a week, Dr. Gross.
(13) Constitutional and Political History of the United States (1783-1861). 1 hr. thrice a week, Asst. Prof. Hart.
(15) Elements of International Law. History of Treaties. 1 hr. thrice a week, Dr. Snow.
(22) Constitutional History of England to the Tudor Period, with attention to the sources. Dr. Gross.
(25) English Constitutional History from the Tudor Period to the Accession of George I. Mr. Bendelari.
(26) History of American Institutions to 1783. Asst. Prof. Channing.
(27) Constitutional Development of the United States. Discussion of Constitutional principles in connection with historical questions. Asst. Prof. Hart.
(29) Constitutional History of England since the Accession of George I. Second half- year. Prof. Macvane and Asst. Prof. Channing.
(30) Federal Government: historical and comparative. 1 hr. thrice a week (first half- year), Asst. Prof. Hart.
(31) Leading Principles of Constitutional Law: selected cases, American and English. 1 hr. thrice a week (second half-year), Prof. Macvane.
(32) The Historical Development of International Law. Dr. Snow.

And among Courses of Research:
(20b) The History of Local Government During the Middle Ages, especially in Great Britain: Seminary. Dr. Gross.
(20c) English History in the Period of the Long Parliament: Seminary. Mr. Bendelari.

The full annual tuition fee of a graduate student is $150. If a student has a degree in Arts, Letters, or Science, he enters the Graduate School, and finds any Courses in Political Science open to him which there is prima facie reason to suppose him prepared to take. If he has no degree he must apply for admission as a Special Student. Good cases are always favorably acted upon. The tuition fees of special students are: For any full elective course, $45; for a half course, $25 a year.

Among Fellowships are: One having income $450, for the study of Political Economy; another, income $500, for the study of Social Science; another, income $450, for the study of Ethics in its relation to Jurisprudence or to Sociology; another, income $450, assigned to students of Constitutional or International Law.

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, BALTIMORE, MD.

Department of History and Politics, 1890-91, includes:

GRADUATE AND ADVANCED COURSES.

(1) The Seminary of History and Politics for original investigation in American Institutional, educational, economic, and social history. Two hours weekly through the year, Dr. Herbert B. Adams.
(2) Early History of Institutions and Greek Politics. Two hours weekly, first half year. Dr. Herbert B. Adams.
(3) History of Prussia, devoting particular attention to the economic, administrative, and educational reforms instituted by Baron vom Stein. Herbert B. Adams.
(4) Lectures on Historical and Comparative Jurisprudence. Two hours weekly, through the year, Mr. Emmott.
(5) Finance and Taxation, giving special attention to taxation in American states and cities, and reviewing the tariff legislation of the United States. Two hours weekly, through the year, Dr. R. T. Ely.
(6) Economic Conference. Three out of four of these treat Adam Smith and his English and Scotch predecessors. The fourth is devoted to recent economic periodical literature. One evening each week, Dr. R. T. Ely.
(7) Dr. Woodrow Wilson gives twenty-five lectures upon Administration, beginning a new three-year series. The lectures of 1891 cover general questions of Public Law as connected with Administration, and examine the question of a professional civil service.
(8) Mr. J. M. Vincent lectures on courses of history and science of historical investigation.
(9) Dr. C. L. Smith lectures on social science.

UNDERGRADUATE COURSES.

(1) Greek and Roman History. Three hours weekly, from January until June.
(2) Outlines of European History (substitute for Course 1). Three hours weekly, from January until June, with Dr. C. L. Smith.
(3) History, Minor course: Herodotus and Thucydides, in translation. Weekly through the year, with a classical instructor.
(4) History, Minor course: Livy and Tacitus, in the original. Four times weekly, with classical instructors.
(5) History, Major course: Church History; Mediaeval and Modern Europe. Daily through the year, with Dr. Adams and Dr. C. L. Smith.
(6) Political Science, Minor course: introduction to Political Economy. Daily through the year, with Dr. Ely.
(7) Political Science, Major course: International Law and Diplomatic History; English and American Constitutional History. Daily, with Dr. Adams and Mr. Emmott.

Fee for tuition, Full University Course, $125 a year. Special students, not candidates for a degree, can follow certain courses, not exceeding five lectures weekly (of which a list may be seen in Treasurer’s office), on payment of $50 a year.

Twenty Fellowships, each yielding $500, but not exempting holder from charges for tuition, are annually awarded in the University. These are bestowed almost exclusively on young men desirous of becoming teachers of science and literature, or who propose to devote their lives to special branches of learning. There are also twenty scholarships of $200 each annually; and in addition, scholarships for candidates from Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and the District of Columbia, details concerning which are given in the University Register.

INDIANA UNIVERSITY, BLOOMINGTON, IND.

Department of History, Economics and Social Science, 1890-91, includes:

HISTORY.
PROF. EARL BARNES.

English Constitution and its History. 1st and 2d terms, daily.
History of the Constitution of the United States, 1774-1789. 1st term, daily.
American Political History, 1789-1890. Politics and Administration. 2d term, daily.

ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE.
PROF. J. W. JENKS.

Political Economy. 3 times a week, 1st and 2d terms.
Politics, elementary. Twice a week, 1st and 2d terms.
History of Political Economy. 5 times a week, 3d term.
Introduction to Sociology. 3 times a week, 1st term.
Introductory Course in Statistics. Twice a week, 1st term.
Social Problems. 5 times a week, 2d term.
History of Political Ideas. 5 times a week, 3d term.
Comparative Politics. Daily, 1st term.
Finance. 3 times a week, 2d and 3d terms.
Economic Seminary, for advanced students. Once a week, two-hour sessions.

Tuition free. A silver medal is offered annually by the Cobden Club, London, for the best work in Political Economy, Senior Class.

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR.

Departments of Political Economy, International Law, History, and Philosophy, 1890-91, includes:

POLITICAL ECONOMY
First Semester.

(1) Principles of Political Economy. 1 hr. thrice a week, Prof. Adams.
(3) Principles of the Science of Finance. 1 hr. twice a week, Prof. Adams.
(5) History of Economic Thought. 1 hr. a week, Prof. Adams.
(9) Seminary in Economics. 2 hrs. a week, Prof. Adams.
(11) Foreign Relations of the United States. 1 hr. twice a week, Mr. Hicks.

Second Semester.

(2) Unsettled Questions in Political Economy. 1 hr. thrice a week, Prof. Adams.
(4) Social and Industrial Reforms. 1 hr. twice a week, Prof. Adams.
(6) Tariff Legislation in the United States. 1 hr. a week, Mr. Hicks.
(10) Seminary in Economics. 2 hrs. a week, Prof. Adams.
(12) Foreign Relations of the United States. 2 hrs. a week, Mr. Hicks.

INTERNATIONAL LAW.
First Semester.

(1) Lectures on International Law. 1 hr. twice a week, Pres. Angell.

Second Semester.

(2) History of Treaties. 1 hr. twice a week, Pres. Angell.

HISTORY.
First Semester.

(3) Constitutional History of the United States. 1 hr. twice a week, Asst. Prof. Laughlin.

(5) Constitutional Law of the United States. 1 hr. twice a week, Asst. Prof. Laughlin.

(11) Seminary. Constitutional History of the United States. 2 hrs. a week, Asst. Prof. Laughlin.

(12) Comparative Constitutional Law. 3 hrs. a week, Prof. Hudson.

Second Semester.

(1) Political and Constitutional History of England. 1 hr. thrice a week, Mr. McPherson.

(4) Constitutional History of the United States. 1 hr. twice a week, Asst. Prof. Laughlin.

PHILOSOPHY.
Second Semester.

(13) Seminary. Studies in the History of Political Philosophy. Prof. Dewey.

The fees are: matriculation, for citizens of Michigan, $10; for others, $25. Annual fee in the Department of Literature, Science, and the Arts, in which foregoing studies are included, $20 for citizens of Michigan, $30 for others.

No scholarships. The one fellowship is for proficiency in Greek and Latin.

UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, LINCOLN.

Department of Economic and Political Science, 1890-91, includes:

(1) Political Economy: General study of the subject, with the use of some text as Walker, Ely, or Andrews. Lectures on the character and history of the science, and on specific application of its principles to practical affairs. Topical reports from students required, and exercises assigned in the use of statistics. Junior or Senior Year; First and second terms, three hours.
(2) Taxation ; text and lectures. Junior or Senior Year: Third term, three hours.
(3) International Law: Outline study of the subject, with text. Third term, three hours.
(4) Municipal Administration: Comparative study of the City Governments of the present time, with especial reference to American practice in the administrative branches. First and second terms, two hours.
(5) Constitutional Law: A study of Cooley’s text-book, and lectures on the industrial bearings of the complex limitations imposed by our State and local constitutions. Third term, three hours.
(6) Private Corporations: First term, a comparative and historical view of corporation law in its economic aspects; second term, Railroad Problems; third term, Special reports on assigned topics involving original research. Whole year, two hours.
(7) Charities and Corrections: Lectures, study of reports of the State Boards and of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections, and visits to the charitable and penal institutions of the vicinity; third term, three hours.
(8) Methods of Legislating; A comparative view of the rules and practice of modern legislative assemblies, with special reference to the machinery of congressional and legislative action in the United States; first term, one hour,

All the above are taught by Associate Professor Warner. In the other departments Professor Kingsley offers a course in Anthropology, and many of the courses in History deal with the historical aspects of economic and industrial problems, and with the History of Institutions.

The terms of the year are respectively 14, 11, and 11 weeks. No scholarships. No fees.

COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY, PRINCETON, N. J.

Departments of History and Political Science, and Jurisprudence and Political Economy, 1890-91, include:

HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE.
PROF. SLOANE.

(7) Constitutional and Political History of England since 1688. 2 hrs. a week, 1st term. Open to Juniors and Seniors.
(8) American Political History. 2 hrs. a week, 2d term. Open to Juniors and Seniors.
(9) Comparative Politics. Origin and Theory of the State. 2 hrs. a week, 1st term. Open to Seniors.
(10) History of Political Theories. 2 hrs. a week, 2d term. Open to Seniors.
(11) Contrasts between Parliamentary and Congressional Governments. 2 hrs. a week, 1st or 2d term. Open to Graduate Students.

