Tag: Jenks

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Sociology Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Course readings, final exams, and enrollment for Principles of Sociology. Carver and Field, 1904-1905

 

The post begins with excerpts from Thomas Nixon Carver’s autobiography dealing with his own training and teaching of sociology. He was an economist back when most sociology courses were taught within economics departments as was the case at Harvard up through the early 1930’s. Carver’s recollections are followed by the enrollment figures, the reading list, and the semester examinations for his Principles of Sociology course from the 1904-05 academic year.

__________________________

Carver’s background and institutional legacy in sociology
(From his autobiography)

Graduate Coursework at Cornell

[p. 105] The economics faculty consisted of Jeremiah W. Jenks, chairman, Walter F. Willcox, Charles H. Hull, and young  [Lucius S.] Merriam. The history department was very strong but I did not take any history courses, to my later regret. My fellowship was officially a teaching fellowship, but I was told that the holders had never been called upon to teach. It paid $550 which proved sufficient for my needs. I took courses under all three of the older men in the department of economics, but none under Merriam. Jenks conducted the seminar and gave a course on economic legislation, both of which I took. Hull gave a course on the history of economic thought, which I took, and another on industrial history. Willcox gave a course in statistics and another on sociology, both of which I took….

[p.111] … Johns Hopkins at that time was known principally because of its graduate school. Cornell had a growing graduate school but it was an appendage rather than the main part of the university. At Johns Hopkins, graduate students were segregated and had relatively few contacts with undergraduates. At Cornell, on the other hand, they were pretty well mixed.

Cornell had a larger faculty than Johns Hopkins and probably as many distinguished scholars, but the average was perhaps not so high, most of them being concerned with undergraduate teaching.

In the Department of Economics, Jenks was the oldest member and chairman of the department. He was more interested in the practical than in the theoretical side of economics. Merriam was a brilliant theorist and, had he lived, would have strengthened that side of their work. Jenks was a wide awake and interesting teacher, a man of the world who could meet on equal terms men prominent in government and business and might have done well in the diplomatic service.

Hull had an encyclopedic knowledge of American industrial history and should have written books on the subject, but he was so afraid that he might overlook something that he never got quite ready to write.

Probably the most brilliant of the three was Walter F. Willcox. Before the rise of the mathematical school of statisticians he was the leading statistician of the country. He also took us through Spencer’s Principles of Sociology and added a good many original ideas of his own. He was one of the few teachers of sociology whom I have known who were capable of taking a realistic and rational view of things.

Teaching at Oberlin

[pp. 122-123] Professor Hull had returned from his sojourn at Johns Hopkins. This relieved me of the classes in English and American history which I had carried the year before [1894-1895]. I added a course [in 1895-1896] in anthropology and one in sociology to my offering.

Teaching at Harvard
(Carver joined the faculty 1900-01)

[p. 132] There was no Department of Sociology at Harvard, but Edward Cummings had given a course on principles of sociology in the Department of Economics. Since I had been giving a course in that subject at Oberlin it was suggested that I continue it at Harvard. [1901-02; 1902-03 (taught by Ripley  and Carver); 1903-04] In addition I gave a course on economic theory and a half course on methods of economic investigation.

[p. 172] The course on the principles of sociology developed into a study of the Darwinian theory as applied to social groups. Variation among the forms of social organization and of moral systems, and the selection or survival of those systems and forms that make for group strength, were considered to constitute the method of social evolution.

The Harvard Illustrated, a student publication, at that time conducted a poll of the senior class, asking the students to name the best courses they had taken. For a number of

years Professor Palmer’s course in ethics ranked highest. My course on principles of sociology began to climb until it finally achieved first place. Then the poll was discontinued.

