Before he accepted an appointment to assistant professorship at Harvard in 1903, Charles Jesse Bullock was Orrin Sage professor of history and political science at Williams College. He published a short history of the first hundred years of course offerings in political economy, political philosophy/theory, constitutional law and international law at Williams in 1904.
Bonus material: links have been added to the key texts identified by Bullock.
The History of Economic and Political Studies
in Williams College
C. J. Bullock, Assistant Professor of Political Economy, Harvard University; late Orrin Sage Professor of Political Economy in Williams College
Historical and political studies seem to have been almost wholly neglected in the American colleges of the colonial epoch. In this direction the first serious impulse came from the stirring discussions of the Revolutionary period and of the years that witnessed the adoption of the Federal Constitution. In 1784 the first law school was established at Litchfield, Connecticut; and during the next twenty years lectureships or professorships of law were created in various institutions. Before this movement had spent its force, political philosophy, political economy, and, in some cases, history had benefited by the interest thus aroused, so that one or more of these subjects found a place in the curricula of many colleges.
The “Free School” at Williamstown was transformed into Williams College in 1793, at the very time when our institutions of higher education were beginning to recognize the importance of training young men for the legal profession, the service of the State, or the common duties of citizenship. In the first invoice of books purchased for the college library, political and historical works were well represented; and upon October 20, 1794, Hon. Theodore Sedgwick, at that time a member of Congress, was appointed Professor of Law and Civil Polity. It does not appear that Mr. Sedgwick ever entered upon the work of his professorship — a fact which may be readily explained by his absorption in the duties of public life or by the meagre resources of the college; but it is interesting to note that this was the first professorship which the trustees attempted to establish.
In 1795 the first laws for the government of the college were adopted. From these we learn that the studies of the fourth year were “metaphysics, ethics, history, the law of nature and nations, civil polity, and theology.” Thomas Robbins, a member of the class of 1796, writes in his diary, under the date of January 1st of his senior year, “Reciting now Paley’s Moral Philosophy”; and under the date of March 22d, “Began to recite Vattel.” Instruction in these subjects was given by President Fitch, as we learn from a letter* written by a member of the class of 1802 who says, “Those students who were instructed by him during their senior year will never forget the ability and interest with which he explained and illustrated the writings of Locke, Paley, and Vattel.”
The facts just mentioned are sufficient to establish the character of the instruction given in political philosophy and international law; concerning the study of history, however, no evidence is now available. Paley’s Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy, published in England in 1785 and republished in Boston ten years later, devotes one entire book — the sixth — to the philosophy of the State, and treats of such subjects as forms of government, civil liberty, and the administration of justice. This book was used for many years at Williams, as elsewhere. Its author was a conservative by temperament, and a friend of the established social and political order; and these qualities would naturally commend his writings to such an ardent Federalist as President Fitch, who was greatly disturbed over the revolutionary movement in France and the rise of Jeffersonian democracy in the United States.† In his baccalaureate sermon of 1799, Dr. Fitch warned the graduating class that “every civil and religious institution is threatened with ruin,” that “the principles of deism, atheism, and disorganizing politics have of late years made rapid strides,” and he urged his hearers to oppose manfully the progress of these destructive tendencies.
This arrangement of studies probably remained unchanged for many years. The College Laws of 1805 repeated the provisions of those adopted in 1795; the Laws of 1815 are more general in their terms, but prescribe that history and the law of nations shall be included in the curriculum. These subjects, undoubtedly, fell to the charge of the president. In 1812 Hon. Daniel Dewey was appointed Professor of Law and Civil Polity, but it is not known that he ever gave regular instruction in the college, although his name appeared in the catalogue until his death in 1815. The laws of the latter year state merely that “the Professor of Law shall occasionally deliver lectures to the senior sophisters or to all the students.”
In 1822 the catalogue of the college contains for the first time a statement of the courses of instruction. From it we learn that history was one of three subjects studied during the third term of the sophomore year, and that Tytler’s Elements of History was used as a text-book. In the senior year Paley’s [Moral and] Political Philosophy was studied during the second term, and Vattel’s Law of Nations during the third. Altogether, one third of the instruction for three terms, or about one twelfth of the college course, was devoted to these three subjects. History was probably taught by one of the two tutors who had charge at this time of most of the studies of the lower classes; the senior courses were conducted chiefly by the president.
In 1828 a Manual of Political Economy, by Willard Phillips, was published at Boston, and this work was immediately introduced in the place of Say’s treatise. When we recall that in this year the passage of the “Tariff of Abominations” stimulated excited discussions of the tariff question, and that Phillips was an advocate of protectionism, we may venture upon the conjecture that Professor Porter was dissatisfied with the teachings of Say concerning freedom of trade. At any rate Phillips’ Manual continued to be used in the college for a number of years. When Mark Hopkins was called to the chair of Moral Philosophy in 1830, Paley’s work was reintroduced, but only to supplement and not to displace Phillips and Vattel.
In 1835 Joseph Alden was called to a new professorship of Rhetoric and Political Economy, and more adequate provision was made for instruction in political and economic science. In his inaugural address in 1836, President Hopkins alluded to the recent introduction of the study of political economy, and expressed the hope that means could be provided for instruction in constitutional law. For this a place was found in the same year, when Professor Alden discarded Vattel and introduced [Joseph] Story on the Constitution [Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Abridged by the author for the use of Colleges and High Schools, 1833)]. The sophomore course in history remained as before, and, after a time at least, came under the charge of Professor Alden. In 1837 the course in political economy was shifted to the first term of the junior year, and in 1840 Wayland’s well-known treatise [Francis Wayland, The Elements of Political Economy (1837)]was introduced as a text-book. Professor Alden was a Jeffersonian Democrat and a free trader, but seems to have made more of his lectures upon the United States Constitution* than of his work in history and political economy. In 1843 a course in American history was introduced in the second term of the junior year, and in 1844 this was placed among the studies prescribed for sophomores. Two years later, however, this subject dropped out of the curriculum.
At this point it will prove interesting to compare the development of political and economic studies at Williams with their history at a sister institution, Dartmouth College.†
At Hanover these studies were first introduced in 1796, under the stimulus of the same influences that were felt at Williams in the previous year. In Dartmouth the juniors were given instruction in Paley’s Moral and Political Philosophy by the professor who had general charge of that class; while the seniors, under the guidance of President Wheelock, studied Burlamaqui’s Principles of Natural and Politic Law[1792], of which an American edition had been published at Boston in 1793. In 1804 the course in political philosophy was transferred to the charge of the Professor of Divinity, and in 1823 to the Professor of Moral and Intellectual Philosophy. In 1822 instruction in constitutional law was given to the seniors, and in 1828 a chair of Moral Philosophy and Political Economy was created. Professor Roswell Shurtleff, the incumbent of this chair, introduced Say’s Political Economy in the place of Burlamaqui’s [Principles of] Natural and Politic Law; and continued for a decade the use of Paley’s Political Philosophy and the Federalist. In 1838 Paley was replaced by Wayland’s Moral Philosophy [The Elements of Moral Science, 5th ed. (1837)], and in 1842 a course in Kent’s Commentaries on American Law [2nd ed., 1832: Vol. I ; Vol. II ; Vol. III ; Vol. IV] was offered to seniors. Some years later the latter work was displaced by Story’s well-known treatise. The general similarity of development in the two institutions is emphasized by the fact that Dartmouth, in 1808, made unsuccessful efforts to establish a professorship of law.
At Williams the next important event was the resignation of Professor Alden in 1852. After an interval of a year, Arthur Latham Perry was called to a professorship of History and Political Economy; and commenced those studies, especially in the field of political economy, which soon brought him a national reputation and secured distinguished recognition in France and England. Although compelled by the poverty of the college to give instruction in German and in Christian Evidences for many years, he soon built up a strong department of history and political economy. To the sophomores he gave instruction in history, at first for one and later for two terms, introducing newer and better text-books, as they appeared, in place of the wretched treatise by Tytler. To the juniors he offered a course in political economy for which he published, in 1865, the first of his well-known books, Elements of Political Economy. In addition, Professor Perry continued the work in constitutional law which had been begun by his predecessor. This study was, in 1859, transferred to the junior year, where it long remained; at the outset Story’s work was used as a text, but in time the instruction came to be given by lectures. Upon an average, during the period from 1857 to 1887, the three subjects above mentioned occupied about one-eighth of the entire college course, and until the latter year they were required of all students.*
In 1871 Orrin Sage, a Massachusetts manufacturer, gave the college $50,000 as an endowment for Professor Perry’s chair. In part, at least, this action was the result of the attacks which had been made from time to time upon Professor Perry’s views concerning the injustice and inexpediency of the protective tariff. The trustees of the college had at all times upheld the independence of the department of political economy, but the gift was prompted by a desire to place the chair upon the most secure foundation possible. So far as freedom of teaching is concerned, few, if any, American colleges can boast of better traditions.
In 1882, with the coming of the elective system, there was established an elective course in European history, conducted by a new instructor. This marked the beginning of the separation of the departments of history and political economy, which became complete when, in 1890, an endowment was received for a chair of American History. In the following year Professor Perry closed his long term of faithful service to the college, and John Bascom was made acting professor upon the Orrin Sage foundation, which was thereafter devoted to the department of political economy. Thus at the close of the first century of its existence, Williams College had created two independent departments for the studies in which, at the outset, the president had instructed the seniors during the last half of the collegiate year.
With the history of the last decade it is not the purpose of this paper to deal. Suffice it to say that the establishment of new chairs of Political Science and of European History has enabled the college to extend and to specialize instruction in these subjects, so that now four professors are cultivating the field where Professor Perry labored so long and so successfully as Professor of History and Political Economy. In all this the college is but meeting the demands of the times for more extensive instruction in political and economic studies. To-day, as in 1794, it is attempting, so far as its resources permit, to prepare young men for the intelligent exercise of the rights and duties of citizenship; and now, as formerly, it seeks to prescribe, for students or teachers, no tests of political or economic orthodoxy. With such a record of honorable achievement, the college faces hopefully the educational demands of the twentieth century.
About 110 years ago the structure of a common lecture and smaller recitation sections for large college courses was novel enough to warrant a description with explanation. The assistant professor of economics and statistician, Edmund Ezra Day (Harvard Ph.D., 1909) penned a two page article for the Harvard Illustrated Magazine that is transcribed following a brief overview of Day’s career.
Day went on to professorships at Harvard and the University of Michigan followed by a detour through the Rockefeller Foundation that took him to the Presidency of Cornell University. Economics in the Rear-view Mirror begins this post with a chronology of Edmund Ezra Day’s life.
___________________________
Biographical Timeline
1883. Born December 7 to Ezra Alonzo and Louise Moulton (Nelson) Day at Manchester, New Hampshire.
1905. B.S., Dartmouth College (Phi Beta Kappa).
1906. A.M., Dartmouth College.
1906-10. Instructor of economics, Dartmouth College.
Other misc. facts: Edmund Ezra Day was president of the New York State Citizens Council, the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities, the World Student Service Fund; he was chairman of the American Council on Education, director of the National Bureau of Economic Research, director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (appointed January 1937), Councillor of the National Industrial Conference Board, and a trustee of Tuskegee institute beginning 1939. He held fifteen honorary degrees.
Ithaca Journal, March 23, 1951. p. 1. “Dr. Day, President Emeritus of Cornell, Dies at 67 of heart Attack in his Car.”
The National Cyclopedia of American Biography, 1942.
___________________________
Section Work in Economics
EDMUND E. DAY, ’09, Assistant Professor in Economics.
Among the methods of undergraduate instruction, the section-meeting is of large importance. By the section-meeting is meant an exercise attended by only a fraction of the men enrolled in the course. Usually it stands combined in varying proportions with the lecture. Usually, too, it is not in charge of the instructor “giving the course” (sic), but rather of an assistant. But neither of these common features is essential to the section idea.
The most important single question raised by the section method is: What is its purpose? Undoubtedly the section may, and does, serve many ends. It clearly is valuable in the grading of undergraduate work. It is in this rôle that, in many courses, the section is really significant. Such are the cases in which one-half of the only section-hour each week is devoted to a written test, and the balance of the hour to remarks by the assistant. But the section may certainly be made more than an adjunct to the College Office. Obviously, the section-meeting fosters that familiarity between student and instructor which should invariably exert a wholesome influence; serving the same purpose in undergraduate instruction that publicity does in politics.
Furthermore, in many courses the section-meeting offers the only opportunity for open discussion, for a free give and take between instructor and instructed. Such discussion is the sine qua non of effective teaching in many, if not in most, subjects. It develops clear thinking, power in logical analysis, and effective speech. It stimulates that interest which encourages faithful work from day to day, instead of hasty cramming at examinations. In general, it makes for permanent intellectual power as against temporary mental acquisition.
Such being the opportunities of the section-meeting, by what organization and methods may they best be seized? The immediate interest of the student might seem to demand that the instructor in charge of the course should conduct its sections. But this would violate every rule of good economy. Professors of scholarly and scientific experience and reputation, while they would probably give section instruction better than most assistants, have a vastly greater advantage in the work they are at present doing. In the long run they best advance undergraduate instruction by delegating section work to the younger men. Nor is this so generally to the disadvantage of the section as is commonly supposed. As a rule, the young instructor of promise brings to his task a zest, a sympathetic knowledge of college ways and ideals, an appreciation of the difficulties of the beginner which the older man has long since lost. And after all, teaching ability is in large measure a gift which needs little polishing by experience, good teachers are just as rare among older men as among the younger.
Section instructors and students should be, as we have noted, on terms of familiarity. Therefore assistants should be selected with great care. Appointments in the past have perhaps too little emphasized the need of certain human qualities not weighted in the Ph.D. examination. The leaven of a little sympathy, of more good humor, and of still more downright fairness and good sense works wonders in raising the level of section instruction.
Grading seems an essential element in section work, but it should be reduced to a minimum. This does not mean that it should be confined to a written test. Some grading had best accompany work in discussion. This seems necessary to compel intelligent discussion. Too often discussion degenerates into what the undergraduate expressively calls “drool.” Upon the other hand, so-called discussion sometimes is narrowed into mere drill upon the text. The assistant must steer the difficult course between the two extremes. In this endeavor a reasonable amount of inconspicuous “policing” is desirable.
Spirited and stimulated discussion is, after all, the most significant aim of the section-meeting. This imposes responsibilities upon instructor and student alike. The instructor must be able to direct and control discussion, the student must contribute his share of thought and interest; together they coöperate to make section work a success. The test of the section work in any course lies in the quality of the discussion provoked.
The weaknesses of the section are such as to call for improvement, rather than abolition, of the method. Improvement is in large measure a question of money cost. Adequate outlay would probably guarantee section instructors satisfactory alike to students and department staffs. Sufficient outlay to secure assistants with a firm grasp of their subjects is absolutely essential. But some improvements probably are within reach without much additional cost. Thus, by careful provision for standardizing grading, we may reduce the risks involved in the assignment of different students to assistants in the same course but of different experience and temperament. The value of section work may be more generally recognized and upheld. Greater emphasis may be laid on teaching ability in selecting assistants. And finally, possibly in coöperation with the Education Department, assistants may be helped to acquire the gentle art of section work.
Other improvements of the section method will undoubtedly be suggested. But to give it up entirely seems unwise; the section has probably come to stay. It seems, for the present, an advisable concession to large-scale education.
After the longest break from posting since I began this blog almost eight years ago, I now return to regular posting for most of the rest of this month (May 2023).
We resume our slow march through the economics exams at Harvard in the first decade of the 20th century with the semester examinations for the undergraduate introductory course in economics for the academic year 1903-04. The division of labor between A. P. Andrew and Frank Taussig appears to have been Taussig being responsible for the first semester with his junior partner Andrew taking over for the second semester. This would be consistent with the fact that the year-end examination was not included in Taussig’s personal scrapbook of course examinations [Harvard University Archives. Prof. F. W. Taussig, Examination Papers in Economics 1882-1935 (Scrapbook)].
___________________________
Course Enrollment, 1903-04
Economics 1. Professor Taussig, Asst. Professor Andrew, and five assistants. — Outlines of Economics.
Arrange your answers strictly in the order of the questions. Answer nine questions, and give your reasons for all answers.