JURISPRUDENCE AND POLITICAL ECONOMY.
PROF. WOODROW WILSON.

(1) In Public Law, its evidence as to the nature of the state and as to the character and scope of political sovereignty. 2 hrs. a week, 1st term, alternate years. Junior and Senior elective.
(3) American Constitutional Law, state and federal. 2 hrs. a week, 2d term, alternate years. Junior and Senior elective.
(5) Administration. 2 hrs. a week, 2d term, alternate years. Senior elective, and open to Graduate Students.
(7) Political Economy: Elementary course. Walker’s Elementary Political Economy, and lectures. 2 hrs. a week, 2d term. Required of Juniors.
(8) Political Economy: Advanced course. 2 his. a week, 1st term. Senior elective.

Academic tuition fee, $100 per an.

Admission to special courses on terms detailed in College Catalogue, p. 26.

A fellowship of $500 annually is offered in Social Science. Several fellowships in other departments of the academic course are also offered.

Among prizes are: Annual interest on $1000 for best examination. Senior class, Political Science; same, Political Economy; $50, American Political History; annual interest on $1000, best debater, American Politics.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, PHILADELPHIA, PA.

Wharton School of Finance and Economy, 1890-91, includes:

HISTORY.

(3) Constitution of the United States. 2 hrs. each week, Prof. Thompson.
(4) Political and Social History of Europe since 1760. 3 hrs., Mr. Cheyney.
(6) Economic and Social History of Europe singe 1789. 2 hrs., Mr. Cheyney.
(7) American Political and Social History, Colonial. 3 hrs., 1st term, Prof. McMaster.
(8) Church and State in America. 2 hrs., 1st term, Prof. Thompson.
(9) American Political and Social History (Washington to Jackson). 3 hrs., 2d term, Prof. McMaster.
(10) Economic History of the United States. 2 hrs., 2d term, Prof. Thompson.
(13) American Political and Social History (1825-1889). 4 hrs., 1st term, Prof. McMaster.
(14) American Constitutional History (1776-1889). 3 hrs., 2d term. Prof. McMaster.

ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE.

(1) Political Economy, elementary. 3 hrs., 1st term, Prof. Patten.
(2) Currency and Banking. 3 hrs., 2d term, Prof. Patten.
(3) Social Science. 2 hrs., Prof. Thompson.
(4) Social Science, advanced. 3 hrs., 1st term. Prof. Thompson.
(5) Political Economy, advanced, 3 hrs., 1st term. Prof. Patten.
(6) Political Economy, History of. 3 hrs., 2d term, Prof. Patten.
(7) Revenue System in the United States and leading foreign countries. 2 hrs., 1st term, Prof. James.
(8) History and Theories of. Public Finance, especially of Taxation. 2 hrs., 2d term, Prof. James.
(9) Statistics. 2 hrs., 2d term, Dr. Falkner.

PUBLIC LAW AND POLITICS.

(1) Constitution of the United States. 3 hrs., 1st term, Prof. James.
(2) State Constitutional Law. 2 hrs., 2d term. Dr. Thorpe.
(3) History and Theory of the State. 1 hr., 2d term, Prof. James.
(4) Constitutions of leading foreign countries. 2 hrs., 2d term, Prof. James.
(5) Public Administration in the United States. 2 hrs., 1st term, Prof. James.
(6) Public Administration in leading foreign countries. 2 hrs., 2d term, Prof. Jamss.

SEMINARIES.

(1) In Political Science. Prof. James.
(2) In Political Economy. Prof. Patten.

Fees, $150 a year for undergraduate work, and the same for graduate work without the fee for examination for advanced degree.

Five honorary scholarships are granted to graduates of any reputable American college; these make free all instruction in the graduate work of the University relating to subjects studied in the Wharton School.

The Wharton School is a unique endeavor to introduce a business course into the body of advanced college work, to make the college mean at least as much to the business man as to the professional classes.

SMITH COLLEGE, NORTHAMPTON, MASS. (For Women.)

Course for 1890-91 includes:

POLITICAL ECONOMY, POLITICAL SCIENCE, ETC.
PROF. J. B. CLARK.

Political Economy, Lectures, with use of Laughlin’s Political Economy and Clark’s Philosophy of Wealth. Senior year, fall term.
Political Economy and Political Science, with special readings. Winter term
Political History of the United States, and Political Economy, Lectures. Summer term.

Tuition fee for all students, regular, special and graduate, $100 a year.

Annual scholarships of $50 and $100 each have been established to assist meritorious students.

VASSAR COLLEGE, POUGHKEEPSIE, N. Y. (For Women.)

The Department of History and Economics, 1890-91, includes:

In the Senior year an advanced course is offered for the critical study of the origin and development of the English and American constitutions and a comparative study of the existing political institutions of the two countries.

In American history the work includes the study of the government of the individual colonies, the different attempts, to form a union, and the adoption of the present constitution.

(1) Principles of Economics. Recitations from Walker’s Political Economy and Jevons’ Money and the Mechanism of Exchange. First semester, elect for Seniors. Associate Professor Mills.
(2) Advanced Course. Special topics. Lectures and investigation. Second semester, elective for Seniors who have had Course 1. Associate Professor Mills.

Tuition, day students, $115 a year.

Several scholarships are offered, particulars of which are given in Calendar.

WELLESLEY COLLEGE, WELLESLEY, MASS. (For Women).

The Department of History, Political Science, and Political Economy, 1889-90, includes:

HISTORY.

(1) Political History of England and the United States: England, first semester; United States, second semester.

(4) Constitutional History of England and United States: England, first semester, Coman’s Outlines; United States, second semester. Hart’s Outlines.

(6) Political Science: lectures on Grecian and Roman methods of government, twice a week, first semester; lectures on the history of political institutions, twice a week, second semester.

POLITICAL ECONOMY.

(1) Economic Science, first semester. Authorities, Mill, Marshall, Walker.

(2) Economic and Social Problems, second semester. Lectures and special topics.

No text-books are used. Each class is provided with printed outlines, and adequate references to the best authorities. Lectures are given where guidance is needed, but the student is made responsible for a large amount of independent library work.

Tuition, $150 a year.

There are more than twenty scholarships, details of which are given in calendar.

WILLIAMS COLLEGE, WILLIAMSTOWN, MASS.

Department of Political Economy and Political Science, 1890-91, includes:

Political Economy is a prescribed study, running through the 2d and 3d terms (33 weeks). 3 times a week, Prof. A. L. Perry.
Political Science is an elective study, running through all the terms beginning with the 1st of Junior Year. The basis of instruction is the text of the Constitution, interpreted in the light of decisions of the Supreme Court. Prof, A. L. Perry.
In 3d term of Senior Year two hours a week are given to Sociology. Prof. J. Bascom.

History includes principles and methods of historical study as applied to the politics and institutions of Europe.

Fee for tuition, per year, $105.

Perry prizes, $50 and $25 respectively, are awarded in History and Political Science.

The Cobden Club, of London, offers a silver medal annually for the highest proficiency in Political Economy.

YALE UNIVERSITY, NEW HAVEN, CONN.

Departments of Political Science and Law and History, 1890-91, include:

POLITICAL ECONOMY.

(10) Political Economy, its elements, recent financial history of the United States, with lectures on elementary principles. 2 hrs., both terms. Prof. Sumner.
(11) Political Economy. A one-year course planned to give a comprehensive knowledge of essentials to those whose chief interest lies in other departments of study. 3 hrs., both terms (Seniors), Prof. Sumner.

(Courses 12 to 15 are open only to those who have taken Course 10.)

(12) Advanced Political Economy. 2 hrs., both terms (Seniors), Prof. Sumner.
(13) Finance. 1 hr., both terms (Seniors), Prof. Sumner
(14) School of Political Economy, for those who make this their chief study during the year. Prof. Sumner and Dr. Schwab.
(15) Social Science, an elementary course. 1 hr., both terms (Seniors), Prof. Sumner.
(16) Industrial History of the United States since 1850. Open only to those who have already studied Political Economy. 2 hrs., first term (Seniors), Prof. Hadley.
(17) Modern Economic Theories. 2 hrs., 2d term (Seniors), Prof. Hadley.

LAW.

(18) Includes constitutional and international law. Open only to those who take Course 19. 2 hrs., 2d term (Seniors), Prof. Phelps.
(19) Jurisprudence. Includes law in its relation to the origin, development and government of political society, nature and origin of legal rights, and principles of the law governing rights in land. 2 hrs., 1st term (Seniors), Prof. Robinson.

HISTORY.

(20) History of Europe since 1789, mainly political. 2 hrs., both terms (Seniors), Prof. Wheeler.
(21) English History, political and constitutional. 3 hrs., both terms (Seniors), Prof. Wheeler.
(22) American History. In the national period special attention is given to the rise and progress of political parties. 2 hrs., both terms (Juniors), Prof. C. H. Smith.
(23) American History. Study of the Constitution and Supreme Court interpretations. 2 hrs., both terms (Seniors), Prof. C. H. Smith.
(24) Europe from 1520 to 1789. With special attention to political history. 2 hrs., both terms, Prof. Adams.

The foregoing are among the elective courses. Juniors select nine hours per week, and Seniors select fifteen. The no. of hrs. specified means hrs. per week.

The fee for graduate instruction is generally $100 per annum, but may be more or less according to the course pursued. A variety of fellowships and prizes are offered, none, however, specifically in foregoing courses.

________________________

Source: The Society for Political Education. The Reader’s guide in Economic, Social and Political Science, being a classified bibliography, American, English, French and German, with descriptive notes, author, title and subject index, courses of reading, college courses, etc., R. R. Bowker and George Iles, eds. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1891, pp. 129-137.

Chicago Columbia Cornell Harvard Johns Hopkins Statistics Wisconsin

Graduate Student Enrollments in Economics. Seligman’s Tally, 1909

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2016-01-30

Here we have a letter from the chairman of the Columbia University economics department, Edwin R. A. Seligman, to the chairman of the trustees of Columbia University, George L. Rives, boasting of the large market share of Columbia with respect to graduate education in economics and sociology. We’ve seen earlier (1900) that Seligman kept a jealous eye on Columbia’s competition.