[pp. 210-212] I have mentioned several times the courses which I had developed at Harvard: principles of agricultural economics, principles of sociology, methods of social reform, and the distribution of wealth. I was, all those years, covering more ground than any other member of the department…
…Up to this time there had been no department of sociology at Harvard. There was a Department of Anthropology and a Department of Social Ethics, but the only course in sociological principles was the one which I gave in the Department of Economics. At one of the meetings of the American Sociological Society I heard Sorokin of the University of Minnesota read a paper. I was impressed by his prodigious learning and general sanity. I began to cultivate his acquaintance and finally was instrumental in bringing him to Harvard….The Department of Economics, on my motion, invited him to give a course of three lectures at Harvard. While he was in Cambridge, I introduced him to President Lowell. Later, on my motion, the department voted to recommend to the Corporation that Sorokin be offered a professorship in the Department of Economics to give courses in sociology at Harvard. The offer was made, he accepted, and a beginning was made toward starting a department of sociology.

Source: Thomas Nixon Carver. Recollections of an Unplanned Life. Los Angeles: Ward Ritchie Press, 1949.

__________________________

Course Enrollment

Economics 3. Professor Carver and Mr. J. A. Field. — Principles of Sociology. Theories of Social Progress.

Total 47: 10 Graduates, 7 Seniors, 18 Juniors, 7 Sophomores, 5 Others.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1904-1905, p. 74.

__________________________

ECONOMICS 3
Prescribed Reading and Collateral References. 1904-05

TO BE READ IN FULL
  1. Herbert Spencer. Principles of Sociology.
  2. Walter Bagehot. Physics and Politics.
  3. Benjamin Kidd. Social Evolution.
  4. F. H. Giddings. Principles of Sociology.
COLLATERAL READING. STARRED REFERENCES ARE ESPECIALLY RECOMMENDED

I. SCOPE AND METHOD OF SOCIOLOGY

  1. Auguste Comte. Positive Philosophy. Book VI. Chs.2-4.
  2. Herbert Spencer. Classification of the Sciences, in Essays: Scientific, Political, and Speculative. Vol. II.
  3. *Herbert Spencer. The Study of Sociology. Chs. 1-3.
  4. J. S. Mill. System of Logic. Book VI.
  5. W. S. Jevons. Principles of Science. Ch. 31. Sec. 11.
  6. Lester F. Ward. Outlines of Sociology. I.
  7. W. H. Stuckenberg. Introduction to the Study of Sociology. Chs. 2 and 3.
  8. Émile Durkheim. Les Regles de la Méthode Sociologique.
  9. Guillaume de Greef. Les Lois Sociologiques.
  10. Arthur Fairbanks. Introduction to Sociology. Introduction.

Il. THE FACTORS OF SOCIAL PROGRESS

A. Physical and Biological Factors

  1. Herbert Spencer. The Factors of Organic Evolution, in Essays: Scientific, Political, and Speculative. Vol. I.
  2. Herbert Spencer. Progress, its Law and Cause, in Essays: Scientific, Political, and Speculative. Vol. I.
  3. Auguste Comte. Positive Philosophy. Book VI. Ch. 6.
  4. Lester F. Ward. Dynamical Sociology. Ch. 7.
  5. Simon N. Patten. The Theory of Social Forces. Ch. 1.
  6. Geddes and Thompson. The Evolution of Sex. Chs. 1, 2, 19, 21.
  7. Robert Mackintosh. From Comte to Benjamin Kidd.
  8. *G. de LaPouge. Les Sélections Sociales. Chs. 1-6.
  9. August Weismann. The Germ Plasm: a Theory of Heredity.
  10. George Job Romanes. An Examination of Weismannism.
  11. Alfred Russell Wallace. Studies: Scientific and Social.
  12. *R. L. Dugdale. The Jukes.
  13. Oscar C. McCulloh. The Tribe of Ishmael.
  14. *Francis Galton. Hereditary Genius.
  15. Arthur Fairbanks. Introduction to Sociology. Pt. III.
  16. H. W. Conn. The Method of Evolution.