Is it advantageous to laborers, temporarily or permanently, that there should be (1) large government expenditures for military purposes; (2) large government expenditures for improvements in transportation; (3) luxurious expenditure by the rich; (4) savings by the rich? (You are free to discuss these separately, or as one general question.)
Which of the following are productive laborers (1) according to Mill’s distinction, (2) in your own opinion:—
an actor;
a grain merchant;
one who engages in “commercial speculation”,
one who engages in “industrial speculation”;
one who engages in stock speculation.
Will the population of a country be able to increase more rapidly when there is immigration than when there is not? Will it probably increase more rapidly?
Suppose the variations in the fertility of land to be offset precisely by disadvantage in situation — the more distant land being the more fertile, the nearer land the less fertile — would there be rent? Would your answer be the same or different, according as you assume the whole of the land to be under cultivation, or some parts of it to be not yet in use?
The significance of the principle of demand and supply, as regards (1) perishable commodities, (2) durable commodities, (3) monopolized commodities, — wherein different, wherein the same?
How far is the proposition that the value of commodities conforms to their cost of production affected by (1) the varying rent of land; (2) the use of fixed capital (plant) on a great scale; (3) the growth of combinations?
Is there a tendency to equality in the return to capital? in net profits (“business profits”)? in gross profits?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the regulation of combinations and monopolies by (1) limitations of profits, (2) fixing of prices charged to the public, (3) enforcement of farsighted management?
Suppose all education and training to be gratuitous, and all obstacles to the free choice of occupations removed: would there be differences of wages? If so, of what sort? If not, why not?
How do you conceive the remuneration for labor to be determined in a socialistic community? Wherein is the underlying principle different from that in existing society? What do you believe to be the essential merit or defect, or both, of the socialist principle?
Write answers strictly in the order of the questions.
Omit one question from each group.
I
Differences of wages are sometimes due to the presence of competition, sometimes to its absence. Give examples of each.
What factors tend to prevent the rate of interest from an excessive rise? from an excessive fall?
What would be the effect upon the wealth of a community
if landlords gave up all claims to rent?
if all production took place upon the margin of cultivation?
if the price of all agricultural produce were legally fixed at the average cost of production?
What influences govern the value on the New York market of
coffee?
structural steel?
hides?
II
Under normal conditions in the United States the par of exchange on London is $4.866, and the value of 23.2 grains of gold is $1.00. Suppose that the market price of gold was quoted at 5 cents per grain, and exchange on London was quoted at $5.65. What would this indicate
as to the balance of trade?
as to the character of the currency?
President Lincoln is reported to have said: “When we buy a ton of steel rails abroad, we get the rails and the foreigner gets the money; but when we buy a ton of steel rails produced at home, we get both the rails and the money.”
Give your opinion of this statement as an argument for protection.
“The fact that the greenbacks have circulated at par for more than a quarter of a century is a strong guarantee that their retention in limited amount, always promptly redeemable, has not proved a mistake.”
State briefly the history of the greenbacks, and give your opinion of this statement with reasons.
“They also urge — and this is in some respects their strongest argument — that a slowly depreciating currency is better than a slowly appreciating one.” — Hadley.
Explain and criticise, stating the effect of a depreciating standard upon each of the four great shares in distribution.
Complete and balance the account to show the condition of a National bank in New York city with a reasonable circulation giving in detail the items concerning the issue and securing of notes. How would the items probably differ, if the bank was located it Yonkers?
Does an increase in bank notes add (1) to the amount, and (2) to the elasticity of the total currency in
the United States?
England?
France?
Germany?
In the present industrial combinations how far have the economies of large scale and centralized production resulted in benefit to consumers? Give reasons.
What four changes in industrial conditions resultant from the introduction of the factory system have influenced the character of modern trade-unionism?
Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Examination Papers 1873-1915. Box 7, Bound volume: Examination Papers, 1904-05; Papers Set for Final Examinations in History, Government, Economics, … in Harvard College, June 1904, pp. 25-27.
Image Sources: Frank W. Taussig (Original black and white image from of Frank William Taussig from a cabinet card photograph, 1895, at the Harvard University Archives HUP); Abram Piatt Andrews (Picture from ca. 1909 used in a magazine article about Andrew’s appointment to the directorship of the U. S. Mint. Hoover Institution Archives. A. Piatt Andrew Papers, Box 51). Images colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.
The issue of academic freedom can shock the best and worst of economics departments. Like much of what is interesting in economics, it is important to distinguish between nominal and real shocks. In 1933 Columbia College, the undergraduate arm of Columbia University, found itself in a whirlwind of controversy following the non-renewal of a contract of a radical instructor of economics. I stumbled across this case from newspaper accounts and thought it would help spice up Economics in the Rear-view Mirror (much as the Harvard/UMass saga of young radical economists in the early 1970s has) to examine the case.
I have not ever looked for or seen any archival material at Columbia regarding the protagonist of this post, Donald Henderson. Economics in the Rear-View Mirror is primarily concerned with the nuts-and-bolts of the economics curricula across time and universities. Still my curiosity has led me to examine several online newspaper archives (The Columbia Spectator archive has been especially useful), the genealogical website ancestry.com, and the usual book/text sites (archive.org and hathitrust.org), to fill in missing details about the life of Mr. Donald Henderson.
Economics in the Rear-View Mirror, theory of the case: Columbia University’s upper administration appears to have had a “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” moment once alumni letters began to pour in following the arrest of its economics instructor, Donald Henderson, at a protest in October 1932 at C.C.N.Y. in support of the English instructor Oakley Johnson, who had been dismissed by City College President Frederick B. Robinson for his “communist sympathies” (a New York Times understatement). Having left the safe-space of what goes in Vegas, stays in Vegas (i.e. Columbia College), Donald Henderson was a low-value academic pawn offered as a sacrifice to satisfy the alumni gods. Henderson had not really displayed visible indicators of a future distinguished academic career and the Columbia administration most certainly underestimated the potential of the organized mobilization by militant agitators capable of leveraging such an issue for less than pure academic freedom principles. At the time the Columbia Spectator editorial board framed the problem essentially as one of academic freedom vs. academic license.
Who was Donald Henderson? In the historical record we find that Henderson went on to become a communist party labor organizer who had climbed high enough in U.S. union leadership circles to even attract a subpoena from no less an assistant United States Attorney than Roy M. Cohn (yes, that Roy M. Cohn, whose later client list would include… Donald J. Trump…small world?!). Some Congressional testimony with Henderson’s liberal invocation of the Fifth Amendment regarding his communist party activities is provided below. With this his labor organizing career ended in the early 1950s and he lived the rest of his life in obscurity in Miami, Florida.
Now some artifacts following a chronology of Donald Henderson’s life.
______________________
Donald James Henderson
Timeline
1902. Born February 4 in New York City to Jean Henderson née Crawford and Daniel Robert Henderson (occupation “coachman” according to the 1898 birth certificate for his older sister Marjorie Augusta Henderson).
1910. According to the 1910 U.S. census Mother Jean (“Married”) and all four children were living with their grandmother Estelle I. Crawford in Montpelier, Vermont where Donald went to grammar school. Donald’s father Daniel not yet found at this address or elsewhere).
1913. Donald’s father Daniel remarries August 18 to Hesper Ann Joslin.
1920. According to the 1920 U.S. census Mother Jean (“Divorced”) and all four children were still living with their grandmother Estelle I. Crawford in Dansville, New York where Donald went to high school.
1921-22. Likely start of Donald Henderson’s undergraduate studies at Columbia University.
1924. The Columbia Progressive Club reorganized November 13. Purpose of the club was the furtherance of a Third Party Movement. Members of the Executive Committee included Elinor Curtis and Donald Henderson.
1925. Donald J. Henderson married Elinor Curtis (Barnard, 1925) in Manhattan, August 31.
Elinor Curtis in the 1925 Barnard Yearbook
1925. A.B. with general honors, Columbia College.
1925-26. Garth Fellow, Columbia University.
1926. M.A. Columbia University.
1926. Birth of first son, Curtis Henderson (1926-2009) in New York City, September 28.
1926-27.Instructor in Economics, Rutgers University. Listed for a course on the economics (and regulation) of railroads, water, and motor transportation; a course on statistical principles.
1932. His wife, Elinor C. Henderson ran for Congress as an independent (i.e. as communists then did) in the 21st New York congressional district, receiving 7/10th of one percent of the vote.
Note: Donald Henderson was an instructor of economics, not professor. Daily News (Nov 2, 1932).
1932. Serving as executive secretary of the American Committee for Struggle Against War, the American branch of the World Congress Against War. Active in the Student Congress Against War and Fascism (established at Christmas).
1933.April. Donald Henderson’s appointment as instructor of economics is not renewed for the coming academic year. Joint committee [the Columbia Social Problems Club, Socialist Club, Barnard Social Problems Club, Economics Club, Mathematics Club, Sociology Club of Teachers College and the Social Problems Club of Seth Low] organizes campus protests for the reappointment of Henderson. May. Further demonstrations, Henderson case attracts national attention.
1933. Executive secretary of the United States League Against War and Fascism that met in New York on September 29.
1933-34. Began organizing agricultural workers across the United States for the American Federation of Labor.
1934.Daily News (New York). From Bridgeton, N.J., July 10. Wire photo caption: “Husky Official leads Donald Henderson by the wrist as police spirit the Red organizer away from meeting where striking workers at Bridgeton, N.J., threatened him with lynching.”
1935. Second son, Lynn Henderson born in New York, April 14.
1935. September. Wrote article “The Rural Masses and the Work of Our Party” in The Communist.
[e.g. “… during the past 2 years our party has been successful in developing policies and organization which are rapidly achieving a successful turn to mass revolutionary work and influence in the cities and among the industrial urban proletariat.”]
1937. Established the United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied Workers of America, affiliated to the CIO. Elected as its international president, holding the post to 1949.
1938. [ca.] Third son, Donald Henderson, Jr. born.
1941. Wife, Eleanor [sic] Curtis Henderson died of poisoning June 11 in their home at 7750 South Sangamon Street, Chicago. “A coroner’s jury returned a verdict saying that it was unable to determine whether or not Mrs. Henderson took the poison accidentally.” Chicago Tribune (June 12, 1941, p. 12).
1943. Married South African born actress, Florence Mary McGee [formerly Thomas from her first marriage], in New York City, October 10.
1944. “United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied Workers of America” changes its name to the “Food, Tobacco and Agricultural Workers Union”.
1948. From The South Bend Tribune, Indiana (November 23, 1948), p. 1. “Donald Henderson, of Philadelphia, Pa., president of the Food & Tobacco Workers, was halted repeatedly by CIO convention delegates booing the minority report he read at Portland, Ore., opposing continued CIO support of the Marshall plan.”
1949. April. Henderson attends the (Soviet dominated) World Federation of Trade Union meeting in Paris as president of the Food, Tobacco and Agricultural Workers Union.
1949. Communist Daily Worker of August 15, 1949, entitled “FTA complies with NLRB rule”. Henderson quoted: “While it is true that I had been a member of the Communist Party, I have resigned my membership therein…” [For the union to be in compliance with the Taft-Hartley Act and have its officers sign the non-Communist affidavit, Henderson stepped down as president and was immediately appointed National Administrative Director.]
1950. October. Food, Tobacco and Agricultural Workers Union merged with the Distributive Workers Union and the United Office and Professional Workers Union to form a new international union called the Distributive, Processing and Office Workers Union of America (DPOWA). Served as administrative secretary of that international union for the first year.
1951. October. Reorganization of the DPOWA. Elected to national secretary-treasurer. [Henderson held post at least to Feb. 14, 1952 when he testified before U.S. Senate, Subcommittee to investigate the administration of the internal security Act and other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary.]
1951. Received a 30 day sentence for disobeying a Judge’s injunction against mass picketing during a brief strike at the Pasco Packing Company plant. “Donald Henderson of New York” head of the Food, Tobacco, Agricultural and Allied Workers Union (Ind.). From an Associated Press report, Dade City (Sept. 26) in Pensacola News Journal Sept. 27, 1951, p. 9.
1953. From a United Press report from Washington, February 23 published in The Palm Beach Post (February 24, 1953): “Henderson, now secretary-treasurer of the Distributive, Processing and Office Workers of America (ind)” took the fifth amendment before the Senate Permanent Investigating Committee of Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy. He also refused to answer questions about Voice of America employees with suspected communist affiliations.
Post-McCarthy hearing years. “[Henderson] eventually had to become a salesman to earn a living.” [From his obituary in The Militant, December 28, 1964]
1957. The Miami News (January 26, 1957, p. 18). Report that Florence McGee moved to Miami recently with her husband, Donald Henderson, and their son. They have “been living quietly at 4335 [or 4345] SW 109th Ct.) She apparently resumed her long-paused acting career in the drama “Teach Me How to Cry” at Studio M.
1958. “By 1958 the illness which eventually took his life forced him into complete inactivity.” [From his obituary in The Militant, December 28, 1964]
1964. Donald Henderson died of a kidney ailment in Miami, Florida in December 12. [From his obituary in The Militant, December 28, 1964]
Donald Henderson, 62, a prominent early organizer of agricultural and cannery workers, died of a kidney ailment in Miami Dec. 12.
Henderson was an economics instructor at Rutgers and Columbia University in the mid-1920s. During this period he played a key role in the student and anti-fascist movements and was active in organizing the National Student Union and the American League Against War and Fascism. These activities led to his dismissal from Columbia.
He then devoted his efforts to the organization of agricultural workers, at that time completely unorganized in the U.S. Beginning by organizing workers in the truck farms of New Jersey, he established the Food, Tobacco and Agricultural workers union. The FTA under his leadership became one of the largest agricultural unions in the US, with a large membership of Southern Negroes, Mexican-Americans in southern California.
The deepening of the cold war, resulted in the expulsion of a large number of “left-wing” unions, including the FTA, from the CIO in 1950.
Henderson was an unco-operative witness at the McCarthy hearings in the 1950s and eventually had to become a salesman to earn a living. By 1958 the illness which eventually took his life forced him into complete inactivity.
Henderson Released on Bail
For Disorderly Conduct Hearing Columbia Instructor, Held After Meeting
at C.C.N.Y. to Face Trial
Donald Henderson, Instructor in the Department of Economics, who was arrested on Wednesday night on a charge of disorderly conduct in connection with a demonstration at City College, was released on bail yesterday after arraignment in Washington Heights Court.
Mr. Henderson and three C.C.N.Y. students, who were held following a meeting of the Liberal Club at City College to protest the dismissal of Oakley defendants. Magistrate Anthony F. Burke ordered bail of $500 for each of the four under arrest. Their release could not be secured until later in the afternoon.
The seizure of Mr. Henderson came after the Liberal Club had been ejected from its meeting room in the College and had taken its stand on the Campus. There, after several denunciatory speeches, he was apprehended by the police and taken to night court where Magistrate Dreyer postponed the hearing until yesterday.
It is understood that the Columbia Social Problems Club will take steps to protest Mr. Henderson’s detention at a meeting of that organization at noon today in Room 307 Philosophy.
Frank D. Fackenthal, Secretary of the University, when asked whether the University would make any official recognition of the case, said that., the “matter is out of my jurisdiction.”
About 100 students from Columbia and C.C.N.Y. jammed the courtroom to hear the trial, with an equal number milling about outside and listening to speeches condemning the police action…
Trial Begins For Henderson Hearing Opens Before Crowded Courtroom. Resumes Session Today
With the courtroom jammed to capacity and 200 students milling about in the streets outside listening to denunciations of the C.C.N.Y. administration, the trial of Donald Henderson, instructor in Economics at Columbia, arraigned on a charge of disorderly conduct, opened yesterday in Washington Heights Court before Magistrate Guy Van Amringe.
Mr. Henderson held with three City College students following a demonstration protesting the dismissal of Oakley Johnson from the C.C.N.Y. faculty, will reappear at 2:30 this afternoon for further hearing.
Session Lasted Three Hours
Yesterday’s session lasted for nearly three hours, with the proceedings devoted largely to the calling of witnesses for both sides. Mr. Henderson is expected to take the stand today, with Allan Taub acting as counsel for the defense.
Dr. George Nelson, assistant librarian at City College, testified yesterday that on the night of the disturbance which resulted in the arrests, he entered the history room of the College and found fifty students meeting there. They refused to leave, he said, and he summoned several policemen.