_____________________________________

[carbon copy of letter Seligman to Rives]

No. 324 West 86 street
New York, February 13, 1909

My dear Sir:

You may be interested in the enclosed statistics which have been compiled by me from answers to questions sent out to the various universities. It shows the relative position of Columbia compared to its six leading competitors, and it is a curious coincidence that the totals of Columbia on the one hand, and of the six universities together on the other, should be precisely the same.

Faithfully yours,

Edwin R. A. Seligman

(Enclosure)

To Mr. George L. Rives,
New York City

_____________________________________

STUDENTS WITH DEGREES ENROLLED IN
GRADUATE COURSES, Dec. 1909

	Economics	Sociology	Total of Economics and Sociology
Harvard	27	—	27
Yale	16	12	28
Cornell	10	4	14
Johns-Hopkins	12*	—	12*
Chicago	12	19	31
Wisconsin	22	4	26
Total in the 6 universities	99	39	138
Columbia	67	71	138

*including duplications

Source: Columbia University Archives. Central Files 1890-, Box 338. Folder: “Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson. 1.1.110 2/5”

Image Source: Universities and their Sons, Vol. 2 (1899), pp. 485.

Tags Seligman

Economists Germany Johns Hopkins

Germany. The Seminary Method. Reported by Herbert B. Adams, 1884

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-11-15

The “Seminary” was the graduate student research workshop of its day. This innovation that combined research with graduate education was imported from Germany at the end of the nineteenth century. The historian Herbert Baxter Adams at the Johns Hopkins University provides us with a wonderful tour of the leading German seminaries of history, art/archeology, economics and statistics. Seminary libraries and museums provided the texts and artifacts that served as the toys of these scientific nurseries.

The Seminary Method. Introduction.

Heidelberg Seminaries

Bluntschli’s Seminary

Knies’ Seminary of Political Economy

Historical Seminary at Bonn

An American Student on German Seminaries

Paul Frédéricq on German Lectures and Historical Seminaries

Seminaries of Art and Archeology

Seminary Libraries

Statistical Seminary in Berlin

Excerpt from: II. New Methods of Study in History by Herbert Baxter Adams (1884)

[p. 64]

4.— THE SEMINARY METHOD.

The Seminarium, like the college and the university, is of ecclesiastical origin. Historically speaking, the seminary was a nursery of theology and a training-school for seminary priests. The modern theological seminary has evolved from the mediaeval institution, and modern seminary-students, whether at school or at the university, are only modifications of the earlier types. The Church herself early began the process of differentiating the ecclesiastical seminary for the purposes of secular education. Preachers became teachers, and the propaganda of religion prepared the way for the propaganda of science. The seminary method of modern universities is merely the development of the old scholastic method of advancing philosophical inquiry by the defense of original theses. The seminary is still a training-school for doctors of philosophy; but it has evolved from a nursery of dogma into a laboratory of scientific truth.

A young American, Professor of Greek at Dartmouth College, John Henry Wright, in an admirable address on the Place of Original Research in College Education, explains very clearly the transitional process from the theological seminary to the scientific seminary. “The seminaries were instituted that theological students, who expected to teach on the way to their profession, might receive special pedagogical training in the subjects in which they would be called upon to give instruction in the schools. As the subject-matter of liberal instruction was mainly the languages and literatures of Greece and Pome, the seminaries became philological in character. The first seminary that actually assumed the designation of philological was that founded at Goettingen in 1733, by Gesner the famous Latinist. This seminary has been, in many respects, the model for all later ones.”¹

1 An address on The Place of Original Research in College Education, by John Henry Wright, Associate Professor of Greek in Dartmouth College, read before the National Educational Association, Department of Higher Instruction, July 14, 1882, Saratoga, N. Y. From the Transactions, 1882. This address and Prof. E. Emerton’s recent contribution on “The Historical Seminary in American Teaching,” to Dr. G. Stanley Hall’s volume on Methods of Teaching and Studying History, are the best American authorities on the Seminary Method.

[p. 65]

The transformation of the Seminarium into a laboratory of science was first accomplished more than fifty years ago by Germany’s greatest historian, Leopold von Ranke. He was born in the year 1795 and has been Professor of History at the University of Berlin since 1825. There, about 1830, he instituted those practical exercises in historical investigation (exercitationes historicae) which developed a new school of historians. Such men as Waitz, Giesebrecht, Wattenbach, Von Sybel, Adolph Schmidt, and Duncker owe their methods to this father of historical science. Through the influence of these scholars, the historical seminary has been extended throughout all the universities in Germany and even to institutions beyond German borders. Let us consider a few seminary types.

Heidelberg Seminaries.

At the university of Heidelberg, as elsewhere in Germany, there are seminaries for advanced training in various departments of learning, chiefly, however, in philology and in other historical sciences. The philological seminary, where the use of the Latin language for formal discussion is still maintained at some universities, is perhaps the connecting link between mediaeval and modern methods of scholastic training. In the Greek seminary of the late Professor Koechly, at Heidelberg the training was pre-eminently pedagogical. The members of the seminary took turns in occupying the Professor’s chair for one philological meeting, and in expounding a classical author by translation and comment. After one man had thus made trial of his abilities as an instructor, all the other members [p. 66] took turns in criticizing his performance, the Professor judging the critics and saying what had been left unsaid.

In the historical seminary of Professor Erdmannsdoerffer, the method was somewhat different. It was less formal and less pedagogical. Instead of meeting as a class in one of the university lecture-rooms, the historical seminary, composed of only six men, met once a week in a familiar way at the Professor’s own house, in his private study. The evening’s exercise of two hours consisted in the critical exposition of the Latin text of a mediaeval historian, the Gesta Frederici Imperatoris, by Otto, Bishop of Freising, who is the chief original authority upon the life and times of Frederic Barbarossa. As in the Greek seminary, so here, members took turns in conducting the exercises, which, however, had less regard for pedagogical method than for historical substance. Each man had before him a copy of the octavo edition of Bishop Otto’s text, and the conductor of the seminary translated it into German, with a running comment upon the subject matter, which he criticised or explained in the light of parallel citations from other authors belonging to Bishop Otto’s time, who are to be found in the folio edition of Pertz’s Monumenta Germaniae Historica.

From this method of conducting the seminary, it would appear as though one man had all the work to do for a single evening, and then could idly listen to the others until his own turn came once more. But it was not so. Subjects of discussion and for special inquiry arose at every meeting, and the Professor often assigned such subjects to the individuals most interested, for investigation and report. For example, he once gave to an American student the subject of Arnold of Brescia, the Italian reformer of the twelfth century, who was burnt to death in Home in 1155, having been delivered up to the pope by Frederic Barbarossa. The investigation of the authorities upon the life-work of this remarkable reformer, the precursor of Savonarola and of Luther, occupied the student for many weeks. On another occasion, Seminary discussion [p. 67] turned upon the origin of the Italian Communes, whether they were of Roman or of Germanic origin. An American student, who had been reading Guizot’s view upon the origin of municipal liberty, ventured to support the Roman theory. The Professor referred the young man to Carl Hegel’s work on the Constitution of Italian Cities and to the writings of Von Maurer. That line of investigation has occupied the American student ever since 1876, and the present work of the historical seminary at the Johns Hopkins University is to some extent the outgrowth of the ererni brought to Baltimore from the Heidelberg seminary.

Bluntschli’s Seminary.

As an illustration of seminary-work, relating more especially to modern history and modern polities, may be mentioned the private class conducted for two hours each week in one of the university rooms by the late Dr. J. C. Bluntschli, professor of constitutional and international law at Heidelberg. In his seminary, the exercises were in what might be called the comparative constitutional history of modern European states, with special reference to the rise of Prussia and of the new German empire. Bluntschli himself always conducted the meetings of the seminary. Introductory to its special work, he gave a short course of lectures upon the history of absolute government in Prussia and upon the influence of French and English constitutional reforms upon Belgium and Germany, lie then caused the seminary to compare in detail the Belgian constitution of 1830 with the Prussian constitution of 1850. Each member of the seminary had before him the printed texts, which were read and compared, while Bluntschli commented upon points of constitutional law that were suggested by the texts or proposed by the class. After some weeks’ discussion of the general principles of constitutional government, the seminary, under Bluntschli’s skillful guidance, entered upon a special and individual study of the relations between [p. 68] church and state, in the various countries of Europe, but with particular reference to Belgium and Prussia, which at that time were much disturbed by conflicts between the civil and the ecclesiastical power. Individual members of the seminary reported the results of their investigations, and interesting discussions always followed. The result of this seminary-work was an elaborate monograph by Bluntschli himself upon the legal responsibility of the Pope, a tractate which the Ultramontane party thought inspired by Bismarck, but which really emanated from co-operative studies by master and pupils in the Heidelberg seminary.

Seminary of Political Economy.

At Heidelberg a seminary in political economy is conducted by Professor Knies, who may be called the founder of the historical method as applied to this department. His work on Politische-oekonomie vom Standpunkt der geschichtlichen Methode was published in 1853 and ante-dates the great work of Roscher by one year. The seminary method encouraged by Knies consists chiefly in the reading and discussion of original papers by his pupils upon assigned topics. The latter were sometimes of a theoretical but quite frequently of an historical character. I remember that such topics as Turgot’s economic doctrines were often discussed. The various theories of wealth, from the French mercantilists and physiocrats down to Henry C. Carey, were examined. The meetings of the seminary were held every week and were not only of the greatest service in point of positive instruction, but also, in every way, of a pleasant, enjoyable character. Men learned to know one another as well as their professor. A most valuable feature of the seminaries in political science at Heidelberg was a special library, quite distinct from the main university library. Duplicate copies of the books that were in greatest demand were at the service of the seminary.

[p. 69]

The Historical Seminary at Bonn.¹

1 See L’Université de Bonn et l’enseignement supérieur en Allemagne, par Edmond Dreyfus-Brisac, (editor of the Revue international de l’enseignement). “Les Séminaires.”