B. Psychic

  1. Auguste Comte. Positive Philosophy. Book VI. Ch. 5.
  2. *Jeremy Bentham. Principles of Morals and Legislation. Chs. 1 and 2.
  3. Lester F. Ward. The Psychic Factors of Civilization.
  4. Tarde. Social Laws.
  5. [G. Tarde]. The Laws of Imitation.
  6. [G. Tarde]. La Logique Sociale.
  7. Gustar Le Bon. The Crowd.
  8. The Psychology of Peoples.
  9. Mark Baldwin. Social and Ethical Interpretations.
  10. [J. Mark Baldwin]. Mental Development in the Child and the Race.
  11. John Fisk. The Destiny of Man.
  12. Henry Drummond. The Ascent of Man.
  13. Simon N. Patten. The Theory of Social Forces. Chs. 2-5.
  14. *E. A. Ross. Social Control.

C. Social and Economic

  1. Lester F. Ward. Outlines of Sociology. Pt. II.
  2. *[Lester F. Ward]. Dynamical Sociology. Ch. 10.
  3. Brooks Adams. The Law of Civilization and Decay.
  4. D. G. Ritchie. Darwinism and Politics.
  5. *A. G. Warner. American Charities. Pt. I. Ch. 5.
  6. *G. de LaPouge. Les Sélections Sociales. Chs. 7-15.
  7. T. R. Malthus. Principle of Population.
  8. H. Bosanquet. The Standard of Life.
  9. W. H. Mallock. Aristocracy and Evolution.
  10. T. V. Veblen. The Theory of the Leisure Class.
  11. W. S. Jevons. Methods of Social Reform.
  12. Jane Addams and Others. Philanthropy and Social Progress.
  13. Demolins. Anglo-Saxon Superiority.
  14. *Thomas H. Huxley. Evolution and Ethics.
  15. Georg Simmel. Ueber Sociale Differencierung.
  16. Émile Durkheim. De la Division du Travail social.
  17. J. H. W. Stuckenberg. Introduction to the Study of Sociology. Ch. 6.
  18. Achille Loria. The Economic Foundations of Society.
  19. [Achille Loria]. Problems Sociaux Contemporains. Ch. 6.
  20. William Z. Ripley. The Races of Europe.

D. Political and Legal

  1. Jeremy Bentham. Principles of Morals and Legislation. Chs. 12-17.
  2. F. M. Taylor. The Right of the State to Be.
  3. *W. W. Willoughby. Social Justice. Chs. 5-9.
  4. *D. G. Ritchie. Principles of State Interference.
  5. W. S. Jevons. The State in Relation to Labor.
  6. Henry C. Adams. The Relation of the State to Industrial Action, in Publications Am. Econ. Assoc. Vol. I. No. 6.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and readings in economics, 1895-2003. Box 1. Folder “Economics, 1904-1905.”

__________________________

ECONOMICS 3
Mid-year Examination, 1904-05

  1. What is meant by a rational sanction for conduct? How is it distinguished from the rationalization of religion and law?
  2. Has resentment, or the desire for vengeance, any place as a factor in producing social order? Explain your answer.
  3. Describe Spencer’s conception of the Industrial Type of Society and give your opinion of its validity.
    (a) as representing an actual stage in social progress;
    (b) as an ideal social type.
  4. What accounts for the force of the religious sanction for conduct among primitive peoples? What does Spencer believe will be the place of ethics in the religion of the future, and what are his reasons? Are the two explanations in harmony?
  5. Describe the principal forms of the family relation, and the type of society in which each form prevails.
  6. Comment briefly but specifically upon any five of the following topics:—
    (a) Exogamy.
    (b) The domestic relations of the Veddahs.
    (c) The domestic relations of the Thibetans.
    (d) The Ynca political system.
    (e) Political organization among the Eskimos.
    (f) The political system of the Dahomans.
    (g) The industrial attainments of the Fuegians.
  7. What is Spencer’s explanation of the origin of ceremonial in general; and how does he account for particular forms? According to this theory what does the formality of our social relations indicate concerning the original social or anti-social traits of mankind?
  8. By what stages has the medical profession been evolved, and how does it perform the general social function which according to Spencer characterizes the professions?
  9. “The salvation of every society, as of every species, depends on the maintenance of an absolute opposition between the regime of the family and the regime of the State.” Spencer, Vol. I, p. 719.
    What opposition is referred to? Does it appear more conspicuously in the militant or in the industrial type of society?
  10. “From war has been gained all that it has to give.” Spencer, Vol. II, p. 664.
    What has war done to develop society? Why is its work done? Why, if war is now intolerable, is it improper to check the conflicts of classes and individuals within the state?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University. Mid-year Examinations, 1852-1943. Box 7, Bound Volume: Examination Papers, Mid-Years 1904-05.