State Henderson Refused to Leave
Henderson: remained adamant, Nelson charged, and was finally pushed out of the room. Nelson added that he did not see the other defendants.
Oakley Johnson, whose removal led to the series of demonstrations in which Columbia students took a prominent part, appeared at the trial and was at first denied admittance. He finally gained entrance after several disputes.
Henderson on Probation
After Conviction For Disorderly Conduct
Donald Henderson, instructor in Economics, who was tried on a charge of disorderly conduct as a result of his participation in a demonstration protesting the dismissal of Oakley Johnson from C.C.N.Y., is on probation for six months after receiving a suspended thirty day sentence.
The trial, conducted before Magistrate Guy Van Amringe in Washington Heights Court, was brought to a close Monday after a week of prolonged hearings. Allen Taub acted as counsel for the defense….
Donald J. Henderson, instructor in economics and prominent radical leader, clashed with the University yesterday over the non-renewal of his appointment here, in the first phase of what loomed last night as a prolonged conflict between Mr. Henderson’s supporters and the Administration.
Mr. Henderson, in declaring that he had rejected a Fellowship tendered to him by the University following the termination of his teaching activities, said that the offer was “a maneuver to ease me out of the University without raising the issue of academic freedom.”
Concerning that allegation, Professor Roswell C. McCrea, head of the Department of Economics, maintained that Mr. Henderson, during his tenure at Columbia, “has engaged freely in any activities to which he may have been attracted.
“The fact that his position here,” Professor McCrea insisted, “was not a permanent one was clearly stated to him before he became actively connected with any political group.”
With Mr. Henderson’s stand apparently clearly defined by his statement, the Social Problems Club, with which he has been actively connected, revealed yesterday that it will meet at 3:30 this afternoon in Room 309 Business to develop “a line of action” to be followed in Mr. Henderson’s defense.
Immediately following the appearance of the College Catalogue on Monday, in which no mention is made of Mr. Henderson, widespread curiosity was current as to his future status. That question was clarified with the issuance of statements yesterday by Mr. Henderson and Professor McCrea.
The statements, sharply conflicting on several points, dealt with the circumstances of Mr. Henderson’s seemingly imminent departure from Morningside Heights.
Mr. Henderson, who has been a prominent figure in radical disputes on this Campus and elsewhere, charged that the University is “maneuvering to ease me out without raising any question of academic freedom,” whereas, he declared, “the facts in this situation raise clearly and definitely the issue of academic freedom.”
In regard to his radical exploits which have been the subject of frequent newspaper comment, Mr. Henderson said that he was told last Spring that “extreme pressure was being brought to bear for my removal.”
Says Protesting Letters Received
He maintained that Professor Rex C. Tugwell informed him the following summer that “a flood of letters from prominent Alumni” had been received protesting the activities of Mr. Henderson and his wife, who was jailed during a dispute over alleged discrimination against Negroes.
Declaring that Mr. Henderson has “failed consistently to apply himself seriously and diligently to his duties as instructor and to maintain the standards of teaching required by this Department,” Dean McCrea said that “those conditions make his further connection with the Department of Economics undesirable.”
Mr. Henderson made known that he had been offered a post as “Research Assistant” for one year by the University “at a salary $700 less than my present one.”
Cites Provision of Offer
“The one condition attached to this offer,” he claimed, “was that the year be spent in the Soviet Union… the subject matter of my thesis, with which Professor Tugwell is acquainted, requires research in the United States rather than the Soviet Union.”
Professor McCrea’s statement declared that non-renewal of Mr. Henderson’s contract “is consistent with long-established University policy.
“There never has been any understanding or intention that Mr. Henderson should stay permanently at Columbia…. An appointment to an instructorship does not imply, in any case, later appointment to a higher rank with more permanence of tenure. For this reason, such understandings are had with all graduate students who are appointed to instructorships in economics.”
Mr. Henderson said that in the summer of 1931 “I became more active in the revolutionary movement and received considerable publicity in the newspapers in connection with those activities.
“That fall,” he continued, “I was advised by Professor Tugwell to look for another job. He stated at that time that in case of lack of success in finding another position, I would not be dismissed.”
The statement issued yesterday by Mr. Donald Henderson obviously does not quite jibe with that of Professor Roswell McCrea. According to one statement, Mr. Henderson was not reengaged as an instructor because of his radical activities, while according to the other the close of his academic career in so far as Columbia is concerned was occasioned by his incompetence as a scholar and as a teacher. There is no denying that Donald Henderson was the most obstreperous of Columbia’s many radicals. As to his teaching ability only those who have been his pupils can testify. Radical activities are certainly not a just cause for dismissal from the faculty of a liberal university. But it is equally as certain that it is unjust to use an instructor’s radical activity as an implement with which to force a university to handle with kid gloves a disinterested and incompetent instructor.
Problems Club Begins Defense of Henderson. Committee Formed to Outline Campaign for Reappointment of Radical Instructor – Attacks Dismissal
Mobilization of Donald Henderson’s defense in his clash with the University over non-renewal of his appointment was begun by the Social Problems Club yesterday.
While Mr. Henderson, an instructor in the department of economics and widely known radical leader, issued a second statement in which he characterized Professor Roswell McCrea’s assertions as “false” and “absurd,” the Club appealed for “effective and widespread action” in his support.
Committee of Ten Chosen
The latter move followed a meeting of the Club yesterday afternoon when a committee of ten was elected to direct the campaign for Mr. Henderson’s reappointment. The committee held its first session immediately after the club meeting and announced that it would convene again this afternoon to formulate “a complete program of action.”
At the same time Dr. Addison T. Cutler, instructor in economics and a member of the committee, made public four letters he said came from students who have studied under Mr. Henderson. These letters, “from students not affiliated with the Social Problems Club,” were introduced in defense of Mr. Henderson’s teaching ability.
Declares Action Due to ‘Pressure’
In his statement which was prompted by the declaration of Professor McCrea on Tuesday concerning Mr. Henderson’s status, the latter amplified his previous testimony in which he claimed that the University’s action was the result of “extreme pressure” growing out of his political activities.
“The assertion by Professor McCrea Mr. Henderson said yesterday, that I was engaged to teach in Columbia University on the condition that I finish my work for the doctor’s degree in two years is absolutely false.
Calls McCrea’s Statement ‘Absurd’
“As in the case of all instructors who are engaged at Columbia without doctor’s degrees, it was understood that I should continue my graduate work as rapidly as possible. The records will show that I have done this; all course credits and course requirements have been disposed of.”
Stating that he has been engaged in research on his thesis—”The History of the American Communist Party”—for the past two years, Mr. Henderson further charged that “the entire question of scholarly competence raised by Professor McCrea is absurd in view of the offering to me of a research assistanceship by the same department.
“The latter certainly could not be based on a disbelief in my scholarly competence.” The Problems Club will seek to enlist the support of other Columbia organizations, it was said yesterday.
The club’s statement asserted that “the Social Problems Club has been aware of administrative opposition to Mr. Henderson for many months. A careful effort has been made by the administration to get rid of Mr. Henderson without raising the issue of academic freedom.”
Charging that Mr. Henderson was “dismissed because of his political activities,” the statement called upon Spectator “to give the same dignified but vigorous support of academic freedom in Henderson’s case as did Henderson in the case of Spectatorat this time last year.”
In that regard, it was recalled yesterday that the strike on this Campus last year protesting the dismissal of Reed Harris took place exactly one year ago today.
Joint Committee Outlines Action On Henderson Issues Statement on Case Preliminary to Drive for Widespread Support 25,000 Leaflets To Be Distributed
In the first major move of what portends to be a nationwide campaign for the reappointment of Donald Henderson, the Columbia Joint Committee representing the Social Problems and Socialist Clubs yesterday issued a statement laying the groundwork for its program of action in Mr. Henderson’s defense.
The declaration was formulated in concert by the two organizations which are assuming the initiative in the movement for reappointment of the prominent Campus radical leader to his present post in the Economics Department.
To Seek Nationwide Aid
It deals with the case as presented by Mr. Henderson last week and as set forth by Professor Roswell C. McCrea in explanation of the Administration’s stand. Twenty-five thousand copies of the statement are being printed for distribution among organizations throughout the country in an effort to enlist “widespread and effective” support, it was announced last night.
The statement takes up successively the question of Mr. Henderson’s status under three main divisions —”The University’s Excuses,” “The Great Maneuvre That Failed” and “Pressure for Henderson’s Removal.” It concludes with a plea for “all students, student groups and faculty members to send letters of protest to Professor Roswell C. McCrea in Fayerweather Hall.”
Lays Dismissal to Radicalism
“No one knows better,” the declaration asserts, “than the Columbia administration that Mr. Henderson has been dropped because of his political activities and his leadership in the student movement of America.”
The committee outlines “The University’s Excuses” as based on three grounds—the non-permanence of Mr. Henderson’s appointment, non-completion of his degree and his teaching ability.
Questions Second Charge
On the first point, the statement says that “no one claims the University is violating a legal contract in dropping Henderson.” It takes issue, however, with Professor McCrea’s assertion that Mr. Henderson’s original appointment was made “on the condition that he finish his doctor’s degree within two years.” Concerning Mr. Henderson’s failure to achieve his Ph.D., the statement asserts that “neither have many other instructors who have been teaching for many years at Columbia” and states he “has finished all course and credit requirements.” Professor McCrea’s reference to Mr. Henderson’s teaching ability is branded “the most contemptible charge of all, unsupported by facts.”
Professor McCrea had said “Henderson has failed consistently to apply himself seriously and diligently to his duties as instructor and to maintain the standards of teaching required by the department.”
Cites Praise of Henderson
The Joint Committee here offers commendatory avowals “by former students who are neither personal friends of Henderson or associated with his political activities, including honor students, football players and others.”
The statement takes note of the action of Mr. Henderson’s Economics Seminar which unanimously voted him “a competent instructor” and “his analysis of economic theory… illuminating and intellectually stimulating.”
Statement Attacks Fellowship Move
Turning to “The Great Maneuvre That Failed,” the Committee considers the offer of a fellowship to Mr. Henderson by the University, which he declined, he said, as a move “to ease me out of the University without raising any question of academic freedom.”
In the section devoted to “Pressure for Henderson’s Removal,” the committee declares that at the time of the student strike last year in which Mr. Henderson played an active part, “Professor Tugwell said that it was only a question of time how long the pressure (for Mr. Henderson’s removal) could be withstood.
The following is a statement of facts concerning a conversation I had with Dean Herbert E. Hawkes; I pass it on to you in the hope that it may shed light on the refusal of the administration to renew the appointment of Donald Henderson:—
The conversation took place in the Dean’s office in January, 1932. Only the Dean and I were present. We were engaged in a discussion of the teaching staff of Columbia College.
It was Dean Hawkes’ contention that the quality of instruction afforded students in the College was fully as distinguished as that to be had in any other university in this country.
To illustrate this argument he placed before me a list of the professors and instructors in the College. He read the names of the instructors, amplifying his reading with short summaries of the merits of the men in question.
I remember very clearly that he had high praise for every name on the list except of Mr. Henderson. The Dean said: “Mr.” Henderson is the only weak man we have. We are not satisfied with his work. I don’t think he will be with us next year.”
Group Will Hold Protest Meeting On Henderson Joint Committee Fixes Next Thursday as Date Site Not Yet Chosen Will Picket Library on Wednesday
The campaign for the reappointment of Donald Henderson, instructor in economics, yesterday focused on the efforts of the Columbia Joint Committee, organized to carry on his defense on this Campus.
Following a meeting attended by representatives of Columbia organizations, two principal decisions emerged:
An outdoor demonstration will be held on Thursday, April 20, at a principal point, still undetermined, on the Campus.
Pickets will be designated to surround the Main Library a week from today in preparation for an open-air meeting the following day.
Seven Clubs Send Members
While non-Campus groups were coming to the aid of the Columbia Committee, seven clubs from the University sent delegates to the meeting which determined upon the outdoor demonstration and the picketing plan.
These groups include:
The Columbia Social Problems Club, the Socialist Club, the Barnard Social Problems Club, the Economics Club, the Mathematics Club, the Sociology Club of Teachers College and the Social Problems Club of Seth Low.
Leaflets Distributed on Campus
2,000 leaflets bearing the title, “The Henderson Case” and containing the statement issued last Sunday by the Joint Committee were distributed on the Campus yesterday with 3,000 additional copies to be delivered today.
Meanwhile, the plan to enlist support from organizations throughout the country continued apace with the National Student League circularizing groups on 100 campuses. A city-wide meeting on the case will be held this Saturday at the New School for Social Research when delegates will be sent from the National Student League, the Intercollegiate Council of the League for Industrial Democracy, the Student Federation of America and other groups.
Teachers Send Protest
The Association of University Teachers yesterday sent a telegram of protest to President Nicholas Murray Butler and Professor Roswell C. McCrea. It read: “The Association of University Teachers, having examined all evidence available believes the dismissal of Donald Henderson unjustified and urges his reappointment.”
It was also made known that the Association has appointed a committee to cooperate in the campaign for Mr. Henderson’s reappointment.
The pickets will be stationed at positions around the Main Library where the offices of several prominent administrative officers are situated.
The Joint Committee yesterday made public a letter from Professor McCrea addressed to Miss Margaret Schlauch, a graduate of the University. Miss Schlauch has written protesting the nonrenewal of Mr. Henderson’s contract.
McCrea Replies to Letter
Professor McCrea, in reply, stated that “unfortunately, I fear that the public fails to understand the real merits of the situation. “These I think were adequately set forth in a statement which was furnished to the press but which did not appear in its entirety,” he wrote.
Group Plans Picket Protest For Henderson Supporters Will Circle Main Library—Howe Bans Mail Distribution Of Campaign Leaflets in Dormitories
While organizations and individuals throughout the city were being enlisted in the campaign for reappointment of Donald Henderson, the Columbia Joint Committee yesterday speeded preparations for bringing the case before the Campus this week.
Preliminary to an outdoor meeting on Thursday at which representatives of Campus groups affiliated with the committee will speak, thirty pickets tomorrow will surround the Main Library, where the offices of Administrative leaders are situated.
Bans Distribution of Leaflet
Distribution of the leaflet entitled “The Henderson Case” which has been circulated on the Campus was temporarily halted yesterday when it was revealed that the University had denied the committee permission to insert the statements in dormitory mail-boxes.
Herbert E. Howe, director of Men’s Residence Halls, told Spectator yesterday that “the University does not allow advertising material in local mail distribution.” He said that he considered the leaflet in that classification.
Committee leaders asserted that the circular on “What Is the Social Problems Club” and the announcements of the Marxist lectures had been recently distributed in dormitory boxes with Mr. Howe’s permission.
To Demonstrate at Sun Dial
As the Association of University Teachers assumed a leading role in organizing city-wide groups for Mr. Henderson’s defense, the Columbia Committee announced that the first of a contemplated series of demonstrations will be held at the Sun Dial in front of South Field. Leaders said yesterday that the meeting will be a “Columbia demonstration limited to Columbia speakers.”
The Association of University Teachers is drawing up a detailed statement on the case, it was made known yesterday, with the intention of submitting it to individuals and groups as the basis of an appeal for widespread support.
Say Henderson Expelled for Beliefs
The Association stated that “it has considerable evidence justifying the opinion that Mr. Henderson was expelled for his political activities and beliefs” and declared that “this is the most important case of violation of academic freedom since the war.”
A committee representing eight college organizations in this city has been formed to aid the protest movement, it was learned yesterday, following a conference at the New School for Social Research last Saturday.
Professor Henry W. L. Dana, who was dismissed from the University during the World War and is now at Harvard, has written to Professor Roswell C. McCrea concerning the Henderson case, it was revealed yesterday, with publication of a copy of the letter by an official of the National Student League.
Text of Letter
Professor Dana wrote:
“Considering the cases of other teachers who have been forced to leave Columbia University in the past (Professors MacDowell, Woodberry, Ware, Peck, Spingarn, Cattell, Beard), not to mention my own name, I cannot help smiling at the unconscious irony in your statement that the case of Mr. Henderson ‘is consistent with long-established University policy.’ “
Members of the Joint Committee indicated yesterday that a strike may be called for next week if ensuing developments “warrant such a move.” They said that demonstrations at colleges throughout the city are being planned.