The object of this seminary, as of all German historical seminaries, is to introduce special students to the best methods of original research. The Bonn seminary is one of the most flourishing in all Germany. It is an endowed institution. It was instituted in the year 1865 and enjoys the income of a legacy of forty thousand marks left it by Professor Wilhelm Pütz. The income is devoted to three stipends, each of about 600 marks, for students of history and geography who have successfully pursued one or both of these sciences for two years. Said stipends are awarded annually by the philosophical faculty upon recommendation by the director of the seminary. It is said that a student of Bonn university has a better chance of obtaining such stipend than does a candidate from outside. In addition to this endowment of ten thousand dollars, the Bonn seminary of history is allowed a special appropriation, in the annual university budget, for general expenses, for increasing the seminary library, and for the director’s extra salary. Any unused balance from the fund devoted to general expenses is expended for library purposes.

The historical seminary of Bonn has now four sections, each under the guidance of a professor, representing a special field of history. The four professors constitute a board of control for the entire seminary. The director is appointed from year to year, the four professors rotating in the executive office. The student membership for each section is restricted to twelve. The meetings occur once a week, from 5 to 7 o’clock in the evening. All members are expected to be present, although no individual student makes more than one contribution during a semester. Members are subject to expulsion by the board of control for failure to discharge any obligations, for inadequate work, or for mis-use of the library.

[p. 70]

The library consisted, in 1879, of 308 works, and was kept in the charge of one of the members of the seminary. Among the books noticed by Dreyfus-Brisac, at the the time of his visit, were the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum, the complete works of Luther, the Annales Ecclesiastici edited by Baronius, Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, Muratori’s Scriptores Rerum Italicarum, The Glossary of Mediaeval Latin, by Ducange, a set of Sybel’s Historische Zeitschrift, Forschungen (Munich), the writings of Curtius, Mommsen, Ranke, Sybel, etc.

Dreyfus-Brisac mentions other seminaries at Bonn University, notably that of the late Professor Held in Political Economy, held privately in his own house, and the pedagogical seminary of Bona-Meyer. The observing, critical Frenchman says that he knows of nothing more remarkable in German educational methods, nothing more worthy of imitation, than the seminaries of Bonn.

An American Student on German Seminaries.

Dr. Charles Gross,¹ an American student who has recently taken the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Goettingen in the department of History, with the highest honors, and who is now studying English Municipal History in the British Museum, has written by request the following account of German historical seminaries, in which he has had long and varied experience : ” The German historical seminary aims to inculcate the scientific method. It is the workshop in [p. 71] which the experienced master teaches his young apprentices the deft use of the tools of the trade. In the lecture room the professor presents the results of his investigations; in the Seminar (or Uebungen) he shows just what he had to do in order to secure those results. The German student lays far more stress upon his seminar than upon his lectures. He may “cut” the latter for weeks at a time, while he is very assiduous in his attendance upon the former. The latter may be obtained from books or from the Heft of some more conscientious student ; but the scientific method, the German maintains, is the gift of time and the seminary only, — the result of long contact between the mind of the master and the mind of the disciple.

1 Dr. Gross presented for his doctor’s dissertation at Goettingen a thesis on the Gilda Mercatoria, an important contribution to English municipal history, originally suggested by the late Professor Pauli. The subject has an interesting bearing upon the merchant associations, which furnished men, capital, and government for the English colonies in America. Dr. Gross is now writing an Introduction to American Municipal History, to be published in this series.

” Two different kinds of work predominate in the German historical seminary : the writing of short theses (Kleine Arbeiten) or the critical reading of some document or documents, more frequently of some chronicler or chroniclers. The professor selects a list of subjects for theses from the field of his special line of investigation and assigns them to the students, the latter’s particular tastes being generally consulted. A member of the seminary rarely has more than one thesis during the semester, frequently not more than one during the year, and during his first two or three semesters none at all. The professor points out the sources and authorities, and the student consults with him whenever difficulties arise in the preparation of the work. One or two critics (Referenten) are appointed for each thesis, who comment upon the production after it has been read. A free discussion of the subject then follows, the professor and students doing all in their power to show the utter lack of Wissenschaft in the author’s method.

“As regards the other element of seminary work, viz., critical reading of some chronicler, to each student is assigned a certain portion of the text, which, — with the aid, if necessary, of other contemporaneous sources pointed out to him by the professor — he is expected to treat in accordance with the canons of historical criticism, the other students commenting ad libitum.

[p. 72]

” Now these two elements are variously combined in different Seminars. Generally both are carried on side by side, an hour perhaps being taken up with the thesis and the other hour of the session with some text. (That, e.g., is the plan of Prof. Bresslau of Berlin). Sometimes the seminary is divided into two sections, one for the Kleine Arbeiten and the other for the critical manipulation of some chronicler (e. g. Giesebrecht’s Seminar in Munich). Sometimes one of the two elements is excluded (v. Noorden in Berlin had no theses in my day ; Droysen nothing but theses). Sometimes the students are not required to do any work at all, the professor simply commenting upon some text for an hour or two. (That was Weizsäcker’s and Pauli’s method).”

Paul Frédéricq on German Lectures and Historical Seminaries.

One of the best accounts of German university instruction in history is that given by Paul Frédéricq, Professor in the University of Liège, Belgium. He made two excursions to German university-centres in the years 1881 and 1882, and published a most instructive article in the Revue de l’instruction publique (supérieur et moyenne) en Belgique, in 1882. The article is entitled, De l’enseignement supérieur de I’histoire.¹ It will probably be soon translated for publication in America. M. Frédéricq visited Berlin, Halle, Leipzig, and Goettingen. He describes, in a pleasant way, the various lectures that he attended, the professors he met, and the methods that he learned. To one acquainted with life at the Berlin university, its professors of history, and its lecture-courses, M. Frédéricq’s picture seems almost perfect. One sees again, in fancy, Heinrich von [p. 73] Treitschke, the brilliant publicist and eloquent orator, with his immense audiences, everyone of them an enthusiastic seminary of Prussian Politics. The following felicitous sketch of Gustav Droysen will be appreciated by all who have seen that distinguished professor in the Katheder : “Je le vois encore, tenant en main un petit cahier de notes à converture bleue et accoudé sur un grossier pupitre carré, exhaussé au moyen d’une allonge, qui se dressait à un demi-mêtre au-dessus de la chaire. II commença à mi-voix, à la manière des grands prédicateurs français, afin d’obtenir le silence le plus complet. On aurait entendu voler une mouche. Penché sur son petit cahier bleu et promenant sur son auditoire des regards pénétrants qui perçaient les verres de ses lunettes, il parlait des falsifications dans l’histoire. … A chaque instant une plaisanterie très réussie, toujours mordante et acérée, faisait courir un sourire discret sur tous les bancs…. J’y admirai la verve caustique, la clarté et la netteté des aperçus, ainsi que l’habileté consommée avec laquelle le professeur lisait ses notes, de manière à faire croire à une improvisation.”

1 Another good authority upon the subject of German seminaries is M. Charles Seignobos, of Dijon, France, in his critical article on L’enseignement de I’histoire dans les universités allemandes, published in the Revue Internationale de l’ enseignement, June 15, 1881. Cf. pp. 578-589.

The historical seminary conducted by Professor Droysen is one of the best at the University of Berlin. Although Professor Frédéricq failed to obtain access to this seminary as well as to that of Mommsen’s, being told qu’ on y exercait une critique si sévère, si impitoyable que la présence d’un étranger était impossible, yet he quotes in a work¹ more recent than the article above mentioned the observations made in 1874 by his colleague, Professor Kurth, of Liège: “M. Droysen, dans sa Société historique, tient aux travaux écrits, parce qu’ ils semblent donner plus de consistance aux études et que c’est quelque chose qui reste; ils fournissent plus facilement l’objet d’une discussion, ils font mieux apprécier le degré de force d’une élève ainsi que ses aptitudes scientifiques; enfin, ils permettent [p.74] à ses condisciples de profiter mieux de son travail. La correction de celui-ci en effet, est confiée à un autre élève qui, sous les auspices du professeur, en critique les erreurs et le discute dans la réunion suivante avec l’auteur; de là, des controverses souvent animées, auxquelles chaque assistant peut prendre part, et qui offrent l’aspect d’une véritable vie scientifique.”

1 De l’enseignement supèrieur de l’histoire en Belgique, XV. Published as an introduction to the Travaux du Cours Pratique d’Histoire National de Paul Frédéricq. [Gand et La Haye, 1883.].

M. Frédéricq describes with evident pleasure the privilege he enjoyed, through the courtesy of George Waitz, in being admitted to the latter’s seminary, held every Wednesday evening, for two hours, in his own house. The seminary consisted of nine students. They were seated at two round tables, which were loaded with books. The students had at command the various chronicles relating to the times of Charles Martel. The exercise consisted in determining the points of agreement and disagreement among original authorities, with reference to a specific line of facts, in how far one author had quoted from another, &c. “The professor asked questions in a quiet way, raised objections, and helped out embarrassed pupils with perfect tact and with a kindly serenity.” M. Frédéricq noticed how, at one time, when a student had made a really original observation, the professor took out his pencil and made a note of it upon the margin of his copy of the chronicle. In such simple ways the spirit of independent thought and original research is encouraged by one of the greatest masters. George Waitz is the successor of G. H. Pertz as editor of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. To see upon the professor’s desk great bundles of printer’s proofs for this vast work, only deepened M. Frédéricq’s impressions that here in this private study was really a workshop of German historical science.

Seminaries of Art and Archeology.

M. Frédéricq describes another phase of historical training which is eminently worthy of imitation in all colleges or universities, where there is convenient access to an archaeological [p. 75] museum. Ernst Curtius is perhaps even more famous in Berlin as a classical archaeologist than as the historian of Greece. His lectures upon Grecian art are accompanied by a weekly visit of his class to the museum, where an hour or two is spent in examining plaster-casts and fragments of antique sculpture under the guidance of Curtius himself. Having enjoyed this very experience on many occasions in Berlin, the writer can attest the literal truth of the following description:

” L’après-midi, M. Curtius nous avait donne rendez-vous au Musée des antiques où il fait chaque semaine une leçon sur l’archéologie grecque et romaine. A son arrivée les étudiants qui l’attendaient en flânant à travers les collections, le saluèrent silencieusement, puis remirent leur chapeau. M. Curtius resta couvert aussi et commença sur-le-champ sa promenade de démonstrations archéologiques. Armé d’un coupe-papier en ivoire, il allait d’un objet à l’autre, expliquant, indiquant les moindres particularités avec l’extremité de son coupe-papier, tantôt se haussant sur la pointe des pieds, tantôt s’agenouillant pour mieux détailler ses explications. A un moment même il se coucha par terre devant un trépied grec. Appuyé sur le coude gauche et brandissant de la main droite son fidèle coupe-papier, il s’extasia sur les formes élégantes et sur les ornements ravissants du petit chef-d’oeuvre. On comprend aisément combien des leçons faites avec chaleur par un tel professeur, dans un musée de premier ordre, doivent être utiles aux élèves. La leçon que j’ai entendue ne roulait que sur des points secondaires : trépieds, candélabres, vases en terre cuite, etc., et malgré cela il s’en dégageait une admiration communicative et une sorte de parfum antique. On m’a assure que lorsqu’il s’occupe de la statuaire, M. Curtius atteint souvent à l’éloquence la plus majestueuse ; et je le crois sans peine.”