__________________________

ECONOMICS 3
Year-end Examination, 1904-05

Omit one question.

  1. “Can we then allege special connexions between the different types of family and the different social types classed as militant and industrial?” (Spencer, Principles of Sociology, I, p. 675.) Explain.
  2. In what particulars is society fundamentally unlike a biological organism?
  3. Can you define social progress in terms of human well-being and at the same time make it consistent with a general theory of evolution? Explain.
  4. What is meant by the storing of social energy and what are the agencies by which it is accomplished?
  5. What is meant by the power of idealization and how does it affect social progress?
  6. Under what conditions and on what grounds would you justify the interference of the state with the liberty of the individual?
  7. Give the titles and authors of such books as you have read of sociological topics, including those prescribed in the course, and write your impression of one which is not prescribed.

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), p. 24.

Image Source: “Thomas Nixon Carver, 1865-1961” link at the History of Economic Thought Website. “Portrait of Carver (as a young man)“.
Detail in the Oberlin College Yearbook 1901 Hi-o-hi (no. 16)

Categories
Industrial Organization Labor

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

S.N.D. North and E. Dana Durand

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______________________

THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION,
BY SIMON NEWTON DEXTER NORTH,
A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION.
(1899)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

S. N. D. North.

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

______________________

The Reports
of the Industrial Commission.

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

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

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

Vol. 4. Report on transportation (1900).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vol. 19. Final Report (1902).

______________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

service.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Courses Harvard Undergraduate Yale

Yale. Sheffield Scientific School, Ethics of Business Lectures for Seniors, endowed by Edward D. Page, 1908-1915

 

In the previous post we met the 1896 Columbia University economics Ph.D., Henry C. Emery, who went on to become a professor at Yale. In preparing that post, I came across the Page Lecture Series for the senior class of the Sheffield Scientific School at Yale University and wondered who was the Sheffield alumnus who sponsored that series and so this post was born.

It appears that the series only ran from 1908-1916 with only the first eight rounds resulting in published volumes. 

The sponsor of the lecture series, Edward Day Page (1856-1918) was an 1875 graduate of the Sheffield Scientific School of Yale and a successful business man who closed down his dry goods commission partnership and retired from active business in 1911. Included below is an excerpt from an 1886 letter by Page to The Nation that provides a comparison between political economy taught at Yale and Harvard claiming the superiority of Harvard’s broader use of elective courses. This is followed by obituaries for his firm and him, respectively. Finally, we discover that his New Jersey estate was one of the list of places that have a legitimate claim to George Washington having had slept there.

Edward Day Page was a rare sort of business man (now an endangered species) who appears to have thought deeply about what constitutes ethical behavior in the conduct of business. 

__________________________

Page Lecture Series.
Addresses delivered before the Senior Class of the Sheffield Scientific School, Yale University.