Will Picket Library Today Henderson Supporters To Stage Three-Hour Demonstration
Student pickets will surround the Main Library at ten o’clock this morning for a three-hour siege of administrative offices to protest against the non-renewal of Donald Henderson’s appointment.
Preparatory to an outdoor demonstration in front of South Field at noon tomorrow, thirty representatives of organizations affiliated with the Columbia Joint Committee will form a cordon encircling the Library where they will maintain their stand until 1 P.M. this afternoon.
15 of Class Sign Petition
Meanwhile, fifteen members of Mr. Henderson’s Economics 4 class yesterday signed a petition, circulated by a student, which terms him a “thoroughly competent instructor and a definite asset to the course.” There were seventeen students present at the class meeting. Twenty-one students are registered in the course, a member of the Economics department said.
This move followed the action of students in Mr. Henderson’s Economics Seminar who last week unanimously voted him “a competent instructor” and said “his analyses of economic theory have been illuminating and intellectually stimulating.”
Announcements Posted on Campus
Posters appeared on the Campus yesterday announcing tomorrow’s demonstration and stating that seven speakers from Columbia organizations would address the meeting. The protesting students will assemble at the Sun Dial. The Joint Committee yesterday released data that a Faculty member and student had compiled, relative to the number of staff members in Columbia College who have not yet received Doctor’s degrees. This investigation was prompted, it was said, by Professor McCrea’s reference to Mr. Henderson’s failure to achieve his Ph.D. during his tenure here.
The survey asserted:
Of ninety-four Faculty members with the rank of assistant professor or above, twenty-two have not obtained doctor’s degrees.
Of eighty instructors in Columbia College, fifty are without doctor’s degrees. Of those fifty, thirty-three have served four years or more at Columbia.
Of the thirty who have received Ph.D.’s, the average time for completion of all requirements was 4.9 years.
Of thirty-three instructors without doctor’s degrees, the average time elapsed since they received their last degree is 7.6 years.
This data was made public with a statement pointing out that Mr. Henderson is serving his fifth year at Columbia and received his M.A. degree in 1926. Committee leaders said yesterday that from present indications a series of demonstrations, leading to a call for a student strike next week, will be staged. They declared there is a possibility that later meetings would be transferred to the Library steps, despite the University ruling restricting outdoor assemblages to South Field.
Group to Stage Protest Meeting Henderson Adherents to Mass Today — Pickets Surround Library
A mass meeting to protest the University’s failure to renew Donald Henderson’s appointment will be staged at noon today at the Sun Dial in front of South Field.
The demonstration, called by the Columbia Joint Committee which organized in Mr. Henderson’s defense last week, will be addressed by two Faculty members and representatives of Campus groups.
Patrol Library Area
In preparation for the meeting, thirty student pickets yesterday patrolled the area around the Main Library, bearing placards which urged Mr. Henderson’s reappointment. The pickets maintained their stand for three hours, attracting curious groups of spectators and several newspaper photographers.
The Columbia Committee revealed last night that a delegation is being formed to confer with Dr. Butler tomorrow on Mr. Henderson’s status and to present its plea for renewal of his contract.
Cutler Will Speak
Dr. Addison T. Cutler, instructor in economics, and Bernard Stem, lecturer in sociology, will be the faculty speakers at today’s demonstration. Other addresses will be delivered by John Donovan ’31, president of the Social Problems Club; Ruth Reles, of Barnard; John Craze, of the Mathematics Club; Jules Umansky, of the Socialist Club; Edith Goldbloom, of New College and Nathaniel Weyl ’31, now a graduate student.
The picketing continued for three hours yesterday with some students carrying varied placards along the Library Steps, while others formed a cordon encircling the building.
Large Crowd Attends Protest For Henderson 150 Hear Addresses by Cutler, Donovan — Term Dismissed Instructor ‘Too Good for Most of People in University’
Agitation for the reinstatement of Donald Henderson continued yesterday when the Columbia Joint Committee staged a demonstration attended by about 150 students at the Sun Dial in front of South Field.
Leading off a series of addresses by members of the Faculty and Student Body, John Donovan ’31, president of the Social Problems Club, declared the Economics instructor was expelled “not because he was too poor a teacher but because he was too good for most of the people in this University.”
Cutler Praises Henderson
Dr. Addison T. Cutler of the Economics Department, one of the two Faculty speakers, stated that “Mr. Henderson has carried out as few educators have done, the maxim that theory and practice should be united.
“It has always been a Columbia tradition,” he declared, “that its teachers should be active in community life. It is now becoming recognized that this means they should be active in their communities along class lines. But if they want reconstruction of the social order they aren’t acceptable to the administration.”
Distribute Protest Postcards
Terming the charge of “academic incompetence” levelled at Mr. Henderson by the University a subterfuge, Dr. Cutler lauded the instructor’s ability and characterized the reasons given for his dismissal by Dean Roswell C. McCrea of the School of Business, as “the thinnest kind of a fictitious peg upon which to hang a hat.”
During the course of the demonstration, members of the Joint Committee distributed postcards addressed to President Butler and bearing the statement: “I, the undersigned student, join the protest against the dismissal of Donald Henderson and demand his reappointment.”
Committee to Meet Butler
A committee delegated by the protest group today will confer with Dr. Butler regarding the non-renewal of Mr. Henderson’s appointment and to urge his reinstatement. Meanwhile, petitions protesting the teacher’s dismissal will be ready for distribution Monday, Donovan stated.
Jules Umansky, of the Socialist Club, also spoke yesterday, asserting that “Mr. Henderson is incompetent from the point of view that he taught what he wasn’t supposed to teach. He is incompetent because he has been teaching young people to think in terms of current problems. He is the only one who has taught this subject.”
Group to Meet With Dr. Butler Henderson Supporters Pick Delegation to Seek Administration Stand
The Administration’s stand regarding the renewal of Donald Henderson’s appointment is expected to receive expression when a special delegation chosen by the Columbia Joint Committee confers today with Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler.
A conference with Dr. Butler was to have taken place last Friday, leaders of the protest group declared, but was postponed until this afternoon “because of some mechanical obstructions.” These, it was stated, were removed with the appointment of a special committee of ten students and one Faculty member and the arrangement with Dr. Butler for a definite appointment.
Delegation Has 11 Members
The delegation which will meet with the president at 3:45 this afternoon is composed of: Bent Andresen ’36; Reginald Call ’33; Dr. Addison T. Cutler, economics instructor; John L. Donovan ’31, president of the Social Problems Club; Edith Goldbloom, of New College; James E. Gorham ’34; Leonard Lazarus, Law School student; Angus MacLachlan ’33; Victor Perlo, graduate student; [a brief biography]; Ruth Relis, of Barnard College and Charles Springmeyer ’33.
National Campaign Planned
Meanwhile, Henderson sympathizers off the Campus moved to obtain widespread backing for their campaign. Invitations have been sent to ten nation-ally-constituted student, teacher and professional groups asking them to a conference for the organization of concerted action on the Henderson to be held Thursday of this week.
The Association of University Teachers has already entered the drive to reinstate Henderson, having sent a telegram to Dr. Butler protesting the dismissal of the instructor.
The Case of Donald Henderson [Spectator Editorial]
What is academic freedom? Obviously, the right of a faculty member to express his convictions, political or social, without the dread that such expression will cost him his position or his chances of promotion. Columbia University, despite Dr. Butler’s reputed statement to the contrary, has violated this code — notably, in the expulsion of outstanding Faculty members during the war hysteria of 1917.
Now comes the cry that the refusal of the University to renew the contract of Donald Henderson is another clear-cut case of disregarding academic freedom. The non-reappointment of Mr. Henderson is said to be a direct result of his economic and political creed. The obvious question is then — Has the University’s action been due to Mr. Henderson’s radical activities?
At Monday’s conference with President Butler, Dr. Addison T. Cutler, member of the Columbia Joint Committee, is quoted as having said:
“Mr. Henderson told me a year ago last Fall that he had been asked to get another job.”
A year ago last Fall would be 1931 — prior to the Reed Harris expulsion, prior to the Kentucky student trip, prior to his arrest at City College. Certainly, his activity in radical circles was: comparatively obscure up until the time when Mr. Henderson says he was told his contract would not be renewed.
From the evidence presented up to the present time, the case of Donald Henderson is not one of clear-cut violation of academic freedom even though his supporters have attempted to make it appear so.
The editorial in Wednesday morning’s Spectator concerning my case raises very sharply one question of fact which I feel requires a statement from me. This point concerns the time when pressure began to be applied for my removal, and the reason for this pressure.
During May 1931 Professor Tugwell informed me that my status as instructor at Columbia was not in question, that the people “downstairs” were satisfied with my work. In October 1931 during the first week of the session, Professor Tugwell. called me into his office and informed me that the situation had radically changed and that I had better look for a position…somewhere else for the following year. It was made clear, however that this was in no sense a case of “firing” but rather a suggestion that I find a position somewhere else if possible.
I immediately raised the question with Professor Tugwell concerning the abrupt change in attitude toward me between May 1931 and October 1931. No definite answer was given by Professor Tugwell beyond a general statement that I was spending too much time in “agitation” and not enough in “scholarly education.”
ln point of fact, what happened between May and was this. As my original statement pointed out I became extensively and publicly active in the Communist movement during the summer and though present members of the editorial board of Spectator may not have been aware of it at that time and know nothing of it now, these activities were attended with considerable publicity.
It is also true that with increased activity and publicity during the past year this pressure has taken on the form of blunt refusal to reappoint. The complaints about my activities were not in any way concealed from me. On the contrary they were several times brought to my attention, and it was well understood in the department that such was the case.
Groups Rally To Defense Of Henderson General Committee for Instructor’s Support Is Formed — Speakers at Meeting Call Educational System ‘Sterile’
The campaign for the reinstatement of Donald Henderson assumed nationwide significance over the week-end as the result of three conferences staged by the New York Committee for the instructor’s reappointment.
As the culmination of a week of general organization of the Henderson defense and presentation of the instructor’s case at several city colleges, a meeting was held at the Central Plaza last night at which addresses attacking the University’s failure to renew Mr. Henderson’s appointment were delivered by five speakers, including, for the first time in his own public defense, Mr. Henderson.
200 Attend Protest Meeting
Amid the sounding of a call for a “permanent organization to prevent future violations of academic freedom and to: put forward immediately mass pressure to reinstate Donald Henderson,” the speakers at the meeting, attended by 200 persons, generally condemned the “narrowness, dryness and intellectual sterility,” of the existing educational system.
Mr. Henderson termed Columbia “a liberal university where you may believe anything you please and discuss it freely under academic auspices, provided you hold these beliefs educationally and not agitationally.” Putting into practice personal doctrines which run counter to the “dominant social institutions” will result in “academic suicide,” he said.
Predicts Student Fascist Move
“Both for students and teachers the range of freedom in thought and action is constantly narrowing,” Mr. Henderson stated, predicting the crystallization of a Fascist student movement in America with increasing “tightening of educational lines.”
At an organization meeting Saturday, eight national student, teacher and professional groups, in addition to fifteen college clubs, allied themselves in a “General Committee for the Reinstatement of Donald Henderson.”
Donald Henderson, instructor in economics, will speak on the “Revolutionary Student Movement” at the next of the Social Problems Club’s Marxist Lectures tonight at 8:30 o’clock in Casa Italiana.
To Hold Protest At Noon Today Henderson Supporters Will Mass at Sun Dial For Demonstration
Three radical leaders and ten students will speak at noon today at the second Columbia outdoor mass meeting protesting the University’s failure to renew the appointment of Donald Henderson, instructor in economics.
Characterized by Henderson supporters as “undoubtedly the most important event in the fight,” the protest demonstration to be held at the Sun Dial is expected to draw a city-wide crowd of sympathizers.
Niebuhr to Speak
Speakers at the meeting, according to a statement issued yesterday by the Columbia Joint Committee for the Instructor’s reinstatement will be Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr of Union Theological Seminary, J. B. Matthews of the Fellowship of Reconciliation and Robert W. Dunn of the Labor Research Association. Ten students will also deliver addresses, representing various Campus organizations.
Charging that American college faculties have failed to give support to student radical movements, Donald Henderson, instructor in economics, declared yesterday evening in one of the Social Problems Club’s series of Marxist Lectures that members of the Columbia teaching staff quit the Reed Harris and other cases “cold” when they thought they might “burn their fingers.”
With a plea for solidarity among student bodies of the nation on issues of importance, Mr. Henderson told a small audience at the Casa Italiana that “it is doubly important to get students of other campuses to come and demonstrate at Columbia.” The most pressing problem facing organized student movements, he said, is the “isolated character” of the individual student bodies.
Students Not Revolutionary
“The total student body in the United States is not revolutionary material,” Mr. Henderson declared, pointing out that the great bulk of present undergraduates came to college in the period when they were justified in looking forward to “a hopeful cultural future,” as well as important jobs on graduation. The depression has not greatly altered the points of view of many students, declared the instructor whose reappointment is being sought by the National Student League.
A fight on academic freedom should not be undertaken only on the basis of its own importance, but should be regarded as “merely the reflection of the broader social situation,” Mr. Henderson declared. Struggles taken up at colleges must be carried on with the intention of calling attention to the revolutionary program as a whole, he added.
A protest demonstration for the reappointment of Mr. Henderson will be held this noon at the Sun Dial in front of South Field, according to supporters, yesterday’s meeting having been postponed on account of rain.
500 Attend Demonstration For Henderson Instructor’s Case Held An Instance of General ‘Academic Repression’ in U. S. — Sykes Presents Opposition Viewpoint
The case of Donald Henderson is merely a single instance of a general situation of academic repression in this country, it was asserted yesterday by eleven of twelve speakers addressing a demonstration in protest against the failure of the University to renew Mr. Henderson’s appointment.
A crowd of 500 persons, assembled at the Sun Dial, variously expressed, by either cheering or booing, their opinions of the several speakers, among whom was J. B. Matthews, of the Fellowship of Reconciliation. He demanded student support of the Henderson case “as part of an issue we shall be forced in the future to combat in a bigger way, an issue which is now raising its head on the Columbia Campus.”
Tells Group to Organize
“This is the time to awaken, to organize, to stop now the tendency toward academic repression and servility to the prevailing social order,” he declared.
Mr. Henderson’s crime consisted in “functioning effectively in the social order and getting his name in the papers,” according to Robert W. Dunn of the Labor Research Association. “Had he been a respectable liberal and confined himself to harmless academic matters he would have been retained, at full pay, even if he never met his classes,” Mr. Dunn asserted.
Will Picket Today
During the demonstration two committees were organized to picket, commencing at noon today, the home of Dr. Butler and the Columbia University Club rooms. Agitation for Mr. Henderson’s reinstatement will continue Tuesday with another demonstration, followed by a march around the Campus, it was announced to the assembled crowd. An opposition viewpoint was expressed at the meeting by Macrae Sykes ’33, Student Board member who, when asked his opinion of the case, declared “there is a confusion of issues in this case. Academic freedom is not involved in Mr. Henderson’s expulsion. Many teachers at Columbia are expressing to their students the same ideas for which you claim Henderson was fired. These teachers weren’t asked to resign.
“This is no question of academic freedom,” Sykes continued, “but of the right of department heads to hire and fire their subordinates at will.”
On April 28, Mr. Donald Henderson, in reply to an editorial published two days previous, stated:
In May, 1931, Professor Rexford C. Tugwell had told Mr. Henderson that his status as an instructor “was not in question.”
In October of the same year, Mr. Henderson said in his letter, Professor Tugwell “called me into his office and informed me that the situation had radically changed and that I had better look for a position somewhere else for the following year.”
When Mr. Henderson asked Professor Tugwell the reason “for the abrupt change in attitude toward me between May, 1931, and October, 1931,” the letter declares, “no definite answer was given by Professor Tugwell beyond a general statement that I was spending too much time in ‘agitation’ and not enough in ‘scholarly education.'”
Mr. Henderson’s statements are serious enough to warrant an answer. What happened between the months of May and October, 1931, is a question which silence on the part of Professor Tugwell cannot clear up.
