The economics department at Harvard at the start of the 20th century offered a course taught by the Law School assistant professor, Bruce Wyman (b. 15 June 1875; d. 21 June 1926), to provide future businessmen an overview of commercial and industrial relations law. Students expecting to go to study law were explicitly not encouraged to take the course.
Bruce Wyman pops up in an even earlier post. Harvard President Lowell complained to Professor Frank Taussig about Wyman’s course in the economics department having too soft a grade distribution (making it a “snap” course). Also we learn there the somewhat scandalous circumstances that led to Wyman’s forced resignation from his Harvard Law professorship in December 1913.
__________________________
Wyman’s exams from earlier years
__________________________
Course Enrollment
1904-05
Economics 21. Asst. Professor Wyman. — Principles of Law governing Industrial Relations and Commercial Law.
Total 182: 14 Graduates, 65 Seniors, 76 Juniors, 15 Sophomores, 12 Others.
Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1904-1905, p. 75.
__________________________
Course Description
1904-05
[Economics] 21. Principles of Law governing Industrial Relations. — Commercial Law. — Competition and Combination. Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri., at 11. Asst. Professor Wyman.
Course 21 is open to those students who will complete their undergraduate work in 1904-05.
This course considers certain rules of the law modern trade and the governing the course of organization of modern industry. The commercial law is thus taken up at large in its application to the conduct of modern business. The aim of the course is to give to students who mean to enter business life some contact with the law and some understanding of the legal point of view; at the same time the problems brought forward are actual and the rules of law discussed are specific, so that the instruction may prove of service in a business career. The course forms a natural introduction to the study of law, as it involves most of the elementary principles in one way or another. As the course deals with adjudication and legislation on questions of first importance in the economic development of modern times, it may also be of advantage to all those who wish to equip themselves for the intelligent discussion of issues having both legal and economic aspects.
In 1904-05 five principal topics will be discussed: Competition — Combination — Association — Consolidation — Regulation. The conduct of this course will be by the reading and discussion of cases from the law report. The cases selected cover the whole course of the industrial organization, so that both fact and law involved are informing.
Source: Harvard University. Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Division of History and Political Science Comprising the Departments of History and Government and Economics, 1904-05 (May 16, 1904), pp. 48-49.
__________________________
ECONOMICS 21
Mid-year Examination, 1904-05
Answer all questions.
In the case of each question give a specific answer about one line in length, then proceed in subsequent paragraphs to discuss the matter involved both upon principle and upon authority.
- A is the manufacturer of the X infants’ food; B is the manufacturer of the Z infants’ food. B inserts an advertisement in various magazines, which contains the following clause: — “The Z food is twice as nutritious as the X food.” A sues B for the publication of this statement; in this suit he offers to prove by expert testimony that the X food is in fact more nutritious than the Z food. The court is asked by B to dismiss the action of A. What result?
- A is a workman employed in the works of B. B carries an indemnity policy covering accidents, written by C. A gets his hand crushed in one of the machines, which is improperly guarded. C attempts to make a settlement with A at $500, which A refuses; thereupon C threatens to get A discharged by B, but A still refuses to compromise. Next, C goes to B and demands that A be discharged. B is at first unwilling, but when C threatens to take advantage of the clause in the policy permitting cancellation of the policy upon five days’ notice, B reluctantly undertakes to discharge A at the end of the week for which he is employed, protesting that A is a good workman and he had intended to give him regular employment. After A is thus discharged he brings suit against C for damages for loss of his employment. What result?
- A is a manufacturer of tomato catsup. He puts his product on the market in a tapering bottle with a screw cap of tin; this bottle he packs in a round pastboard carton covered with manila paper; on the wrapper is a picture of a bottle filled with red catsup, around which in black type are the brand and address. B another manufacturer of tomato catsup puts his product on the market in much the same way — in a tapering bottle with a screw cap of tin, wrapped in a round carton of pastboard with a label showing a bottle of red catsup, but with the name of his brand in plain black letters, as also his own name and address. A seeks an injunction against B. What result?
- The North American Soap Company is organized under the laws of New Jersey. It buys from A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, who are the principal manufacturers of soap in the United States, all of their soap factories. The North American Company in the case of each purchase from A, B, C, D, E, F, and G takes an agreement from each not to engage in the soap business for ten years in the United States. The scheme of the promoters is to get control of the market by this process. B starts a large soap factory in New York two years later. Can he be stopped by injunction?