The same method of peripatetic lectures, as described by M. Frédéricq, was also pursued when I was in Berlin, 1874-5, by Herman Grimm for the illustration of art-history. Once a week he would meet his class at the museum for the examination [p.76.] of works illustrating early Christian plastic and pictorial art, for example, that of the Catacombs; also works illustrating Byzantine and Germanic influences, and the rise of the various Italian, French, German, and Flemish schools of painting and sculpture. More was learned from Grimm’s critical commentary upon these works of art, whether originals, photographs, or engravings, than would be possible from almost any course of lectures upon the philosophy of art or aesthetics, without concrete realities to teach the eye. The wealth of that great museum of Berlin — for student-purposes one of the finest in the world — is best appreciated when a man like Grimm or Curtius points out its hidden treasures.

The same illustrative methods in ancient and modern art were also practiced by the late Professor Stark, the archaeologist and art historian of Heidelberg. Although the museum of the latter university is small, when compared with that of Berlin, yet it serves to illustrate what any institution of moderate resources can accomplish for its students in the way of supplying original sources of art-history, at least in the shape of casts, photographs, and other fac simile reproductions of artistic objects. If Stark did not have original tripods, candelabras, and terra cottas, he had, nevertheless, images of almost every important object mentioned in his lectures. One of the exercises in Stark’s archaeological seminary consisted in the explanation at sight, by individual members, of pictorial representations upon Greek vases, which were inexpensively reproduced in colored plates, so that every man could have before him a copy of the work under discussion. There is a great future for American student-research in the field of arthistory, which Herman Grimm used to call die Blüthe der Geschichte. The quick success in England of Dr. Charles “Waldstein, a pupil of Stark’s at Heidelberg, shows what possibilities there are beyond German borders for the science of art and archaeology. The popularity of Professor Norton’s seminary and art-courses at Cambridge, Massachusetts, shows that interest in such matters is kindling upon this side of the [p. 77] Atlantic. The art collections begun by Yale, Amherst and Smith, Vassar and Cornell, Michigan, and Johns Hopkins University indicate that the day of art seminaries is not far off. Indeed, since this writing, there was instituted (March 1, 1884,) in Baltimore a so-called Art-Circle, consisting of about twenty graduate students, under the direction of Dr. A. L. Frothingham,¹ a fellow of the University, who has lived many years in Rome and is a member of the Società dei Cultori dell’ Archeologia cristiana. The Circle will meet every Saturday morning in the library of the Peabody Institute, and, under the guidance of Dr. Frothingham, will spend an hour or two in the examination of plates, photographs, and other works illustrating the history of art. The subjects of study for this semester are: the catacomb frescoes; the sarcophagi; mosaics; ivory sculpture ; metal sculpture ; romanesque architecture; gothic architecture; sculpture in France (gothic period); renaissance sculpture in Italy; schools of painting in Italy in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. An art-club, with eight members, has also been instituted among the undergraduates for the systematic reading of art-history.

1 Dr. Frothingham is the author of the following monographs: L’Omelia di Giacomo di Sarûg sul Battesimo di Constantino Imperatore (Reale Accademia dei Lincei, 1881-2) ; Il Tesoro della Basilica di S. Pietro in Vaticano dal XIII al XV Secolo (Roma, 1883) ; Une Mosaïque Constantinienne inconnue à Saint-Pierre de Rome (Revue Archéologique, Paris, 1883); Les Mosaïques de Grottaferrata (Gazette Archéologique, for December, 1883-January, 1884); Letter to the Society for Biblical Archaeology on a Hebrew inscription on a mosaic of the V cent. at Ravenna.

Dr. Frothingham and Dr. Alfred Emerson (fellow of Greek and classical archeologist) have been the most active spirits in lately founding an Archeological Society in Baltimore, which will enjoy the co-operation of distinguished archaeologists in the old world.

Seminary Libraries

One of the most interesting and important features of the German historical, political, and archaeological seminaries is [p. 78] the special library, distinct from the main university collections. We have already noticed the existence of such libraries at Heidelberg and Bonn ; and it may be said in general that they are now springing up in all the universities of Germany. So important an auxiliary have these seminary -libraries become that in some universities, where the seminaries have been recognized by the state, a special appropriation is granted by the government for library purposes. The government of Saxony granted Professor Noorden of Leipzig 6,500 marks for the foundation of his seminary-library and an annual subsidy of 1,200 marks. This revenue for the purchase of books is considerably increased by a charge of ten marks per semester, paid by every student who has access to the seminary -library. The privileges of this working-library are regarded as analogous to the privileges of using laboratory apparatus or attending a clinique.

In addition to a special library, German seminaries are now procuring special rooms, not only for regular meetings, but for daily work. The historical seminary at Leipzig, embracing four sections like that at Bonn, has had, since 1880, five rooms at its disposal ; one consultation-room or Sprechzimmer for the professors, one room for maps and atlases, and three large rooms where the students work, with their special authorities around them. Every student has for himself a table containing a drawer of which he keeps the key. The rooms are inaccessible to all except members of the seminary, who are intrusted with pass-keys and can enter the library at any time from nine o’clock in the morning until ten o’clock at night. The rooms are warmed and lighted at university expense. Each student has a gas-jet above his own table and is absolutely independent of all his neighbors. Individuality is a marked feature of student-life and student-work in Germany. Men never room together ; they rarely visit one another’s apartments ; and they almost always prefer to work alone. Society and relaxation they know how and where to find when they are at leisure. By general consent German [p. 79] students attend to their own affairs without let or hindrance. This belongs to academic freedom. It belongs to the seminary and it belongs to the individual student.

M. Seignobos, in his excellent article on l’enseignement de l’histoire en Allemagne,¹ says “tout seminaire historique d’Etat possède sa bibliothèque propre et sa salle de travail réservées à l’usage de ses membres. Là, au contraire, tous les livres sans exception, restent à demeure, afin que l’étudiant soit toujours sûr de les trouver.” M. Seignobos gives a list of some of the chief works that are to be found in the historical seminary library at Leipzig. He noted Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae; Jaffé, Regesta Pontificum; Jaffé, Bibliotheca rerum Germanicarum ; Böhmer, Regesta imperatorum ; Böhmer, Fontes rerum Germanicarum ; Muratori, Scriptores; Bouquet, Historiens des Gaules; Wattenbach and Lorenz, Quellengeschichte; Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte; Archiv der Gesellschaft fur deutsche Geschichte; Historische Zeitschrift; Walter, Corpus juris Germanici; Zöpfl, Rechtsgeschichte; Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte ; Gengler, Codex juris municipalis; Annales ecclesiastici; Migne, Vies des Papes; Giesebrecht, Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit; Giesebrecht, Jahrbücher des deutschen Reiches; Scriptores rerum prussicarum ; Huillard-Bréholles, Frédéric II; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte; Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Rom; Collection Byzantine; Sickel, Monumenta graphica ; Potthast, Bibliotheca medii aevi.

1 Revue internationalde l’enseignement, June 15, 1881. “Bibliothèques.”

The Statistical Seminary in Berlin.²

2 Authorities: Dr. Engel, Das Statistische Seminar des Königl. Preussischen Statischen Bureaus in Berlin, 1864. Programmes of courses.

This government institution, while dealing with Prussian statistics, is also a regular seminary for the training of university graduates who have passed the examinations required for [80] entrance to the higher branches of the civil service. The seminary, which was first opened in November, 1862, was under the direction of Dr. Edward [sic, “Ernst” is correct] Engel, chief of the Bureau of Statistics, aided by various university professors. The idea was that the government offices of the statistical bureau should become laboratories of political science. Not only are the facilities of the department utilized for training purposes, but systematic courses of lectures are given to the statistical seminary by university professors co-operating with the chief and his assistants. Subjects like the following are treated: the theory and technique of statistics; agrarian questions; conditions and changes of population; political economy in its various branches ; insurance; social questions ; administration; prison discipline and prison reform in various countries ; sanitary questions, physical geography, etc.

The amount of original work produced by the bureau and seminary of statistics is very great. One has only to examine the Verzeichniss der periodischen und anderen Schriften,¹ which are published by these government offices, in order to appreciate the scientific value of the scholar in politics. These publications are of international significance, by reasons of the lessons which they teach. Whoever wishes to study, from a comparative point of view, the subject of national or municipal finance; the relations of church and school; sanitation; insurance ; trade and commerce ; industries ; population ; land and climate; cities; development of the science of statistics; statistical congresses; markets; fairs; genealogies of royal families; tables of mortality; education; administration, etc., will be richly rewarded by consulting the published works of the Prussian Statistical Bureau, which can be obtained at catalogue prices.

1 For this catalogue, one should address the Verlag des Koniglichen Statistischen Bureaus, Berlin, S. W., Lindenstrasse, 28.

[p. 81]

Library of the Statistical Seminary.

Among the publications of the Prussian Statistical Bureau is the catalogue of its library in two royal octavo volumes. In the first, the authors and titles are arranged according to the sciences which they represent. In the second, the contents are grouped by States. Probably there is in existence no other such complete guide to political science in its historical, theoretical, and practical aspects.