Broun, Harris Will Address Mass Meeting Will Speak Today at Henderson Protest — 26 Prominent Liberals Ask A. A. U. P. tor Inquiry Of Instructor’s Case
Preparations for the third outdoor protest demonstration in behalf of Donald Henderson were completed yesterday as leaders of the Columbia Joint Committee for the instructor’s reappointment made public a letter sent by twenty-six educators, writers and radical leaders, to the American Association of University Professors requesting an investigation of the Henderson case.
Heywood Broun, columnist, Reed Harris, former Spectator editor and Joshua Kunitz, author, in addition to ten student speakers, will deliver addresses in Mr. Henderson’s defense in another protest meeting at noon today at the Sun Dial.
The signers of the communication declare themselves to be “deeply concerned with the issues of academic freedom and free speech” raised in the Henderson case, and request the Association to conduct a “thoroughgoing” investigation.
The full text of the letter follows:
“Professor Walter Wheeler Cook, President,
The American Association of University Professors
Johns Hopkins University
Dear Sir:
The undersigned individuals are deeply concerned with the issues of academic freedom and free speech raised by the release from Columbia University of Donald Henderson, instructor of economics. Mr. Henderson, who has been an instructor at Columbia for four years, has been notified that he will not be reappointed for 1933-34. The alleged reasons for this refusal to reappoint him are failure to complete work for a Ph.D. degree, and his poor teaching.
“Students and teachers at Columbia and other universities charge that the reasons given by the University for this action are hypocritical and misleading, and that the real reason for his release is his continued radical student and labor activities.
“We believe that the issues involved in Mr. Henderson’s release are of sufficient importance to justify a thoroughgoing inquiry by the American Association of University Professors. Accordingly, we ask you to instigate such an investigation at the earliest possible moment, and to make a report of your findings to the American people.”
The communication was signed by the following: George Soule and Bruce Bliven, of The New Republic; Lewis Gannett, of The New York Herald-Tribune; Freda Kirchway, of The Nation; Alfred Bingham and Selden Rodman, of Common Sense; Harry Elmer Barnes; Sidney Howard; Waldo Frank; Granville Hicks; Professors Broadus Mitchell, Johns Hopkins University; Newton Arvin, Smith College, Robert Morss Lovett and Maynard C. Krueger, University of Chicago, Harry A. Overstreet, C.C. N.Y., Willard Atkins, Edwin Burgum, Margaret Schlauch and Sidney Hook, New York University; Dr. Bernhard J. Stern, Columbia; Norman Thomas, A. J. Muste, Corliss Lamont, Elizabeth Gilman, Paul Blanshard and J. B. Matthews.
Broun Asks Student Strike For Henderson Calls University’s Action ‘Unfair’ — ‘Liberalism’ of Butler Hit by Instructor, Speaking on Own Case — Reed Harris Talks
Heywood Broun, noted columnist, yesterday called upon Columbia students to strike in protest against the University’s “unfair treatment” of Donald Henderson.
Declaring the economics instructor was “fired” solely for his radical activity, Mr. Broun told a crowd of 750 at a protest meeting on 116th Street that they should “come out and fight openly” to affirm the fact that “this University is ours and belongs to nobody else.”
Calls Students’ Judgment Important
“It is a strange thing,” the newspaper man asserted, “that an instructor is incompetent as soon as he becomes interested in radical activities. A remote Administration is not a judge of competence in this matter. The most important thing is what his classes think of Donald Henderson.”
In his second public address on his own case, Mr. Henderson, last speaker at the demonstration, attacked Columbia’s “liberal reputation,” declaring that “the essence of Columbia University’s liberalism is that it permits you freedom of thought as long as you don’t carry your beliefs into action.”
Attacks Liberals’ Policies
The practical application of such doctrines, if they run counter to the “dominant institutions,” causes the University to “distinguish between academic freedom and academic incompetence,” he declared.
“Effective unity of opposing thought and action of this sort,” Mr. Henderson stated, “immediately puts the liberal in a position where he must join the forces of reaction.”
He called upon teachers and students everywhere to “rouse into action and discover the meaning of this liberalism and all the other doctrines that are hung around our necks.”
Reed Harris, former Spectator editor, returning to the University to defend the Faculty member who supported him after his expulsion from Columbia last year, also spoke. He termed Mr. Henderson “one of the most important instructors in America” and called his non-reappointment “a rotten deal for Mr. Henderson and for the students.”
“Education,” he declared, “is a little like beer. It needs ferment to keep it from becoming flat. It needs activity, and teachers like Henderson provide this activity, dispel the unhealthy serenity bred of College Studies and dimly lighted rooms.”
Says Officials Are ‘Hypocrites’
Attacking the Administration’s stand on the case, Harris charged Columbia officials with being “hypocrites.” A charge of “absolute incompetence” and “nincompoopery” was levelled at a majority of Faculty members, some by direct reference, by Joshua Kunitz, writer and Phi Beta Kappa member who received his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees here.
Plans for continuance of agitation were drawn up by Henderson adherents immediately after the protest meeting. Two principal decisions emerged:
Will March by Torchlight
A torchlight procession around the Campus will take place tonight, commencing at 8:30 o’clock from the Sun Dial. Preliminary to this event, sympathizers will picket the Main Library steps for two hours.
Tomorrow, a mass picketing of the grounds, conducted by a city-wide group of Henderson supporters, will be held. Dr. Butler’s home will also be picketed.
Other speakers at yesterday’s demonstration included Nathaniel Weyl ’31; Robert Gessner, of the N. Y. U. faculty.
Last night the supporters of the movement to reinstate Donald Henderson held a demonstration on 116th Street. Their intentions were simply to carry on the fight for a cause which they felt was justified.
But the self-styled “intelligent group of Columbia students” determined that the only way to beat the Henderson supporters was by egg-throwing. Dr. Addison T. Cutler, a courageous member of the Faculty, was subjected to the humiliation of having his coat spattered with eggs thrown by a gentleman who dared not come up front and state his case.
This exhibition by a supposedly intelligent group of undergraduates—their complete reversion to howling lynch-law—must leave the-ordinary bystander amazed.
When an alumnus of Columbia College—not a supporter of Mr. Henderson, but one who was merely passing by—got up and pleaded with the undergraduate group to be square and decent, he was greeted with hoots and jeers. It was rowdyism of the worst sort. It was inexcusable.
Students of this calibre will someday be graduated from Columbia College as capable, competent and educated young men.
Joint Committee Calls Strike For Henderson Instructor’s Backers to Stage Walkout Monday – Ask General Student Participation—Will Issue Leaflet on Case Today
A call to all University students to strike Monday in protest against the “continued silence” of the administration regarding the reappointment of Donald Henderson was sounded yesterday by the Columbia Joint Committee for the instructor’s reinstatement.
Declaring that “increasing manifestations of student sympathy and the incontrovertible evidence which has been presented” justify a general walkout, a statement issued yesterday by the Henderson defense group urged students to employ “the most potent weapon of student expression” to fight “this latest attempt to stifle freedom of action.”
Administration Is Silent
“Our campaign has moved forward,” the statement asserted, adding that the administration has been silent “despite the mass of testimony” offered to answer its original statement of the reasons for not reappointing Mr. Henderson.
Complete plans for the strike were speeded overnight with student sympathizers throughout the city voicing support of the move. Pickets to dissuade Columbia students from attending classes Monday will be selected over the weekend, leaders of the protest group announced.
Will Distribute Leaflets
This morning leaflets will be distributed on this and other campuses reviewing the case of Donald Henderson and urging students to participate in the walkout.
It is planned to circulate a petition urging the instructor’s reappointment among members of the teaching departments in an attempt to line up concerted student and Faculty opposition.
From noon till late afternoon yesterday Henderson adherents picketed the Main Library steps and the home of Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, bearing twenty-foot banners stating “Reappoint Henderson,” and numerous placards.
Many Students Indifferent
Repercussions of the open battle Wednesday night between Henderson supporters and the newly-manifested student opposition sounded from all quarters of the Campus yesterday. While many students hitherto undecided as to their sentiments on the Henderson case have definitely aligned themselves with either opposing or supporting forces as a result of the clash, many expressed continued indifference to the matter.
The opposition ranks, as yet not openly organized, were silent last night regarding plans for further action, but it was considered likely in informed circles that they will intensify their activity and seek to enlarge their numbers, preliminary to a mass counter-move on the day of the walkout.
100 to Picket University in Henderson Strike Today Walkout to Last All Day— ‘To Be Peaceful, Disciplined Meeting,’ Committee Promises—Rivera to Speak
Culminating six weeks of continuous agitation, the supporters of Donald Henderson will go on strike today.
One hundred pickets, drawn from Columbia and other colleges in the city, will patrol all University buildings commencing at 9 o’clock this morning to dissuade students from attending classes in protest against the Administration’s failure to reappoint Mr. Henderson, Henderson sympathizers will enter classrooms to urge students and Faculty to join the protest forces.
Strike to Last Until 5 P.M.
The walkout, continuing until 5 o’clock this afternoon, will be a “disciplined, peaceful affair,” leaders of the Columbia Joint Committee for the economics instructor’s reinstatement promised yesterday. Pickets and striking students have been instructed to “cause no trouble.”
Throughout the day, a continual procession of speakers will mount the Sun Dial to lead protest meetings demanding Mr. Henderson’s reappointment. Included in the list are the following: Diego Rivera, Mexican artist; McAlister Coleman, Socialist leader; Donald Henderson; Paul Blanshard, of the City Affairs Committee; Joseph Freeman, editor of New Masses; Alfred Bingham, son of Senator Hiram Bingham of Connecticut and editor of “Common Sense”; Clarence Hathaway, Communist Party Leader; William Browder; and E. C. Lindeman, of the Social Science Research Council.
Opposition to Demonstrate
Opposition forces could not be reached last night, but it was reporter [that a] counter-demonstration is planned for today. Having organized over the weekend, they are understood to be enlarging their ranks and are expected to offer resistance to pickets and protesting groups for the duration of the walkout.
Friday members of the Joint Committee distributed leaflets urging students to Strike Monday to Reappoint Henderson.” Reviewing the Henderson case thus far, the paper declares
“On Monday students of; Columbia University will once again be called to strike in defense of academic freedom. The time has come when we must resort to that weapon to protect the right of Donald Henderson and instructors after him to carry their beliefs into effective action.”
Leaflet Discusses Case
Discussing the case under four headings, “Why Was Henderson Fired?” “Facts,” “Who Supports Henderson?”, and “Who Opposes Henderson?” the leaflet points out that Mr. Henderson “has been dismissed from his teaching position at Columbia because of his activities in the revolutionary student and labor movement.”
Following a list of the student, teacher and professional groups supporting the economics instructor, the statement of The Joint Committee challenges the opposing student faction, and concludes: “At one and the same time they (the opposition) maintain ‘this is no case of academic freedom and Henderson Should be fired for his Communism! Sweep all radicals Out of Columbia!’ “
“Which is it, ‘gentlemen’ of the opposition,” the leaflet asks, was Henderson fired for radicalism or not? Do you or do you not want Columbia closed to all but goose-steppers? Make up your minds!”
Today a group of students sincerely devoted to the fight for the reappointment of Donald Henderson will leave their classes and hold an all-day demonstration in front of the Sun Dial. Thus far they have carried on their activities with as much dignity as the opposition would allow. In one specific case they were treated to an adolescent display of rowdyism by a group of students.
We believe that student expression should have every opportunity for full and unrestricted expression, bounded only by certain standards of courtesy and fairness. The Henderson supporters have invited their opponents to speak. They have striven to prevent their meetings from degenerating into brawls upon provocation by a band of egg-throwers.
We hope that the Columbia College students who have made of themselves public examples of irresponsibility will be absent today. By staying away from that which they don’t want to hear, they will restore to themselves some of their fast disappearing dignity.
______________________
Seabrook Farms, N.J. Strike
Daily News (New York, 11 July 1934).
N.Y. Red Run Out as Farm Strike Ends By Robin Harris (Staff Correspondent of TheNews)
Bridgeton, N.J., July 10.—The sixteen-day strike of the Seabrook Farms workers whose riots and disorders reached a climax in yesterday’s “Bloody Monday” gas bomb attacks was ended today when the strikers overthrew Communistic leadership and threatened to lynch Donald Henderson, Red organizer and former Columbia University economics instructor.
As the resentment of the strikers flamed into anger toward their discredited leader, the authorities slipped Henderson out of town in an automobile, taking him to his bungalow at Vineland, about eight miles from here.
Workers Against Him.
Henderson, whose wife, Eleanor (sic), was one of the twenty-seven strike leaders arrested after yesterday’s riots, found the opinion of the workers solidly against him when he urged them to reject the peace agreement drawn up by Federal Mediator John A. Moffitt.
Shouts of “Run him out of town!” and “Lynch him!” interrupted the pint-sized [According to Henderson’s 1942 Draft registration card his approximate height and weight were 5 foot 10 inches, 140 lbs.] agitator’s flow of oratory when he persisted in addressing the highway mass meeting at which the workers voted 2 to 1 to accept the Moffitt agreement.
Surrounded by deputy sheriffs, Henderson left the meeting and returned to the offices of the Seabrook Farms, where he was greeted with jeers and renewed threats from the workers.
While police officials and members of the farmers’ vigilantes committee strove to mollify the booing crowd, County Detective Albert F. Murray slipped Henderson out of the rear door and departed for Vineland….
The twenty-eight prisoners, twenty-seven seized after the riots yesterday and the other when recognized today, were ordered released by Cumberland County Prosecutor Thomas Tuso after he learned of the strike settlement.
Twenty-one of the prisoners were granted unconditional freedom, while the other seven, including Henderson, his wife, and Vivian Dahl, were continued in $500 bail pending the action of the Grand Jury, which meets in September.
The seven continued in bail were charged with inciting to riot and suspicion of possessing dangerous weapons.
Following the release of the prisoners, Col. H. Norman Schwarzkopf [Fun Fact: father of Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. commander of U.S. Central Command who led coalition forces in the Persian Gulf War], head of the New Jersey State Police, announced that he would give the New York Reds twenty-four hours to leave town. Those failing to get out under the deadline will be clamped into jail.
“A nationwide search by the Government for Donald Henderson, president of the Food, Tobacco, Agricultural and Allied Workers Union of America, independent, was called off yesterday after the leftist labor leader agreed by telephone to appear here tomorrow before the Federal grand jury investigating subversive activities.
Roy M. Cohn, assistant United States Attorney in charge of the investigation, said that since last Wednesday United States marshals had been trying to locate Mr. Henderson to serve a grand jury subpoena. Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Henderson called Mr. Cohn from Charleston , S. C., and agreed to appear before the panel.
The grand jury has been questioning labor officials who signed the non-Communist affidavit under the Taft-Harley Law after resigning from the Communist party. …
…Yesterday three other leftist union officials were witnesses before the grand jury. They were James H. Durkis, president of the United Office and Professional Workers of America, independent, who resigned publicly from the Communist party, and Julius Emspak, secretary-treasurer, and James Maties, (or Matles) director of organization, of the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers, independent….
At the conspiracy trial of the eleven convicted Communist leaders, Louis F. Budenz, former editor of The Daily Worker, testified that Mr. Emspak attended a June 1945 meeting of the Communist party national committee….
______________________
February 14, 1952 Testimony
U.S. Senate, Subcommittee to investigate the administration of the Internal Security Act and other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary. [pp.165-185]
[p. 166] …Mr. Arens. Will you kindly give us the date and place of your birth?
Mr. Henderson. I was born in New York City, February 4, 1902.
Mr. Arens. And where were you educated? Give us a word about your education, if you please.
Mr. Henderson. I went to grammar school in Montpelier, Vt. I went to high school at Dansville, N.Y. I went to college at Columbia University.
Mr. Arens. Give us, if you please, a brief résumeé of your occupation after you completed your formal education.
Mr. Henderson. I taught at Columbia University for 7 years as an instructor in economics, and since that time I have been a labor organizer in one or another labor union.
Mr. Arnes. Could you be a little bit more specific on the labor organizations which you have been identified with?
Mr. Henderson. Starting in 1933-34, I started organizing agricultural workers throughout the country.
Mr. Arens. For what organization, if you please?
Mr. Henderson. For the American Federation of Labor. And in 1937, we established an international union affiliated to the CIO.
Mr. Arens. What was the name of that union?