- A is a dealer in coal in San Francisco. An agreement is made between B, C, D, E, F, and G, who are the principal dealers in coal in that city that they will sell for one year at prices to be fixed by the majority. The combination then votes to cut prices 20% for the next 4 months. At the end of 3 months, A’s capital is exhausted by this cut throat competition, and he retires from business a ruined man. A now brings suit against B for his losses. What result?
- In a certain factory operated by X, A is employed by the week with 300 others, among whom are B, C, D, E, F, and G. B, C and D propose the organization of a trades union which every employee joins, except A who refuses. The trades union, at an early meeting, votes unanimously that theirs must be a union shop. The committee accordingly waits on X and informs him that unless A is discharged a strike will be called at the end of the week. X reluctantly discharges A at the end of the week. A now sues G for damages. What result?
- The X hotel corporation is duly organized by A, B, and C. It builds a hotel the next year. Three years later A buys from B and C all of their stock. The next week A executes a mortgage upon the hotel property to the Y bank to secure a loan himself of $10,000; this is signed: — “X company, by A.” The week following, A transfers one share to M and another to N. A meeting of the shareholders in the X corporation is then called, A, M, and N attending; at this meeting it is unanimously voted to borrow $10,000 from the Z bank and to execute a mortgage upon the corporate property to secure the loan, which A is authorized to execute in the name of the company. This mortgage upon the hotel property is accordingly executed to the Z bank, being signed: — “X company, by A.” Which of these mortgages, the Y bank or the Z bank, will come out ahead, if the hotel property is only worth $15,000, not enough to pay both?
- The X corporation is organized with a capitalization of $100,000; its shares are subscribed on the basis of 50% paid down, and all are issued. A year later it issues $50,000 in first mortgage bonds, and the next year $20,000 in second mortgage bonds. In the third year it goes into insolvency owing $60,000 to general creditors for goods. The sale of its properties realizes $50,000. In the final winding up how do the following parties come out: the first bonds? the second bonds? the general creditors? and the stockholders?
Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University. Mid-year Examinations, 1852-1943. Box 7, Bound Volume: Examination Papers, Mid-Years 1904-05.
__________________________
ECONOMICS 21
Year-end Examination, 1904-05
Answer all questions. Give full reasons. Cite some authorities.
- Can the following be stopped as unfair competition:—
(1) One steamship company gives a rebate of 25% to those shippers who agree to give all their business and not to deal with a rival steamship company; (2) A tobacco manufacturer gives jobbers 5% discount extra if they will agree not to handle any goods of rival companies which sell for less than its own brands; (3) A manufacturer of shoe machinery who sells his machines only upon an agreement by the purchaser to buy the staples fed into it of the manufacturer finds that a rival manufacturer is offering staples at 25% off; (4) An oil corporation controlling 80% of its market reduces prices 50% in districts where competitors appear while raising prices 50% in districts where competition has been crushed out; (5) A gas company decides not to deal with any applicant who has had electricity put in by a rival company. - Eight corporations, constituting eighty per cent. of the soap manufacturers of the United States form a partnership to handle sale. Each corporation pays in $10,000 as working capital. It is provided that every manufacturer in the partnership shall have the right to run his own works in his own way, producing as much as he pleases, selling at what price he pleases. But it is further provided that every manufacturer shall pay to the treasurer of the partnership 2½ cents per lb. upon all soap made and sold by him. By another clause any member of the association has the right to withdraw at the end of any quarter. At the end of each quarter, it is stipulated, the treasurer shall pay over to each member of the partnership a share of the fund thus accumulated pro rata according to the capacity of his plant. At the end of the first quarter the X corporation, a member, withdraws; it has paid into the partnership $322; the pro rata share due is $5800. The X corporation now asks counsel what its rights are (1) To the $322; (2) To the $5800; (3) As to the $10,000; (4) Suppose the partnership were insolvent, what would be the respective rights of the X corporation and the general creditors of the partnership? (5) If the X corporation is content to remain in the arrangement, can its dissenting majority stockholders who believe the policy unsafe force it to withdraw?
- A and B are co-partners engaged in cotton spinning. One C comes to A and B, whom he finds together in the office of the firm, and offers them 10,000 bales of cotton at 11c. per lb. This is a very large purchase for this firm to make, and the price is rather high as the price is falling. The proposition appeals to A, who says to B, “shall we take the cotton?” B says, “No.” Then A turns to C, who has heard all, and says “we need that cotton, despite what B says, and we will sign a contract with you;” thereupon, against the continued protests of B, A and C executed a contract for the cotton. A signs it, “A & B by A,” B forbidding him to do so to the last. The partnership later refuses to carry out the contract; C sues B for the damages caused by the breach. (1) What result in case as stated? (2) Suppose the partnership was buying a large amount of cotton in order to corner the market, which fact was unknown to C; (3) Would your answer be different if A and C had contracted for the cotton in B’s absence, A secretly intending to sell the cotton and run away with the proceeds? (4) Suppose while A and C were contracting, but before they had struck the bargain, B died without either knowing it; (5) Suppose the purchase price of the cotton was higher than the market, it being understood that in consideration of this C should cancel a debt of $4000 which A owed him.