This library, now numbering over 70,000 volumes, has been used by Johns Hopkins University men, two of whom have belonged to Dr. Engel’s Seminar, and they would fully endorse the published statement by Dr. Engel, in his account of the Statistical Seminary, made as long ago as 1864. He says: “If we may believe the admissions of many specialists, there exists far and wide no library so rich, no collection of periodicals so select, no map collection so excellent, as those in the royal bureau of statistics. All new contributions to this branch of literature, whether in Germany, France, England, Belgium, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Russia, Italy, Spain, Portugal, North and South America, are brought to the eyes of members of this seminary. A series of more than seventy special magazines of political economy, statistics, and the allied branches of industry, agriculture, commerce and trade, public; works, finance, credit, insurance, administration (municipal and national), social self help, — all this is not only accessible for seminary-use, but members are actually required to familiarize themselves with the contents of these magazines inasmuch as one of the practical exercises of the seminary consists in the preparation of a continuous report or written abstract of these journals.”

Source:

Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, ed. by Herbert B. Adams.
Second Series: Methods in Historical Study. January-February, 1884.

Image Source: Portrait of Herbert B. Adams (between 1870 and 1880). Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs.

Tags AdamsHB, Engel, Knies

Chicago Columbia Cornell Curriculum Harvard Johns Hopkins Pennsylvania Princeton Wisconsin Yale

Columbia Economics’ Market Share in 1900

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-08-21

The School of Political Science at Columbia University was divided into three groups of subjects: History and Political Philosophy, Public Law and Comparative Jurisprudence, and Economics and Social Science.

Economics and Social Science comprised the two subject groups: Political Economy and Finance; Sociology and Statistics.

Seligman figured that of the approximately 135 graduate students specializing in economics in 1899-1900 in the seven eastern departments (Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Pennsylvania, Princeton, and Yale), about 75 were at Columbia.

___________________

SCHOOL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Department of Economics.—Since the recent reorganization of the work in economics, there has been a marked increase in the number, as well as in the quality of the students. Numbers, indeed, constitute no adequate test of the real work done by the various departments within a university; for the subject which attracts the fewest students may possess the highest scientific value and may be presided over by the ablest professors. But, when an institution is compared with others of about the same grade and size, the relative number of students in any one department affords a fair indication of the importance to be assigned to it. Hence, the following table is of much interest:

*By graduate student is meant a student holding a first degree.
¹Attending for three terms.
² Including Economics and Public Law.
³ Including Economics, Politics and History.

The number of graduate students in economics and social science at Columbia is much greater than the number in any other American institution. If we compare Columbia with six Eastern universities,—Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Pennsylvania and Princeton,—we find that Columbia has almost as many such students as all six, that is, 75 as against 89. And if it were possible to separate the students working primarily in economics at Johns Hopkins, Yale, and Cornell (where the figures include other students in political science as well), it is practically certain that Columbia would be found to possess more graduate students working primarily in economics and social science than the other six institutions together. Assuming that half of the students returned in Johns Hopkins, Yale and Cornell are working primarily in economics,—a very liberal assumption, —we should have a total of 60 in the six Eastern universities, as against 75 in Columbia. This is a remarkable showing.

In order that it may not be supposed that the basis of classification varies, it may be added that each of the students at Columbia is enrolled primarily under the Faculty of Political Science and is a candidate for the master’s or doctor’s degree, with the major subject in economics and social science. Every such student is required to attend a seminar. In addition to the seminar, 35 of the 75 students are taking 3 or more courses in economics or social science and 20 are taking 2 such courses. The remainder, who are taking one course in addition to the seminar, are chiefly students who have taken most of their lecture work in previous years.

The following figures, as to enrollment in economics and social science, will prove instructive:

Graduate students, primarily enrolled in political science, taking graduate courses (whether as a major or minor)	95
Graduate students (male) in the whole university taking graduate courses	123
Non-graduates (male), primarily registered in political science, doing chief work in economics	22
Students, graduates and non-graduates (male, but exclusive of seniors and other college students) in the whole university, taking graduate courses	149
Enrollment of students, as above (not deducting duplicates), in graduate courses in economics and social science	559
Enrollment of under-graduates in Columbia College	179
Enrollment of students of all kinds (male) pursuing these studies	738
Enrollment of Barnard students	140
Total enrollment in the University	878

The relative importance of the university work may also be seen by this comparison with Harvard:

	Harvard	Columbia
Total students primarily registered in non-professional (graduate) schools	341	331
Total graduates in non-professional (graduate) schools	323	292
Total graduates in political science	52 or 16%	114 or 39%
Total graduates primarily in economics and social science	8 or 2½%	17 or 26%

This showing is doubtless due in part to the system on which the work in economics and social science at Columbia is organized. The department has four full professors, one instructor and two lecturers. The work has been so apportioned that each professor devotes himself primarily to his own specialty—Professor Mayo-Smith to statistics and practical economics, Professor Clark to economic theory, Professor Giddings to social science, and Professor Seligman to economic history and finance. Another explanation of the large numbers is the facility afforded to students to combine with their studies in economics the courses in history, public law and general political science.

Among the recent graduates in economics of the School of Political Science, no less than 25 are now giving instruction in economics at other institutions, including Yale, Cornell, Amherst, Bryn Mawr, Smith, Syracuse, the Universities of Illinois, Indiana, and Colorado, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A number of graduates have become editors of important daily or weekly papers, in New York, Buffalo, Omaha and other cities, and a large number occupy administrative positions in the service of the national and state governments. Among the latter may be mentioned one of the chief statistician in the census office, a number of expert agents and chief clerks in the departments of the treasury and of agriculture in Washington; and the deputy commissioner of labor statistics and the sociology librarian in the State Library at Albany.

E. R. A. S. [Edwin R. A. Seligman]

___________________

Source: Columbia University Quarterly, Vol. 2, June, 1900, pp. 284-287.

Tags ClarkJB, Giddings, Mayo-Smith, Seligman

Chicago Columbia Cornell Harvard Johns Hopkins Michigan Pennsylvania

Top Eleven Economics PhD Programs in US, 1934

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-08-18

A listing of 22 U.S. graduate programs in economics judged by majority vote of a jury of 54 individuals (identified by name) to be adequately staffed and equipped for work leading to the doctorate in Economics. Eleven of those programs were designated to be “distinguished”.

________________________________

Excerpt from:

American Council on Education.
Report of Committee on Graduate Instruction.
Washington, D. C., April 1934.

…In preparing a list of graduate schools the following procedure was followed:

A list of 50 fields of knowledge in which it seemed possible to study the graduate work was prepared. The study as concluded covered only 35 fields.
A list of the 50 fields was sent to the Dean of the graduate school of every institution known to be offering work for the doctorate. The Dean was requested to check the fields in which graduate work for the doctorate was offered, to indicate the number of doctorates conferred in the last 5 years, and to submit a list of the graduate faculty in each field. The responses of the deans varied in accuracy and comprehensiveness.
From the reports of the deans, supplemented by study of catalogs, lists of institutions offering graduate work for the doctorate in each field, were prepared, complete so far as our information went.
The secretary of the national learned society in each field was requested to provide a list of 100 well-known scholars distributed, as far as possible, among the various special branches of the field.
To each of these scholars was sent a list of all the institutions offering work for the doctorate in the field with their respective graduate staffs in the field. Each scholar was requested to check those institutions which in his judgment had an adequate staff and equipment to prepare candidates for the doctorate; and to star the departments of the highest rank, roughly the highest 20 per cent.
The returns from these scholars were summarized, and those institutions accorded a star by the majority voting were placed in the starred group; those checked by a majority, but failing of a majority of stars, were placed in the group of those adequately staffed and equipped….

…Many votes on departments came in too late for inclusion in tabulations.

[…]

ECONOMICS
100 ballots sent out.
61 returns; majority, 31 votes.
535 doctorates were conferred in the period 1928-1932: 53 institutions offered work for doctorate.

Composite ratings were made from reports of the following persons: James W. Angell, George E. Barnett, J. W. Bell, A. B. Berglund, Roy G. Blakey, E. L. Bogart, O. F. Bouche, F. A. Bradford, T. N. Carver, J. M. Clark, Clive Day, F. S. Deibler, Paul Douglas, F. A. Fetter, Irving Fisher, F. B. Garver, Carter Goodrich, C. E. Griffin, M. B. Hammond, Alvin Hansen, C. D. Hardy, B. H. Hibbard, H. E. Hoagland, Grover G. Huebner, John Ise, Jens Jensen, Eliot Jones, Edwin Kemmerer, James E. LeRossingnol, H. L. Lutz, David McCabe, H. A. Millis, Broadus Mitchell, Wesley C. Mitchell, H. G. Moulton, C. T. Murchison, E. G. Nourse, E. M. Patterson, Carl Plohn, C. O. Ruggles, W. A. Scott, Horace Secrist, S. H. Slichter, T. R. Snavely, W. E. Spahr, R. A. Stevenson, G. W. Stocking, Frank P. Stockton, H. C. Taylor, Jesse Tullock, Francis Tyson, Jacob Viner, G. S. Watkins, A. B. Wolfe.

The jury named above has by a majority vote approved the following institutions as adequately staffed and equipped for work leading to the doctorate in Economics, starring which it considers most distinguished:

	Brown University	*	University of Chicago
*	Columbia University		University of Illinois
*	Cornell University		University of Iowa
*	Harvard University—Radcliffe College	*	University of Michigan
	Johns Hopkins University	*	University of Minnesota
	New York University		University of Missouri
	Northwestern University	*	University of Pennsylvania
	Ohio State University		University of Texas
*	Princeton University		University of Virginia
	Stanford University	*	University of Wisconsin
*	University of California	*	Yale University

[…]

Source: Columbia University Rare Book & Manuscript Library. William Vickrey Papers, Box 35, Folder “510.7/1934/Am3”.

Tags Angell, Carver, ClarkJM, Douglas, FetterFA, FisherIrving, Hansen, Millis, Mitchell, Moulton, Slichter, Viner

Chicago Columbia Cornell Curriculum Harvard Johns Hopkins Michigan Pennsylvania Yale

Cornell. Laughlin’s Scheme to Expand Economics,1891

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-08-10

J. Laurence Laughlin was hired away from Cornell to build the Department of Political Economy at the University of Chicago that began operation in the academic year 1892-93. This proposal to expand Cornell’s own instructional and research work in political economy and finance is interesting as Laughlin’s vision of what it would take to go from second-rate to the leading department. It is also interesting for its table comparing Laughlin’s dream department with the state of affairs at six rival universities: Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Michigan and Pennsylvania in 1890-91.