Mr. Henderson. It was called the United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied Workers of America. That changed its name to the Food, Tobacco and Agricultural Workers Union in 1944. It affiliated to the CIO in 1937.
Mr. Arens. And what was your particular office or position with the union?
Mr. Henderson. I was elected international president of that union in 1937 and held that post until 1949. In October 1950, we merged with two other organizations, the Distributive Workers Union and the United Office and Professional Workers Union, to form a new international union called the Distributive, Processing and Office Workers Union of America, and I am the national secretary-treasurer of that new international union.
Mr. Arens. And how long have you held this post of national secretary-treasurer of DPOWA?
Mr. Henderson. At the time of the merger, I held the post of administrative secretary of that international union until October of 1951, when there was a reorganization and I was elected to the post of national secretary-treasurer of that union, and I have held that post since that time.
Mr. Arens. Would you give us, if you please, just a word of your personal history? Are you a married man?
Mr. Henderson. I am married; have been married twice. My first wife died. I have three children by my first wife, aged 25, 16, and 14, living on Long Island at the present time.
[…]
[p. 172] …Mr. Arens. Did you join the Communist Party in 1931?
Mr. Henderson. I must refuse to answer that question on the same ground. [5th amendment]
Mr. Arens. I put it to you as a fact that on or about August 4, 1931 you joined the Communist Party and I ask you to affirm or deny that fact.
Mr. Henderson. I must refuse to answer that question on the same ground, sir.
[…]
Mr. Arens. The Daily Worker, Mr. Henderson, of August 4, 1931, contains an article which states that you had rejected socialism and [p. 173] joined the Communist Party. Do you have any recollection of that article?
Mr. Henderson. I must refuse to answer on the same ground.
Mr. Arens. I lay before you, Mr. Henderson, a photostatic copy of an article appearing in the Communist Daily Worker of August 4, 1931, and I ask you if you recognize that article.
[…]
Mr. Arens. Now I lay before you an article, a photostat of an article, in the Communist Daily Worker of August 15, 1949, entitled “FTA complies with NLRB rule” in which the following appears:
… “While it is true that I had been a member of the Communist Party, I have resigned my membership therein…”
[…]
[p. 176]
…Mr. Arens. Why did you sever your connections with Columbia University?
Mr. Henderson. I must refuse to answer that on the same ground, sir.
Senator Watkins. Were you teaching at Columbia University?
Mr. Henderson. Yes, sir.
Senator Watkins. What position did you occupy?
Mr. Henderon. I was an instructor there for 7 years in the department of economics. [sic, probably added one year Rutgers and six years at Columbia, see timeline above]
Senator Watkins. Department of economics?
Mr. Henderson. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Arens. What period of time?
Mr. Henderson. 1926 to 1933, I believe, were the years.
Mr. Arens. Did you resign, or was there a severance of relationships?
Mr. Henderson. There was a severance of relationships.
Mr. Arens. At whose request was there a severance of relationships?
Mr. Henderson. I must refuse to answer that question on the same ground.
Mr. Arnens. I respectfully suggest that the witness be ordered and directed to answer the question: At whose request was there a severance of relationships between this witness and Columbia University?
Senator Watkins. You are ordered and directed to answer.
Mr. Henderson. I must refuse to answer on the same ground.
Mr. Arens. I put it to you as a fact that you were forced to resign from the faculty of Columbia University because of your activities in behalf of the Communist Party, and I ask you to affirm or deny that fact.
Mr. Henderson. I must refuse to answer the question on the same ground.
Mr. Arens. In 1937 you registered to vote as a Communist, did you not?
Mr. Henderson. I must refuse to answer that on the same ground.
Mr. Arens. Did you attend the Tenth National Convention of the Communist Party as a delegate in 1938?
Mr. Henderson. I must refuse to answer that question on the same ground, sir.
Mr. Arens. I put it to you as a fact that, on November 16, 1940, you attended the 1-day national emergency convention held by the Communist Party in New York City, and I ask you to affirm or deny the fact.
Mr. Henderson. I must refuse to answer that question on the same ground.
[…]
[p. 177]
…Mr. Arens. Did you ever live in Chicago, Ill.?
Mr. Henderson. I did.
Mr. Arens. Did you ever live at 234 South Wells Street, Chicago?
Mr. Henderson. That may have been, I don’t recall the exact number. I lived at three diffent places there.
Mr. Arens. Did you ever live on South Wells Street, in Chicago?
Mr. Henderson. I think so; yes.
Mr. Arens. I put it to you as a fact that on February 1, 1941, you were present at a Communist Party executive board meeting held at 234 South Wells, Chicago, Ill., and ask you to affirm or deny that fact.
Mr. Henderson. I must refuse to answer that on the same ground, sir.
______________________
From the CIO Convention in Portland, Oregon (Nov. 1948)
Murray Lashes Leftist Head of CIO Union
By Seymour Korman Chicago Tribune (November 23, 1948, p. 26)
Portland, Ore., Nov. 22 — With hoots, jeers and shouts of “go back to Russia,” right wing delegates at the CIO convention today lashed out at the leftist minority in one of the most tumultuous sessions in the labor organization’s history. For more than three hours, the pro and anti-Communist factions hurled bombastic rhetoric at each other before the report of CIO President Philip Murray, embodying support of the Marshall plan, was carried with only one small leftist group abstaining among the 600 delegates.
[…]
The oratorical explosion was touched off by Donald Henderson, leftist president of the Food and Agricultural Workers union. In a minority report, he condemned the Marshall plan as being an aid to Fascists. He was interrupted by the shouts of, “Go back to Russia.”…
… Murray accused Henderson and the other leftists of employing the same tactics as European Communists and styled the Henderson group “ideological dive bombers.”
______________________
Image Source: Press photo of Donald Henderson in Daily News (New York, NY). July 11, 1934.
Evsey Domar turned 42 years old towards the end of the Spring term of 1955-56 when he taught his intermediate fiscal policy course to Johns Hopkins’ undergraduates. From his papers at Duke’s Economists’ Papers Archive we can bring together the tightly focussed reading list, two midterm exams, and the final exam for Political Economy 4.
One notes that the actual dates of the mid-term exams were lagged one week relative to the announced dates in the syllabus. Happens to the best of us. I wonder if students still (ever?) read the syllabus back in the middle of the 20th century.
________________________
Course Announcement
Political Economy Specialized intermediate work
Economic Fluctuations and Fiscal Policy 4. Professor Domar. Three hours weekly, second term.
The nature and causes of economic fluctuations. The economic role of government. Principal policy measures designed to achieve economic stability.
Prerequisite: Political Economy 3, or its equivalent.
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY ECONOMIC FLUCTUATIONS
AND FISCAL POLICY (Political Economy 4)
E. D. Domar
Spring Term 1955-56
Course Schedule
SOURCES:
On College Reserve:
Colm, Gerhard, Essays in Public Finance and Fiscal Policy, Oxford University Press, New York 1955.
Due, John F., Government Finance—an Economic Analysis, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, Ill., 1954.
Gordon, Robert A., Business Fluctuations, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1952.
Lindholm, Richard W., J. J. Balles, J. M. Hunter, Principles of Money and Banking Related to National Income and Fiscal Policy,W. W. Norton & Co., New York, 1954.
Public Finance and Full Employment, published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, 1945.
Ritter, Lawrence S., Money and Economic Activity, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1952.
To Be Acquired by the Students:
Maxwell, James A., Fiscal Policy, Henry Holt & Co., New York, 1955.
Economic Report of the President, January 1956.
SCHEDULE:
Week of February 13th:
Maxwell, Ch. 1,
Ritter, pp. 20-36
Lindholm, pp. 17-31.
Week of February 20th:
Ritter, pp. 99-113,
Maxwell, Ch. 2.
Week of February 27th:
Ritter, pp. 120-130,
Lindholm, pp. 330-348
Week of March 5th:
Lindholm, pp. 370-408.
HOUR EXAMINATION: March 12th
Week of March 12th:
Maxwell, Ch. 3, 4 & 5.
Week of March 19th:
Maxwell, Ch. 6, 7, & 8,
Federal Reserve, pp. 1-21,
Colm, pp. 188-219.
Week of March 26th:
Maxwell, Ch. 9, 10, & 11,
Colm, pp. 258-286.
Week of April 2nd:
Maxwell, Ch. 12 & 13,
Federal Reserve, pp. 22-52,
Review – Due, pp. 29-61, 427-39.
Week of April 9th:
Maxwell, Ch. 14 & 15.
HOUR EXAMINATION: April 16th
Week of April 16th:
Federal Reserve, pp. 53-68, 101-130.
Week of April 23rd:
Review – Gordon, Ch. 13 & 14, and pp. 559-74.
Week of April 30th:
Gordon, Ch. 16, 17 & 18.
Week of May 7th:
Economic Report of the President
Week of May 14th:
Economic Report of the President
Week of 21st:
General Review of the Course
Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Evsey Domar. Box 15, Folder “MacroEconomics, Old Reading Lists”.
________________________
First Hour Test
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY Economic Fluctuations and Fiscal Policy (Political Economy 4) Spring Term 1955-56
March 19, 1956
E.D. Domar
Answer all questions in any order you wish. Indicate carefully every step in your reasoning.
(40%) Write a comprehensive essay on the subject of “Central Bank Monetary Policy” with special reference to our Federal Reserve System. Your essay should include the following points:
The structure of the Federal Reserve System.
The relation between commercial and Federal Reserve Banks.
Objectives of Federal Reserve Policy.
Powers given to the Federal Reserve System and methods used by it to achieve the objectives indicated in (3) under different economic conditions.
General measures
Selective measures
Evaluate the performance of the Federal Reserve System since its inception.
How successful has it been in achieving the objectives stated in (3)?
Conclusion: the virtues and defects of Monetary Policy.
(25%) Indicate clearly how DEMAND DEPOSITS, REQUIRED RESERVES, EXISTING RESERVES and EXCESS RESERVES of the commercial member banks taken as a whole are affected by the following transactions.
Assume that all payments are made by check, that the member banks add all receipts to, and subtract all amounts paid out from, their reserves with the Federal Reserve Banks, and that the U.S. Treasury keeps all its funds with the Federal Reserve Banks:
25% Legal requirements are 15 per cent.
When a transaction consists of several parts, indicate each part separately and then show the total effect.
AFTER EACH TRANSACTION GIVE A BRIEF VERBAL ANALYSIS OF ITS ECONOMIC EFFECTS.
The U.S. Treasury collects $15 million of corporate income taxes from the U.S. Steel Corporation and uses the proceeds to redeem a bond held by Mr. Smith who deposits the check with his bank.
Same as (1), but the bond is held by the First National Bank.
Jones borrows $1000 from the First National Bank. After a while he uses the proceeds to meet his payroll. His employees invest their earnings in Federal bonds.
The U.S. Treasury sells bonds for $100 million to the public, and uses the proceeds to buy land for highway construction. The owners of the land deposit their checks at their banks. The Federal Reserve Banks buy $100 million worth of Federal bonds from (a) the public, and (b) commercial banks.
The Federal Reserve Board changes reserve requirements from 20 to 18 per cent. (Assume that the amount of deposits outstanding equals to $100 billion.) Thereupon banks extend loans to their customers of $1 billion.
(35%) Write a comprehensive essay on the subject of “The Identity and Divergence between Private and Social Cost.” Illustrate your discussion with examples. Why is this question important to the subject matter of our course and to economic policy in general. (No credit will be given for vague generalities.)
Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Evsey Domar, Box 16, Folder “Misc. Examinations”.
________________________
Second Hour Exam
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY ECONOMIC FLUCTUATIONS
AND FISCAL POLICY (Political Economy 4) Spring Term 1955-56
Hour Examination April 23, 1956
E.D. Domar
Answer all questions in any order you wish. Indicate carefully every step in your reasoning. No credit will be given for vague generalities.
(15%) Define and describe the following terms or expressions and indicate their use in economic discussions:
The Multiplier;
Parity;
Balanced budget theorem;
Cash vs. conventional budget;
Carryovers and carrybacks;
Income elasticity of taxation;
Regressive taxation;
Payroll taxes;
Grants-in-aid;
Accelerated depreciation.
(20%) Write a comprehensive essay on the subject of “Built-in Flexibility as an Instrument of Fiscal Policy.” Explain what is meant by this expression, how this instrument works, how effective it is likely to be, and what can be done to increase its effectiveness. Give a critical evaluation. Be as comprehensive and specific as you can.
(20%) Write a comprehensive essay on the subject of “The Agricultural Problem in the United States since the Second World War.” Explain the origin and causes of the problem, government policies which have been adopted, and their effectiveness in dealing with the problem. Indicate and justify your own recommendations.
(30%) Analyze with great care all important economic effects of agricultural price support program on the assumption of (1) that the funds for this purpose are raised by borrowing, and (2) that they are raised by taxation, in both cases under conditions of (a) unemployment, and (b) full employment. Indicate in all cases what kind of borrowing and what kind of taxation you have in mind. Give examples. When would you recommend one or the other method?
(15%) “The main objective of the Federal policy should be not the balancing of the Federal budget, but of the national economic budget.” Comment.
Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Evsey Domar, Box 16, Folder “Misc. Examinations”.
________________________
Final Exam
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY ECONOMIC FLUCTUATIONS
AND FISCAL POLICY (Political Economy 4)
FINAL EXAMINATION – Three hours June 1, 1956
E. D. Domar
Answer all questions. Be specific.
(25%) Compare and contrast monetary and fiscal policies as methods of achieving economic stabilization (reasonably full employment without inflation) in a growing society. Include (but don’t limit yourself to) the following points:
The theoretical foundation of each;
Methods used by each;
Effects on distribution of income and wealth;
Social and political effects;
Their effectiveness and limitations.
Do they overlap? Can you work out a synthesis of both?
(10%) Describe how business fluctuations spread internationally and discuss critically the various measures for insuring international stability that have been suggested.
(15%) Suppose that sizable gold deposits were discovered in this country (a) in 1933 and (b) in 1955. Trace the economic effects of the mining of this gold as completely as you can, both on the American economy and on that of other countries.
(20%) Describe the origin, functions and performance of the Council of Economic Advisers from its beginning.
State and evaluate the basic economic philosophy and the major recommendations of the 1956 Economic Report of the President.
(15%) “One of the first objectives of this Administration should be at least a partial repayment of the Federal Debt. To do otherwise is to undermine the integrity on which this Administration is founded, and to adopt a course which inevitably loads to higher taxes, inflation, the destruction of our national wealth and economic insolvency.” Comment fully.
(15%) Discuss SAVING as an economic problem.
Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Evsey Domar, Box 16, Folder “Misc. Examinations”.
Image source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Evsey Domar, Box 18, Folder “Photographs Domar”. Copy also available at the MIT Museum website. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.
Over 500 students enrolled in the introductory course “Outlines of Economics” offered at Harvard in 1902-03. Frank Taussig continued his sick-leave through the academic year 1902-03 which is why his name was listed in the (ex ante) course description from June 1902 but not included in the departmental staffing report to the president (ex post) for 1902-03.
Fun Fact: Gilbert Holland Montague, one of the teaching assistants, left economics to become an anti-trust lawyer who quite apparently had the means to collect over 15,000 books and 20,000 pamphlets during his lifetime. He even owned a 14th century copy of the Magna Carta.
______________________________
Course Description, 1902-03
Economics 1
Course 1 is introductory to the other courses. It is intended to give a general survey of the subject for those who take but one course in Economics, and also to prepare for the further study of the subject in advanced courses. It is usually taken with most profit by undergraduates in the second or third year of their college career. Students who plan to take it in their first year are strongly advised to consult the instructor in advance. History 1 or Government 1, or both of these courses, will usually be taken to advantage before Economies 1.
[…]
Primarily for Undergraduates
Outlines of Economics. — Lectures on Social Questions and Monetary Legislation. , Th., Sat., at 11. Professor [Frank W.] Taussig, Drs. [Abram Piatt] Andrew, [Oliver Mitchell Wentworth] Sprague, and [Charles Whitney] Mixter, and Messrs. [Gilbert Holland] Montague and [Vanderveer] Custis.