- A buys a mining claim for $8000; he sells it to B and eight others for $12,000, who agree that if they are successful in unloading it upon a corporation which they are planning to form for that purpose he shall have the same share of profits that the rest get. After trying to sell it to various other people for $12,000 and failing to do so (the best offer they can get is $4000) they all form the X corporation with their office boys as stockholders and directors, who vote to buy the mining claim of them for $62,000. The mine when developed by the people who buy into the X company turns out to be worth $500,000 at the least calculation. (1) What are the rights of the X company against A? (2) Suppose it had turned out to be worth only $1000? (3) Suppose the X corporation had already been formed by other parties before this syndicate was made up and that the directors for the time being had foolishly bought the property from the syndicate for $62,000 when most people would say that it was only worth $8000, what could the stockholders of the X company do about it? (4) Suppose B happened to be one of this board of directors, what would be the rights of the stockholders of the X company? (5) Suppose B happened to be a stockholder in this X corporation that bought the mining claim under the circumstances described in (3), could minority stockholders in the X corporation which had voted by a small majority (which included B’s vote) prevent the purchase from being carried through?
- Three gas companies, — the A Co., the B Co., and the C Co., are engaged in supplying gas in a certain city. The principal stockholders are friendly, and they desire to consolidate. The following schemes are proposed; how many of these may be put through in any way (a) if every stockholder in the A Co., the B Co., and the C Co. is willing? (b) if minority stockholders dissent? (1) The first scheme proposed is to have the shares in the constituent companies conveyed to a board of three trustees who shall issue trust certificates retaining the voting powers; (2) the second scheme proposed is to have the shares sold to a holding corporation organized to buy them, the shareholders in the a holding constituent companies being offered either the market price of the shares in cash or in shares in the holding corporation; (3) the third scheme proposed is for the constituent companies to vote to sell all their property and franchises for cash to a new corporation organized to buy the properties, the cash to be distributed to the stockholders in the old companies pro rata; (4) the fourth scheme proposed is for the shareholders in the constituent companies to agree to elect identical boards of directors in accordance with a vote among themselves; (5) a fifth scheme is for the A Co. and the B Co. to execute leases of all of their properties to the C Co.
- Are the following laws constitutional or do they deprive of life, liberty, and property without due process of law?: (1) prohibiting any manufacturing corporation from stipulating in any employment contract that one half of the employee’s pay shall be in orders for supplies from the employer’s general store; (2) forbidding the manufacture of clothing in any room in any tenement house; (3) forbidding the running of a department store, which is defined as an establishment where two of the following businesses are carried on: the sale of foods, the sale of dry goods, the sale of furniture, the sale of hardware; (4) prohibiting the sale of oleomargarine colored yellow, and requiring any one who sells it to put a sign out which shall say in letters one foot high “Oleomargarine sold here”; (5) making eight hours the limit of time for which any one may be employed to work in any factory.
- Are the following refusals to enter into business relations legal? (1) By a telephone company which will install an instrument in the office of only one telegraph company; (2) by a railroad which will only allow one telephone company to establish a pay station in a union station; (3) by an electric company which refuses to furnish electricity for power; (4) by a sleeping car company which after assigning a traveller to “lower 5” reassigns him half an hour later to “upper 8” without making any explanation; (5) by a railroad which refuses to furnish facilities for doing the express business itself upon the ground that it has entered into an exclusive arrangement with one express company.
- Do the following constitute illegal discriminations in commercial dealings? (1) By a steamship company which gives 20 per cent. rebate to all shippers who ship 1000 tons per year; (2) by a railroad which charges ten cents excess fare to passengers who have no tickets, even if they have found the ticket office closed; (3) by a hotel keeper who refuses to take in late at night a man and his wife who find themselves unable to get into their own house nearby because they have lost their key; (4) by a gas company which refuses (although offered prepayment) to sell gas to a rival company; (5) by a gas company which finds itself unexpectedly unable to supply its customers; (6) by an electric company which makes it a rule to supply the transformer free to such applicants only who have the wiring of their houses done by it.
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,…,Music in Harvard College (June, 1905), pp. 38-42.
Image Source: Lithograph by John Jepson “Harvard scores” published in 1905. From the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540.