_______________

SCHEME FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY AND FINANCE IN CORNELL UNIVERSITY, PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES

I.

In view of the arrangement of courses for the coming year, (1891—2,) careful consideration should be given to the opportunities afforded by this department. The subjects heated are essential parts of the civic education of every member of society. Apart from their disciplinary value, their practical character would alone make it natural that the curricula of such schools as those of Agriculture, and of Mechanic Arts, should be enriched by including in them economic courses. This policy has already been announced by the statement in the University Register that Political Economy shall be hereafter made a part of the course of Civil Engineering. When regard is had to the prevailing ignorance of economics and its effect on national legislation, the wisdom of this policy is undoubted. The question might even be raised whether it were not advisable to require Political Economy of all students in the various courses, quite as much as History, or Chemistry. I cannot think, however, it is of advantage to the inﬂuence of a study to make its pursuit obligatory; but there cannot, I suppose, be any difference of opinion as to the wisdom of providing the proper amount of instruction, when the study of it is voluntary, and when the numbers of students are too great, (as is now the case,) to be properly cared for by the single professor

II.

In extending the reputation and prestige of Cornell University, no possible investment of its funds would, in my judgment, produce larger or earlier fruit than those spent in enlarging the work of this department. Such a policy would, at once, lend aid in educating the country where it most needs education, and bring here greater numbers of bright students who want economic training. The real University is to be found in the men it trains, and in the inﬂuence they exert on the community.

The deplorable ignorance and prejudice regarding questions of great practical importance, (such as banking and currency topics.) in the very regions from which we now draw our students, and must hereafter draw them in increasing numbers, makes the duty, as well as the opportunity, of our University, one of transcendent importance. Can it rise to the occasion? It is entirely within the truth to say that no such opportunity is open to us in any other branch of study. Furthermore, no other institution in our country is, at present, so well situated as Cornell University for doing a great and striking work in economics. If we accomplish this work, we can secure a strong hold on the people, and an enviable repute for enthusiastic, enterprising scholarship on subjects touching the immediate welfare of every individual citizen.

The mere fact of having had this exceptional opportunity for twenty years, and not having used it, (excepting one year,)—although there may be good reasons for it—has created a widespread belief elsewhere in our lack of interest and purpose in aiding economic study. To take only a second-rate position, therefore, or to do only moderately well, will not be enough to place us in a proper attitude before the public. Nor will it do to act so slowly that the growth of the department, however real, may be imperceptible to the outside world. In short, to produce the desired effect we should, if possible, draw the attention of the country to us by a striking and important movement; and it will be easy to make it striking and effective, because it is started in a subject which is occupying general attention. To indicate what form this movement should take is, in my opinion, the proper purpose of this communication. It has consequently seemed best to present a scheme of work for the department in as nearly complete a form as possible; a scheme, which shall be more thorough, more comprehensive, more scholarly than that presented by any other university. If adopted, it may then be said that greater advantages for economic study are offered at Cornell University than at any other American university. That a distinct opportunity exists for us, any member of an economic department in other institutions would be the ﬁrst to admit. Our apathy in this matter has, in the past, excited some comment and surprise.

The discussion regarding the neglect by this University of liberal studies in favor of the professional and technical schools, might suggest the present as a favorable opportunity to disabuse the public of that mistaken idea, by adopting this scheme for enlarging the department of economics; for, while appealing to those who believe in an intensely practical education, economics in truth belongs, because of its disciplinary power, to the culture studies. Should the Fayerweather bequest be received, may it not be the means, by concentrating its use on one ﬁeld, of making a striking movement which would command public attention?

III

I present herewith a list of courses which, if provided, would place this department ahead of any other in America. This is then followed by a comparison of the proposed scheme with the courses offered at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. The courses run throughout the year, at the given number of hours per week :—

Introductory course. Principles of Modern Economics. Elementary Banking. Descriptive economics: Money, coöperation, bimetallism, railway transportation, etc.
3 hours a week. [At present, two sections, requiring of the instructor six hours a week.]

Advanced course. History of Economic Theory. Examination of writers and systems. Critical Studies. Open only to those who have passed in course 1.
3 hours a week.

Investigation of Practical Economic Questions of the day: shipping, money, proﬁt-sharing, social questions. Theses and Criticisms. Training for Seminary. Open only to those who have passed in course 1.
2 hours a week.

The Industrial and Economic History of Europe and the United States in the last 100 years. Lectures and selected reading. No previous economic study required.
3 hours a week.

Taxation. Public Finance. Banking. Comparative study of the Financial Methods of the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, etc. Open only to those who have passed in course 1.
3 hours a week.

History of Financial Legislation in the United States since 1789. Lectures and reports. Open to all students.
1 hour a week.

History of Tariff Legislation in the United States since 1789; Tariff Legislation of France, Germany and Great Britain. Open to all students.
2 hours a week.

Railway Transportation and Legislation in the United States and Europe. Open to all students.
2 hours a week.

Statistics. Methods. Practical Training for Statistical Work. Presentation of Results. Open only to those who have passed in course 1.
3 hours a week.

Land Tenures. Land Systems of England, Ireland, France Belgium. Germany, and the United States. Open to all students. 1 hour a week.

Socialistic Theories. Marx, Lasalle, Proudhon; and modern popular theories. Open only to those who have passed in course 1.
1 hour a week.

Seminary. Special Investigations. Open only to competent students.
2 hours a week.

COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED COURSES WITH THOSE NOW GIVEN AT VARIOUS UNIVERSITIES.

Courses.	Proposed for Cornell.	Now Given at
Courses.	Proposed for Cornell.	Cor- nell.	Har- vard.	Yale.	Colum- bia.	Johns Hopkins.	Penna.	Michi- gan.
1	3	3	3	7 ½	1	5	4 ½	2
2	3	}3	3	3	1 ½	5 (?)	6	1
3	2	}3	1 ½	1	2			2 ½
4	3		3	2	1		2	1[*]
5	3		3	2	3		1	1 ½
6	1		1 ½	}2	2		2
7	2	1	1 ½	}2	1			1
8	2		1 ½	1	1 ½
9	3				2		1	½
10	1
11	1			1	2
12	2	2	2(?)	2 ½	2	2	2	2
Total.	26	9	20	22	19	12	18 ½	11 ½
Number of In- structors.	5	1	4	4	4	1	5	2

[* The actual entry in this cell appear to be:

This Table makes obvious, at a glance, how far Cornell is behind other universities in this department. When it is considered that man’s character is moulded by his material surroundings; that questions of livelihood and economic concern occupy his thoughts more hours in the day, possibly, than any other subject; that the great forming agencies of the world are religious and economic,—this shortcoming in our courses of instruction becomes painfully evident. Not only are we behind other institutions, but this department, with all its importance, is far behind almost every other of our departments, especially in comparison with the Historical group.

The present number of students in the department (about 160) is, moreover, too large to be properly cared for by one instructor. Nor should the present professor be expected to keep in view the larger questions of the scope and inﬂuence of the department, or the work of investigation, and yet continue the reading of routine, but necessary, exercises.

To give the courses in the proposed list above, in addition to the present professor, there would be needed at least one associate professor, at a probable salary of $2,000 (to whom it would be necessary, in order to obtain the right man, to offer some deﬁnite expectation of further promotion in the future); one assistant-professor, at the usual salary, and two capable instructors, paid probably $1,000 each. These estimates are, of course, provisional.

IV

Of equal, or even greater importance than the increased hours of instruction, for the purpose of touching the work of students at its most vital point, is the grant of a suitable Publication Fund. The professor in charge believes this to be essential to the success of the department; that this part of the scheme is of primary importance. It is proposed to publish investigations of students and instructors in a series of bound volumes, with a distinctive cover, marking them as productions of Cornell University, and entitled “Cornell University Studies in Economics.” For this purpose at least $1,000 per annum should be granted. It would be appropriate to name this the “Fayerweather Publication Fund,” and every volume issued would bear the name of this benefactor. With the material already in sight that sum would not be sufﬁcient; but it would, so far as it goes, send the name of the University into every centre of scholarly work in this country and in Europe. Still better, it would do more than any other one thing to stimulate the work of our students, and to produce ﬁnished and accurate scholarship; while the practical bearing of these studies would bring the University to the notice of men in business and financial circles.

The subject has been carefully examined and studied in view of past experience in other institutions. The establishment of the Quarterly Journal of Economics by Harvard University was due to the creation of a Publication Fund, and it has won the respect and attracted the attention of scholars, as well as the public, the world over. Columbia College has wielded a large influence by the Political Science Quarterly, and stimulated its work in these lines: while, in addition, the publication of a series of monographs is now announced. The University of Pennsylvania has lately taken energetic steps to increase its publications, by which the work of the Wharton School has been suddenly brought to the attention of students everywhere. Not only a journal, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, but a series of monographs, and translations of important German works, are published by this school. The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science have been published for years, and, although not even in quality, have done more than anything else to attract attention to their facilities for investigation and study. Finally, the scheme of the new University of Chicago, following the trend of these successful movements, makes the “University Publication Work” one of the three general divisions of its work, and emphasizes the desire to publish papers, journals, and books by instructors, thereby hoping to furnish greater stimulus and incentive than now exist toward original investigation.

V

The ﬁxing of a high standard of work by students; in the department; the encouragement of capable young men to carry on their studies beyond mere superﬁcial work; a relief to poor, but able, men from subsidiary employments to earn a living while engaged in investigations; a means of drawing here from other institutions the brightest men who have distinguished themselves in economics; and, to provide for investigators, who will present their results to the public and enlarge the repute of the University for scholarly work both at home and abroad,—all these things can be effected only by the creation of fellowships and scholarships in this department. Five (5) fellowships, permitting the holders to reside either at the University, or abroad, with an annual income of $500 each; and four (4) scholarships, with an annual income of $250 each, are urgently needed.