Course 1 gives a general introduction to economic study, and a general view of Economics for those who have not further time to give to the subject. It undertakes a consideration of the principles of production, distribution, exchange, money, banking, and international trade. The relations of labor and capital, the present organization of industry, and the recent currency legislation of the United States, will be treated in outline.
Course 1 will be conducted partly by lectures, partly by oral discussion in sections. A course of reading will be laid down, and weekly written exercises will test the work of students in following systematically and continuously the lectures and the prescribed reading. Large parts of Mill’s Principles of Political Economy, of Hadley’s Economics, and of Dunbar’s Theory and History of Banking will be read; and these books must be procured by all members of the course.
Source: Harvard University. Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Division of History and Political Science [Comprising the Departments of History and Government and Economics], 1902-03. Published in The University Publications, New Series, no. 55. June 14, 1902.
______________________________
Course Enrollment, 1902-03
Economics 1
Primarily for Undergraduates:—
Economics 1. Drs. [Abram Piatt] Andrew, [Oliver Mitchell Wentworth] Sprague, and [Charles Whitney] Mixter, and Messrs. [Charles] Beardsley [Jr.], [Vanderveer] Custis, and [Gilbert Holland] Montague. — Outlines of Economics.
The population of the United States has increased from 23 millions in 1850 to about 80 millions in 1902 (not including the population of the islands acquired from Spain), and yet the “standard of living” has not fallen. Can you reconcile this with the Malthusian theory?
“Economic rent and net profits are like the producers’ and consumers’ surplus described at the beginning of the chapter in being differential gains. . . .”
Explain these terms and discuss Hadley’s comparison of profits and rent.
How in your opinion does the use of labor-saving machinery in agriculture affect the value of agricultural produce, and the rent of agricultural land?
What would you suppose to be the effect of immigration upon the production of wealth, upon wages, and upon the value of land in the United States?
A recent Secretary of the Navy, in defending large naval appropriations, wrote as follows: “It is a taking thing to say that $100,000,000 could be better spent for education or charity; and yet, on the other hand, $100,000,000 spent in the employment of labor is the very best use to which it can be put. There is no charity in the interest of the popular welfare or of education so valuable as the employment of labor.”
Discuss the economic argument implied in this statement.
Should a railroad be compelled to charge the same rate per ton-mile for all goods of equal bulk? Why? or why not?
Suppose that one piano manufacturer buys out all of the other piano manufacturers in the country, can he now sell the former aggregate output of all the factories at an advanced price? Give reasons for your answer.
Explain by the theory of the value of money why prices are high in times of speculation and low when a period of depression sets in.
Could a paper currency depreciate in value, if a government pledged the public lands for its redemption? Give reasons.
Source: Harvard University Archives. Mid-year Examinations 1852-1943. Box 6. Papers (in the bound volume Examination Papers Mid-years 1902-1903).
______________________________
Year-end Examination 1903 Economics 1
Omit one question from each group.
I
What is meant by
unearned increment,
marginal utility,
double standard,
rapidity of circulation?
Explain the relation of the law of diminishing returns to rent.
It wages are determined by the productivity of labor, how would you explain the circumstance that labor organizations which impose restrictions upon individual output, have been accompanied by a rise of wages?
What considerations are likely to determine the prices of trust-made commodities?
II
In what ways would the repeal of our tariff duties affect our export trade?
Former Speaker Reed, in an article on Protection, said: “Any system which enables our people to do our own work is a system which can give the best results. . . . The whole nation gets the benefit of it?”
Discuss this statement.
Give the principal reasons for and against the adoption of the policy of the single tax.
How is the community served by the produce exchanges? by the stock exchanges?
III
(a) What kinds of money are susceptible of increase under existing legislation in the United States? In what way?
(b) In what way do clearing house loan certificates add to the circulating medium?
Under what circumstances may they be issued?
Suppose the deposits of the national banks to increase one hundred million dollars, would the position of the banks be rendered stronger thereby?
Are the national banks of the United States unfairly granted the privilege of earning a double profit in respect to their circulation?
In his last annual report, the Secretary of the Treasury writes: “I think a far better course for the present at least would be to provide an elastic currency available in every banking community and sufficient for the needs of that locality. This, I think, can be accomplished . . . . by several methods.”
Explain some of these methods.
Source: Harvard University Archives. Examination Papers 1873-1915. Box 6. Papers Set for Final Examinations in History, Government, Economics, History of Religions, Philosophy, Education, Fine Arts, Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Music in Harvard College, June 1903 (in the bound volume Examination Papers 1902-1903).
Semester Examinations for
Mathematics of Finance and Applied Statistics 1937-1938
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY MID-YEAR EXAMINATION POLITICAL ECONOMY 24 B
Dr. Evans
February 4, 1938
1 p.m.
A bond will be redeemed in 10 years for $1,000 cash. Semi-annually the owner of the bond receives $30 interest. Determine the present value of the bond if the current rate on similar investments is 5%.
Find the bank discount on a $10,000 note for 6 months when the bank rate is 7%. What is the effective rate of interest charged!
The XYZ Corporation has outstanding a bond issue of $10,000. It has agreed to pay to a trustee an amount at the end of each year, which invested at 4% will provide a fund to retire these bonds at the end of 10 years. Determine the amount that must be invested each year.
Williams owes $7,500 due in 8 years, and $4,500 due in 5 years, each bearing 4% interest. What two equal payments will liquidate this debt, if the first is made in 1 year, and the second in 3 years? The current rate is 5%.
Repairs costing $350 must be made each 2 years to a building which will last 20 years. Determine the amount that could be spent to eliminate these repairs without additional cost to the owner over the period. Interest at 4%.
An estate left 110 years ago was unclaimed until recently. An heir has proved his claim and is to receive the estate of $50,000 with interest at 3% annually for 110 years. Determine the value of the estate.
X has an obligation of $25,000 which he desires to liquidate by investing $3,500 now and the same sum annually thereafter, at 4½% compounded semi-annually. Determine when the fund should theoretically be large enough to liquidate the debt.
Find the ordinary interest of $450 for 60 days at 8%.
An insurance company agrees to pay you or your estate $2,000 a year for 15 years if you will pay them $23,875.87 cash. The salesman argues that you will get your money back and make a profit of $6,124.13. Determine the rate of interest that you will actually receive.
In order to attract customers the Pacific Savings Bank advertises that it pays 3% compounded monthly. If you deposit $25 a month for 6 years what is the amount you will have accumulated at the end of 6 years?
In how many years will money invested at compound interest double itself at 3%?
In 10 years the bond issue of the Chemico Company will mature. An amount of $30,000 will be needed to retire this issue. The treasurer estimates that $2,300 a year will be available for investment. What rate of interest must be earned to accumulate a fund of $30,000 in 10 years? In answering, make use of the binomial theorem.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FINAL EXAMINATION POLITICAL ECONOMY 24 B
June 4, 1938
A bequest of $150,000 was left to A, aged 36. With what life annuity will this provide him?
A, aged 40, gave $75,000 to Blank University with the understanding that after 15 years he receive an equivalent life annuity. What annual amount would he receive?
A party of five men at a soda fountain match coins, agreeing that the odd man is to pay for the drinks: (a) What is the probability that there will be one odd man at the first attempt? (b) What is the probability that there will be no odd man at the first attempt, but that there will be one on the second? (c) What is the probability that there be an odd man at least once in two attempts?
What is the earliest age at which the “odds are against” a man living:
(a) one year?
(b) five years?
Using the theoretical method, calculate the purchase price of the following $1000 bond which was bought on May 4, 1928 to yield 4.40%: New England Tel. & Tel. 5’s, due Oct. 1, 1932, with coupon dates of Apr. 1 and Oct. 1.
Dwight Minor paid, at the end of each month, dues of $23.25 on his 31 shares of $100 par value stock in the Garfield Loan and Savings Association. Immediately after his 99th payment the stock matured. What approximate rate, converted monthly, did his association allow him?
B, aged 36, took out a 20-year endowment insurance policy for $50,000 to be paid for in 20 payments. On what net annual premium did the insurance company base its charge?
Source: Johns Hopkins University, Eisenhower Library. Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy. Curricular Materials. Series 6. Box 2. Folder “Department of Political Economy — Exams, 1936-1940”.
Image Source: Johns Hopkins University, Sheridan Libraries, Graphic and Pictorial Collection. George Heberton Evans at approximately 40 years old. The portrait was colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.
Associate Professor Broadus Mitchell taught the standard undergraduate survey course in economic history at Johns Hopkins in 1937-1938. He resigned from Johns Hopkins the following year over the matter of admitting an African American student to the department of political economy (the admission was fought by the Johns Hopkins University administration).
It is the regret of my life that at Johns Hopkins University I did not pursue to the bitter end the defense of the proposal to admit a qualified Negro graduate student in the Department of Political Economy. He was Edward S. Lewis, who was the Secretary of the Urban League, of which I had been the first President in Baltimore. He was a graduate, I believe, of the University of Chicago and maybe of the Columbia University School of Social Work; I’ve forgotten. At any rate he was in every way a highly qualified, mature applicant for admission to graduate work. He was a leading black social worker in Maryland, where there’s a large negro population with a much higher incidence of poverty, disease, and so on than the whites. And he had been doing graduate work in economics at the University of Pennsylvania, commuting weekends. He could only get weekends, because he was holding his position as Secretary of the Urban League in Baltimore. And this was unsatisfactory and costly and interrupted and so on, so why shouldn’t he come to Johns Hopkins where we had every facility? … pp. 76-77.
__________________________
Course Description Economic History 1937-1938
12 B. Economic History. Associate Professor Mitchell. Three hours weekly through the year. M., Tu., W., 9.30. Gilman Hall 314.
In the first part of this course a study is made of English economic history, the purpose being to show not only the industrial development of the English people as such but the way in which the economic motive has influence the whole of social life. Particular attention is given to the characteristic forms of economic organization—the manorial system, the guild system, the entrance of capitalism and the causes and consequences of the Industrial Revolution. Special reference is made to those features of English economic history which have influenced industrial life in the United States. The second part of the course is a survey of the economic history of our own country. Here the same effort is made, as in the case of England, to show the bearing of economic considerations on political evolution, especially in the direction of the growing importance of the Federal Government.
__________________________
Semester Examinations
Economic History
1937-1938
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY MID-YEAR EXAMINATION POLITICAL ECONOMY 12 B
Dr. Mitchell
February 1, 1938
9 a.m.
Contrast life in an English manorial village of the 13th century with agricultural life in the United States today.
What were the main causes and consequences of the enclosures movement?
Contrast the conduct of industry and commerce in the towns of England in the Middle Ages with industrial and commercial life in the United States today.
Trace the transition from the guild system through the domestic system to capitalism.
Describe the Industrial Revolution.
Give a brief account of two of the following movements: labor unionism, the factory acts movement, Chartism, socialism, consumers’ co-operation.
What is meant by the economic interpretation of history?
What is the status of the laissez faire theory in the United States today?
Make an argument that mankind would be better off if the inventors of the 18th century never lived.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FINAL EXAMINATION IN POLITICAL ECONOMY 12 B
Dr. Mitchell
May 31, 1938
9 a.m.
What was the economic position of the country at the time the Constitution was formed?
Discuss the “American System”
Give an outline of banking from 1791 to the adoption of the Federal Reserve Act.
Contrast economic conditions in North and South on the eve of the Civil War.
Tell what you can of the growth of large-scale business enterprise and its economic and legislative consequences.
Discuss the protective tariff in America.
Identify briefly: Mathew Carey, Friedrich List, Salmon P. Chase, Nicholas Biddle, James B. Duke, Samuel Slator.
Tell what you know of governmental intervention in economic life during the depression which began in 1929.
Source: Johns Hopkins University, Eisenhower Library. Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy. Curricular Materials. Series 6. Box 2. Folder “Department of Political Economy — Exams, 1936-1940”.
Image Source:Broadus Mitchell in his office, ca. 1938. From the Johns Hopkins university graphic and pictorial collection. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.
In the newspaper account of Howard Earl Cooper’s retirement, the Dean of the Johns Hopkins University Evening College, called him “certainly the Mr. Chips” of the cohort retiring in 1969, i.e. a professor who was loved more by his students than he apparently loved doing research. But he was apparently very much loved by his students and we all know just how fickle the reception of our own research can be. One presumes he left with overwhelming fond professional memories.
But we are here to capture the reality of economics education through the years and Cooper’s exam questions from 1937-38 provide us another archival observation.
__________________________
Howard Earl Cooper
Chronology of his life and career
1899. October 17. Born in Canon City, Colorado.
Served in an Army intelligence unit in World War I.
1922-26, 1927-28. Registrar, School of Commerce, Accounts and Finance at the University of Denver.
1923. B.C.S. from the University of Denver
1925. S.B. from the University of Denver.
1927. S.M. in banking from Columbia University.
1927-28. Assistant Professor of Accounting at the University of Denver.
1928. Appointed instructor of accounting at Johns Hopkins University.
1932. Ph.D. in Political Economy from Johns Hopkins. Dissertation: The Application of Standard Costs to Factory Overhead Expenses.
1942. Appointed associate professor of accounting.
1946. Appointed professor of accounting.
1951-1969. Associate Dean of McCoy College (earlier called the Hopkins Evening College and later called the School of Continuing Studies) of Johns Hopkins University.
Retirement announced in The Baltimore Sun, May 24, 1969, p. 10.
Obituary in The Baltimore Sun, November 3, 1985, p. 38.
__________________________
Howard E. Cooper Jr. Memorial Scholarship
Mary Cooper Evans established this fund in 1985 in honor of Dr. Howard E. Cooper Jr., professor emeritus and former associate dean of McCoy College, who taught at Johns Hopkins from 1928 until his retirement in 1964. This fund supports students majoring in business.
__________________________
Course Description Principles of Accounting
1937-1938
11 B. Principles of Accounting. Dr. Cooper. Three hours weekly, through the year. M., T., F., 2 p.m. Gilman Hall 312.
A study is made of financial statements as the goals of accounting endeavor, of the analysis and recording of business facts in the accounting books and records, and of the methods of opening and closing the books for a single proprietorship, partnership and corporation as well as the use of controlling accounts, and consignment accounts. Many practical problems are assigned to give facility in the handling of accounting records and a ready appreciation of their significance.
Prerequisite: Political Economy 1 C.
__________________________
Semester Examinations
Principles of Accounting
1937-1938
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY MID-YEAR EXAMINATION POLITICAL ECONOMY 11 B
Dr. Cooper
February 2, 1938
Please write your answers to these questions legibly and in ink.
(a) What is the purpose of classifying the items in a Balance Sheet?
(b) What is the purpose of classifying the items in a Profit and Loss Statement?
(10 points)
(a) What is a trial balance?
(b) What function does a trial balance serve?
(10 points)
Set up a schedule of debit and credit showing what kinds of items are to be debited and credited.
(10 points)
(a) What is the purpose of subdividing the journal?
(b) What is the purpose of subdividing the ledger?
(10 points)
(a) What is a controlling account?
(b) How would you account for the withdrawal of stock in trade by the proprietor in a set of books which had a sales and purchase journal and general journal and a subsidiary accounts receivable ledger?
(10 points)
From the following information prepare a worksheet.
Advertising
$ 6,000
Miscellaneous Selling Expense
$ 1,700
Accounts Payable
20,000
Notes Payable
25,000
Accounts Receivable
28,000
Motes Receivable
12,000
Bonds (Investments)
2,000
Purchases
128,000
Buildings
24,000
Purchase Discounts
2,400
Cash
14,000
Reserve for Bad Debts
700
Delivery Equipment
1,900
Returned Pur. and Allowances
4,000
Freight In
1,000
Returned Sales and Allow.
1,600
Furniture and Fixtures
5,800
L. A. Roberts, Capital
68,940
General Expense
5,600
L. A, Roberts, Per. (debit)
8,000
General Salaries
4,000
Sales
178,350
Insurance Expense
1,200
Salesmen’s Salaries
11,000
Interest Expense
1,000
Sales Discounts
680
Land
12,000
Store Equipment
3,000
Merchandise Inventory
24,000
Taxes
2,910
Depreciation on Buildings 5%.
Depreciation on Del. Equip. $720.
Depreciation on Furniture and Fixtures $800.
Depreciation on Store Equipment $400.
Bad Debts $1,760.
Prepaid Advertising $2,000.
Prepaid Insurance $200.
Accrued General Salaries $100.
Interest Accrued on Notes Payable $700.
Accrued Salesmen’s Salaries $350.
Accrued Taxes $300.
Deferred Income-Liability for Gift Certificates $750.
Accrued Interest on Bonds $60.
Accrued Interest on Notes Receivable $300.
Final Inventory $21,000
(50 points)
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FINAL EXAMINATION POLITICAL ECONOMY 11 B
June 2, 1938
1 p.m.
Please use ink and write clearly.
Pic and Pat are partners with capital accounts of $15,000 and $20,000 respectively. Business has not been good. Their assets are converted into $30,000 cash. There are liabilities of $8,000. Set up T accounts and show how the business should be dissolved.
Bergen and McCarthy were engaged in a partnership with capital investments of $10,000 and $20,000 respectively. They decide to admit Lamour into the partnership for a one third interest for an investment of $20,000 in the partnership. Set up T accounts illustrating the admission of the new partner.
Benny and Allen are partners with investments of $10,000 and $25,000 respectively. Their profit and loss sharing ratio is 2 and 3 respectively. Benny is to be allowed a salary of $3,000. Allen receives no salary. Each are to be allowed interest of 6% on their investments. The profits for the year are $4,500. How should they be distributed.
The Baker Corporation is organized under the laws of the State of Maryland with an authorized Capital stock of 10,000 shares with a per value of $100 each. On April 1, 1938 the stock was sold at 90. On April 15, 10% of the stock was donated back to the company and on the 20th was resold for 80. Journalize the above data.
On January 1, 1937 the Vallee Corporation issues $500,000 worth of 5% bonds at 95. Coupons payable on June 30 and December 31. These bonds have ten years to run. Show journal entries for:
(a) Issuing the bonds
(b) Payment of interest on June 30 and December 31.
(c) Ammortizing the discount as of December 31 on a straight line basis.
Set up a cost of goods sold section of a profit and loss statement of a manufacturing company supported by a schedule of the cost to manufacture using your own figures.
What are the advantages and disadvantages in the use of a voucher system?
How would you calculate an open to buy estimate? Illustrate.
Illustrate two methods of accounting for consignments out.
Illustrate the accounting for neglected purchase discounts.
Source: Johns Hopkins University, Eisenhower Library. Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy. Curricular Materials. Series 6. Box 2. Folder “Department of Political Economy — Exams, 1936-1940”.
This post is the first of transcribed mid-year and end-year course examinations in political economy at Johns Hopkins University for the academic year 1937-1938. Principles of economics was taught in five sections: three for the College of Arts and Sciences, one for the School of Business Economics and one for the School of Engineering.
Today’s post is the first content getting a toot at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror’s new outpost at Mastodon.
Twitterand Facebookoutposts will continue announcing new content as well as occasional retweets, toots, shared-links and other such social stuff. Different strokes and all that jazz, but so far no requests for music or dance videos.
__________________________
Course Description
1 C. Elements of Economics. Three hours weekly through the year. Section 1: Dr. Bullock, Th., F., S., 8.30. Maryland Hall 110. Section 2: Associate Professor Mitchell, M., Tu., W., 8.30. Maryland Hall 110. Section 3: Associate Professor Weyforth, M. Tu., W., 11.30. Gilman Hall 314. Section 4: Dr. Cooper, M., Tu., W., 10.30. Gilman Hall 311. Section 5: Mr. Deupree, M., Tu., W., 8.30. Gilman Hall 314.
Note: Students in the School of Engineering will be assigned to Section 1; students in the School of Business Economics to Section 3; and students in the College of Arts and Sciences to Sections 2, 4, and 5.
This course teaches the elements of the science, aiming to show the principles upon which economic society is organized and operated. Particular attention is given to the theory of value and the theory of distribution together with their application to leading economic problems. Such subjects as Money and Banking, Rent, Wages, Interest, Profits, Industrial Combinations, International Trade, are treated in the course. It is part of the purpose of the course to indicate the application of scientific principles to current economic problems.
What would be the difference between monopoly and competitive price under the following conditions:
Elastic demand and increasing costs
Elastic demand and rapidly decreasing costs
Inelastic demand and increasing costs
Inelastic demand and decreasing costs?
Illustrate each with a diagram.
III.
President Roosevelt has proposed a revision of the Federal Anti-Trust Laws. What reasons are there for being dissatisfied with our existing anti-trust laws? Are there any reasons for changing the objectives that have guided our anti-trust policy in the past? In what respects is the trust problem a price problem? Discuss.
IV.
Assume the following data with regard to a grain farm for the years 1930 and 1936:
1930
1936
Number of bushels produced
5,000
7,000
Total expenses of production
$4,500
$8,000
Price of grain per bushel
$.90
$1.30
Rate of return expected on farm investments
5%
4%
What was the economic rent of this farm in 1930? in 1936? As a tenant what rent could you have afforded to pay in each year?
Does the rent paid by the former have any effect on the price of grain at the primary market? Explain.
As a buyer of land how much would you have been willing to pay for this farm in 1930? in 1936? Why?
If grain alcohol became a commercial success as a substitute for gasoline, what would be the probable effect on the economic rent of this farm?
V.
Compare the advantages and disadvantages of the individual proprietorship, the corporation and the partnership from the point of view of the organizer of a business. Why has the corporation gained in relative importance during recent years?
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FINAL EXAMINATION POLITICAL ECONOMY 1 C
Dr. Bullock
Friday, June 3, 1938 – 9 a.m.
I
Explain briefly the meaning or significance of:
1. Legal tender
2. Favorable balance of trade
3. Interstate Commerce Act of 1887
4. American Federation of Labor
5. Fiat money
6. Stoppage at the source
7. Elastic currency
8. Committee for Industrial Organization
9. Taxation according to benefit
10. Workmen’s compensation law.
II
(a) Explain clearly how commercial banks are able to make loans greatly in excess of their cash resources.
(b) Explain the difference between the equation of exchange and the quantity theory of money.
III
A popular slogan of recent years has been, “More business in government, less government in business.” Developments have been in the opposite direction to that advocated. Have these developments been the result of party politics or are they in accord with underlying economic tendencies? Evaluate the slogan in the light of current conditions.
IV
Appraise national legislation to stablish a minimum weekly wage and a maximum number of hours work per week with regard to its probable effect on laborers income and on the business cycle.
V
(a) “The restoration of the pound sterling to its pre-war value was equivalent to the imposition of a heavy tax upon the British exporting industries.” Explain. Did the increase in the value of the pound make it easier or more difficult for other countries on the gold standard to sell in the British market? Explain.
(b) Explain and illustrate the difference between a tariff schedule designed as a revenue measure and a schedule aimed primarily at protection.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Elements of Economics. Section 2
Associate Professor Broadus Mitchell
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY MID-YEAR EXAMINATION Political Economy 1 C
[Monday, Jan. 31, 1938. 9 a.m. Dr. Mitchell]
What is the general theory of the competitive economic system?
(a) Show how prices are determined under conditions of competition.
(b) What are some of the forces which, in fact, interfere with this perfect operation of competition?
On what economic theory do inflationists rely? Explain this theory briefly.
State and explain the marginal utility theory of value.
Identify briefly: the Physiocrats, Colbert, Kirkcaldy, James Watt, P. S. DuPont, Salmon P. Chase, R. B. Taney, Friedrich Engels, holding company, consumer‘s surplus, elastic demand.
(a) Discuss the chief means used in this country to cope with the problem of unemployment.
(b) What is meant by “technological unemployment”?
Explain the changes made in the Federal Reserve System as a result of the depression of 1929.
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FINAL EXAMINATION IN POLITICAL ECONOMY 1 C
Dr. Mitchell
May 30, 1938
9 a.m.
(a) Give the purposes, structure, and method of operation of the Federal Reserve System.
(b) Why, in your opinion, did it fail to prevent the depression of 1929 and the subsequent closing of the banks of the country?
(a) Explain the differential or Ricardian theory of rent.
(b) What were the influences responsible for Henry George’s book, Progress and Poverty?
(c) What is the Socialist’s criticism of the single tax proposal?
State and discuss the Wage Fund Theory and the Exploitation theory of wages.
(a) How do pure profits arise?
(b) What developments in American economic life appear to make our old reliance upon the profit motive inappropriate now?
In what sense is it true that the cost known as interest would be present even in a collectivist economy?
What forces are responsible for the present increased demand for industrial unionism as against craft unionism in the United States?
Contrast the teachings of Robert Owen with those of Karl Marx.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Elements of Economics. Section 3
Assoc. Professor William O. Weyforth
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY MID-YEAR EXAMINATION POLITICAL ECONOMY 1 C
Dr. Weyforth
February 3, 1938
9 a.m.
What is meant by the doctrine of “laissez faire”? That were the conditions under which the doctrine was developed? Explain the arguments in favor of the doctrine, and the factors responsible for a departure from the doctrine in recent years.
What are the essential features of the corporation as a form of business organization? How do you account for the rise of the corporate form of business organization in recent years? Distinguish the following: common stock, preferred stock, bonds.
What are the “factors of production” and the “agents of production”? What is meant by the “best combination of the agents of production” as applied to any business enterprise. Distinguish between the average total unit cost of production and the marginal cost of production. Illustrate by diagram.
Explain what is meant by an individual demand schedule for any commodity. Show the relationship between such a demand schedule and the theory of marginal utility. Upon what principles does a consumer tend to divide his expenditures among different commodities? How is the total demand schedule in any market for a certain commodity related to the individual demand schedules?
Show how the market price is determined by supply and demand under conditions of competition. Show how an increase in supply, demand remaining constant, will lead to a decline in price. Would the decline in price be greater where the demand is elastic or inelastic? Explain the problem by the use of diagrams.
In what way is the monopolist able to control price? What is the theory of monopoly price? Explain the statement that the monopolist will tend to fix the price at the point where the marginal revenue curve intersects the marginal cost curve.
What is meant by monopolistic competition? State some of the circumstances under which it tends to appear. Explain the difference in the shape of the demand curve for the product of an individual producer under conditions of pure competition and those of monopolistic competition.
Explain the distinction between industries of constant cost, increasing cost, and decreasing cost. What are the factors primarily responsible for these differences, that is, under what circumstances are we likely to have each type of industry? How can we have an industry of increasing cost and at the same time constant or falling prices for the product of that industry over a period of years.
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FINAL EXAMINATION POLITICAL ECONOMY 1 C
Dr. Weyforth
June 2, 1938
9 a.m.
In the regulation of public utilities, what are the important economic problems involved in the determination of a fair price to be charged for the services rendered?
Show how bank deposits subject to check serve as a medium of exchange. Explain how the volume of such deposits may be affected by the loan and investment policies of banks.
What are business cycles? Explain the theory that fluctuations in general business activity are due primarily to fluctuations in the volume of investment. What are the possibilities of public spending as a means of remedying business depression?
Explain the theory that under conditions of competition the rate of wages in any occupation tends to correspond to the marginal productivity of labor in that occupation. According to this theory how do you explain the relatively higher wages paid to skilled workers as compared with unskilled workers?
Explain how, other things being equal, the growth of population will affect the rent of land. How is this explanation related to Henry George’s proposal. for a single tax on land?
Show how interest rates are determined by the supply of and the demand for loanable funds. What are the sources of the supply of and demand for loanable funds? How may banking policy affect interest rates? What are the limits of banking policy in this respect?
What are the factors that give rise to profits? What functions do profits perform in an economic system of free enterprise?
What are the characteristic features of capitalism? What do you mean by socialism? by communism? What is “utopian” socialism? “scientific socialism”?
Explain the law of comparative cost as applied to international trade.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Elements of Economics. Section 4
Dr. Howard E. Cooper
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UMIVERSITY MID-YEAR EXAMINATION POLITICAL ECONOMY 1 C
[Dr. Cooper]
January 31, 1938
9 a.m.
Please write your answers to these questions legibly and in ink.
“The Production of wealth may take the form of the creation of form utility, of place utility, or of time utility.”
Explain and give examples of each.
What would be the effect on our industrial system of too much saving, of too little saving?
“The division of labor promotes production by economizing labor, increasing its efficiency, and making more effective use of capital.” This is all helpful from the point of view of capital. How about the laborer?
What is the concept of marginal utility?
What are some examples of elastic demand?
What are some examples of elastic supply?
Distinguish between increasing costs and decreasing costs.
What is the meaning of imperfect competition?
What are some of the limitations on monopoly price?
Suppose the quantity of money held by everyone were to be doubled. Would we be twice as wealthy? Explain.
Discuss briefly some of the factors which influence the rate of interest.
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FINAL EXAMINATION IN POLITICAL ECONOMY 1 C
Dr. Cooper
Monday [May] 30, 1938
9 A.M.
Please use ink and write clearly.
In what ways does the Federal Reserve System seek to control credit?
(a) What is the significance of the double budget made use of by President Roosevelt?
(b) Trace briefly the National Debt of the United States?
(a) What is meant by combining business risks to prevent their harmful effects? Illustrate.
(b) What is meant by passing risks to the shoulders of others more able or willing to bear them? Illustrate.
Define the following:
(a) a pool
(b) a trust
(c) a holding company
(d) a consolidation
(e) a merger.
The newspapers frequently carry statements to the effect that local patriotism requires that you patronize local merchants and industries in order to keep money at home. Criticize.
What factors lead to fluctuations in foreign exchange?
Would you advocate an early return to the gold standard? Give reasons for and against.
Discuss briefly the factors affecting the supply and demand for labor.
Distinguish between the craft or trade union, and the industrial union. Which do you think will be the union of the future? Why?
Marx held that the tendency toward concentration, and the increasing numbers and misery of the laboring class would lead us into Socialism. Taking into consideration the long time period, is it possible that he was right?
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Elements of Economics. Section 5
Dr. Robert G. Deupree
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY MID-YEAR EXAMINATION POLITICAL ECONOMY 1 C
Contrast: the manorial system, guild system, and domestic system.
Distinguish between the following forms of the business unit: Individual proprietorship, partnership, limited partnership, and corporation.
Discuss the economic effects of division of labor.
Explain the marginal utility concept.
How does it relate to price?
Explain marginal cost of production.
How does it relate to price?
Distinguish between production under conditions of increasing, decreasing, and constant costs, giving examples of each.
A monopolist finds the following cost and demand schedules prevailing in the market for his commodity:
Quantity
Cost per unit
Selling price per unit
1,000,000
1.00
1.00
750,000
1.07
1.10
500,000
1.36
1.40
250,000
1.49
1.50
What would be the monopoly price in this market? Why? Are there any limitations upon the monopolists’ power to fix price? Explain.
Show how economic rent arises on urban lands. Does the law of diminishing returns apply to urban lands? If so, in what manner? Explain what is meant by the extensive and intensive margins of cultivation in agriculture and their relation to economic rent.
What is the time preference theory of interest?
How would the rate of time preference be affected by:
a steady growth of the national income?
extravagance in consumption?
old age pensions paid by the government?
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FINAL EXAMINATION POLITICAL ECONOMY 1 C
Dr. Deupree
June 1, 1938
9 a.m.
Identify or define:
1. Karl Marx
2. Thomas Malthus
3. Gresham’s law
4. Knights of Labor
5. Rochdale system
6. Law of large numbers
7. Hedging
8. Processing taxes
9. Gold export point
10. Mint par of exchange.
a. Discuss money.
b. Define a commercial bank and discuss its functions.
c. Define a central bank and discuss its functions.
Summarize the major provisions of and evaluate any two of the following:
a. Banking Act of 1935
b. Social Security Act
c. Trade Agreements Act
d. National Labor Relations Act
e. National Industrial Recovery Act
f. Clayton Anti-trust Act
a. Sketch the basis of the conflict between the American Federation of Labor and the Committee for Industrial Organization. Discuss the relative merits of the arguments.
b. How would you account for the wages paid a particular group of workers — for example, carpenters in Baltimore?
a. What are the basic Socialist proposals?
b. Distinguish: Socialism, Communism, Fascism.
How would you meet the unemployment problem in the United States? Give reasons for each step you propose.
Source: Johns Hopkins University, Eisenhower Library. Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy. Curricular Materials. Series 6. Box 2. Folder “Department of Political Economy — Exams, 1936-1940”.
“