VI

The library is deﬁcient in important collections and series, which are absolutely essential to economic research; and which are possessed by other institutions. In other places these deﬁciencies are supplemented by access to neighboring libraries (e.g., at Columbia College, by the Lenox and Astor Libraries; at Harvard University, by the Boston Public Library and the Atheneum. Our absolute isolation requires that we should own these important collections outright. We have, for example, none of the British Government Publications (the “Blue-Books”), a complete set of which is very expensive; nor those of France, or Germany, whose statistical work is exceedingly valuable. Of the various European economic journals, by which we may keep abreast of current thinking, we have almost none. It is a hindrance: which would be regarded as intolerable in Physics, Chemistry, or Philology. In short, the department needs a special annual grant of $2,000 for at least ﬁve (5) years beyond the present and expected allowance of next year for this department) to bring it to a respectable basis, as compared with other departments. Detailed accounts of these wants can be given, if needed.

VII

SUMMARY.

The Board of Trustees is respectfully asked to grant an annual appropriation to this department of the following sums :—

Additional instruction,
	One Associate Professor,	$ 2,000
	One Assistant Professor,	1,600
	Two Instructors at $1000 each,	2,000
			$ 5,600
Five Fellowships at $500 each,			2,500
Four Scholarships at $250 each,			1,000
Publication fund,			1,000
Books (for five years),			2,000
	Total,		$12,100

With this grant, it is quite certain we can produce results which are not now possible in any university in this country Our department of economics will then be the ﬁrst in the United States.—one of which every friend of Cornell can speak with pride. Especially will it mark an epoch in the history of economic training in this country, and bring Cornell to the front in an important subject of universal, and yet practical, concern. The University is not rich enough to permit any other institution to seize the opportunity for which she herself has so evident an advantage, and for which she so evidently occupies a strategic position.

Very respectfully presented by

J. LAURENCE LAUGHLIN.

Professor of Political Economy and Finance.

March 2, 1891

_______________

Source: Laughlin, James Laurence. Papers, [Box 1, Folder 17], Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Image Source: Clipped from printed speech given at the 78th meeting of The Sunset Club at the Grand Pacific Hotel, Chicago, December 6, 1894 found in Laughlin, James Laurence. Papers, [Box 1, Folder 17], Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Tags Laughlin

Economists Johns Hopkins

Johns Hopkins. Veblen on Mill, 1881

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-07-27

The Historical and Political Science Association of Johns Hopkins met monthly and abstracts of papers presented were published in the University Circulars. The 24 year old graduate student of Philosophy (major) and Economics (minor), Thorstein B. Veblen, presented work he did for a course taught by Richard T. Ely (Instructor in Political Economy).

___________________

PROCEEDINGS OF UNIVERSITY SOCIETIES.
Abstracts of the More Important Papers Read at Recent Meetings.

[…]

Historical and Political Science Association.
December [1881] meeting.

[…]

Mill’s Theory of the Taxation of Land, by T. B. VEBLEN.

With the advance of society the rent of land increases. This increase is independent of any effort of the landlord, being the product of the activity of the community. The State should therefore, by a peculiar tax, appropriate this “unearned increment” and not permit it to go to the owner of the land. To obviate all injustice to owners who have bought land with the expectation of being permitted to enjoy the future increase of its rent, the State is to offer to buy the land of the owners at its market price as an alternative to their keeping it and paying to the State the increase of rent. As a consequence of such an alternative, land having a speculative value would be sold to the State in order to avoid loss to the owners. The measure would act as a fine on the holding of land, to the amount of the speculative value, and lead to an almost universal nationalization of land; differing, however, from generally entertained schemes for the State’s getting possession of land, in that the expense of the change would be more equitably distributed on all classes of the community. No immediate redistribution of wealth would take place, but, neglecting all probable undesirable secondary effects of the change on the people, an advantage would accrue from an increased compactness of population, making possible a saving of labor.

___________________

Source: Johns Hopkins University. University Circulars. No.13, February, 1882, p. 176.

Image Source: “A young Thorstein Veblen as a Carleton grad” from the Veblen farmhouse restoration webpage. Incidentally, that farmhouse is now a bed-and-breakfast.

Tags Ely, Veblen

Economists Johns Hopkins

Johns Hopkins. H.C. Adams Dissertation auf deutsch 1879

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-07-27

One takes the one-way translation of research work from foreign languages into English so much for granted that it is easy to forget that there was indeed a time when having your research published in German was the way to acquire international recognition. During his Wanderjahr in Europe, Adams used the opportunity to place his Johns Hopkins doctoral dissertation in a leading international journal auf deutsch.

Professor Adolph Wagner’s note above translates as follows:

“1) Editor’s note. This paper is the work of a young North American economist currently studying in Berlin. It was originally written in English and then translated. Even after multiple revisions there remain some anglicisms that will not [however] detract from the value of this contribution. A. Wagner.”

______________________________

Henry Carter Adams’ alma mater proudly reported the placement of his Hopkins dissertation on the history of taxation in the U.S. 1789-1816.

Johns Hopkins University. University Circulars. No. 2, Jan., 1880, p. 19:

“The Thesis of Dr. Henry C. Adams, presented when he graduated as Doctor of Philosophy in the Johns Hopkins University, has been printed in successive numbers of the Zeitschrift für die gesammte Staatswissenschaft, Tübingen, 1879. Its title is Zur Geschichte der Besteuerung in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika in der Periode von 1789-1816.”

Dissertation: Part One. Dissertation: Part Two.

______________________________

More about Henry Carter Adams’ education in included in another post.

Tags AdamsHenryC

FRANCIS AMASA WALKER.

[by Charles F. Dunbar, 1897]

ACADEMIC SOCIALISM By Herbert Tuttle

Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 52, August 1883. pp. 200-210.

THE HISTORICAL WORK OF PROF. HERBERT TUTTLE.

Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1894, pp. 29-37. Washington, D. C.: GPO, 1896.

COURSES IN ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SCIENCE, AMERICAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. [1890-91]

AMHERST COLLEGE, AMHERST, MASS.

Department of History and Political Science, 1890-91, includes:

BROWN UNIVERSITY, PROVIDENCE, R. I.

Department of History and Political Science, 1890-91, includes:

HISTORY.

POLITICAL ECONOMY

BRYN MAWR COLLEGE, BRYN MAWR, PA. (For Women.)

Programme for 1891 includes:

POLITICAL SCIENCE: MINOR COURSE.

MAJOR COURSE.

GRADUATE COURSE INCLUDES:

COLUMBIA COLLEGE, NEW YORK CITY.

University Faculty of Political Science, 1890-91, includes:

HISTORY.

POLITICAL ECONOMY.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.

DIPLOMACY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW.

LEGAL HISTORY AND COMPARATIVE JURISPRUDENCE.

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.

CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, N. Y.

Department of History and Political Science, 1890-91, includes:

HISTORY.

POLITICAL ECONOMY.

SOCIAL SCIENCE.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY, CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

Department of Political Economy, 1890-91, includes:

PRIMARILY FOR UNDERGRADUATES

COURSES FOR GRADUATES AND UNDERGRADUATES.

PRIMARILY FOR GRADUATES.

Department of History, 1890-91, includes among Courses for Undergraduates:

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, BALTIMORE, MD.

Department of History and Politics, 1890-91, includes:

GRADUATE AND ADVANCED COURSES.

UNDERGRADUATE COURSES.

INDIANA UNIVERSITY, BLOOMINGTON, IND.

Department of History, Economics and Social Science, 1890-91, includes:

HISTORY. PROF. EARL BARNES.

ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE. PROF. J. W. JENKS.

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR.

Departments of Political Economy, International Law, History, and Philosophy, 1890-91, includes:

POLITICAL ECONOMY First Semester.

Second Semester.

INTERNATIONAL LAW. First Semester.

Second Semester.

HISTORY. First Semester.

Second Semester.

PHILOSOPHY. Second Semester.

UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, LINCOLN.

Department of Economic and Political Science, 1890-91, includes:

COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY, PRINCETON, N. J.

Departments of History and Political Science, and Jurisprudence and Political Economy, 1890-91, include:

HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE. PROF. SLOANE.

JURISPRUDENCE AND POLITICAL ECONOMY. PROF. WOODROW WILSON.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, PHILADELPHIA, PA.

Wharton School of Finance and Economy, 1890-91, includes:

HISTORY.

ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE.

PUBLIC LAW AND POLITICS.

SEMINARIES.

SMITH COLLEGE, NORTHAMPTON, MASS. (For Women.)

Course for 1890-91 includes:

POLITICAL ECONOMY, POLITICAL SCIENCE, ETC. PROF. J. B. CLARK.

VASSAR COLLEGE, POUGHKEEPSIE, N. Y. (For Women.)

The Department of History and Economics, 1890-91, includes:

WELLESLEY COLLEGE, WELLESLEY, MASS. (For Women).

The Department of History, Political Science, and Political Economy, 1889-90, includes:

HISTORY.

POLITICAL ECONOMY.

WILLIAMS COLLEGE, WILLIAMSTOWN, MASS.

Department of Political Economy and Political Science, 1890-91, includes:

YALE UNIVERSITY, NEW HAVEN, CONN.

Departments of Political Science and Law and History, 1890-91, include:

LAW.

ACADEMIC SOCIALISM
By Herbert Tuttle

Atlantic Monthly,
Vol. 52, August 1883. pp. 200-210.

Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1894, pp. 29-37.
Washington, D. C.: GPO, 1896.

COURSES IN ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SCIENCE,
AMERICAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.
[1890-91]

POLITICAL SCIENCE:
MINOR COURSE.

HISTORY.
PROF. EARL BARNES.

ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE.
PROF. J. W. JENKS.

POLITICAL ECONOMY
First Semester.

INTERNATIONAL LAW.
First Semester.

HISTORY.
First Semester.

PHILOSOPHY.
Second Semester.

HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE.
PROF. SLOANE.

JURISPRUDENCE AND POLITICAL ECONOMY.
PROF. WOODROW WILSON.

POLITICAL ECONOMY, POLITICAL SCIENCE, ETC.
PROF. J. B. CLARK.

STUDENTS WITH DEGREES ENROLLED IN
GRADUATE COURSES, Dec. 1909

The Historical Seminary at Bonn.¹

The Statistical Seminary in Berlin.²

American Council on Education.
Report of Committee on Graduate Instruction.
Washington, D. C., April 1934.