“For some time prior to [1908] the authorities of the Sheffield Scientific School had been considering the possibility of a course of five lectures dealing with the question of right conduct in business matters, to be given to the members of the Senior Class toward the end of their college year. While these addresses were to be in a sense a prescribed study for members of the Senior Class, it was intended that the course should not be restricted to them but should be open to all members of the University who might desire to attend. Through the generosity of Mr. Edward D. Page, of New York City, a graduate of the Sheffield Scientific School in the Class of 1875, this course, now named for the founder, was established in the summer of 1907; and in the spring of 1908 the first lectures in the series were delivered…”

Source: Morals in Modern Business, addresses delivered in the Page lecture series, 1908, before the senior class of the Sheffield scientific school, Yale university. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1909. Publisher’s note, p. 5

 

Morals in Modern Business (1908 address, published 1909)

The Morals of Trade in the Making. Edward D. Page
Production. George W. Alger
Competition. Henry Holt
Credit and Banking. A. Barton Hepburn
Public Service. Edward W. Bemis
Corporate and Other Trusts. James McKeen

Every-day Ethics (1909 Lectures, published in 1910)

Journalism. Norman Hapgood
Accountancy. Joseph E. Sterrett
Lawyer and Client. John Brooks Leavitt
Transportation. Charles A. Prouty
Speculation. Henry C. Emery

Industry and Progress by Norman Hapgood (1910 Lectures, published in 1911).

Trade Morals: Their Origin, Growth and Province by Edward D. Page (1911 Lectures, published in  1914).

“This book is the outgrowth of a course of lectures delivered to the graduating class at the Sheffield Scientific School of Yale University in the spring of 1911. Their object was to show in some consecutive form the growth of trade morals from the social and mental conditions which form the environment of business men, and to illustrate their meaning and purpose in such a way as to clarify if not to solve some difficulties by which the men of our time are perplexed. The lecturer took for granted a basis of knowledge such as is possessed by undergraduate students of the natural and social sciences, and the effort was made to carry minds so prepared one step further along toward the interpretation of some of the problems with which they would soon be compelled to cope. Nearly all of them were shortly to come into contact with business — to engage in it, in fact — and he felt that it was important that they should make this start with some definite notion of the values and problems involved in the business side of their vocational career.

Politician, Party and People by Henry Crosby Emery (1912 Lectures, published in 1913)

Questions of Public Policy. (1913 Lectures, published in 1913)

The Character and Influence of Recent Immigration. Jeremiah W. Jenks
The Essential and the Unessential in Currency Legislation. A. Piatt Andrew
The Value of the Panama Canal to this Country. Emory R. Johnson
The Benefits and Evils of the Stock Exchange. Willard V. King.

Ethics in Service by William Howard Taft. (1914 Lectures, published in 1915).

Industrial Leadership by H. L. Gantt. (1915 Lectures, published 1916).

Character and Conduct in Business Life by Edward D. Page. (1916 Lectures)

__________________________

Harvard-Yale Comparison (1886)
by Edward D. Page

The second cause which has determined the progress of Harvard is the great extension of optional studies which has taken place under the administration of President Eliot. It is not my purpose to enter into any argument of the merits of the optional system. It has existed at Harvard for forty-five years, during the last fifteen of which it has had broad extensions and thorough trial. Facts speak for it. It is undeniably popular among both students and instructors. It has been denounced by Yale’s venerable triumvirate and their backers as wasteful and demoralizing. Yet they yielded so far to popular clamor, some five years since, as to formulate the system of limited election which now prevails in the two upper classes. If elective studies are good, why were they not adopted years ago? If, on the contrary, they are bad, why adopted at all?

The following table shows, for the college year 1885-86, the number of hours weekly which the student can devote to the studies of his own choice:

HOURS OF ELECTIVE STUDIES (PER WEEK).

Yale.

Harvard.
Freshman Class

None

9
Sophomore Class

None

All
Junior Class

9

All
Senior Class

13

All

In this respect, then, Yale stood till five or six years ago just where she stood in the eighteenth century, and stands to-day almost exactly where Harvard stood in 1841. Of course the opportunities of choice are far greater at Yale to-day than they could be at any American college forty-five years ago: but they are still far inferior to the advantages which Cambridge now affords.

Subjoined is a table showing the courses given in the Academical Department of each university, and the number of hours of instruction offered weekly in each course:

Yale.

Harvard.
Semitic Languages

1

17
Indo-Iranian Languages

4

12
Greek

13 ½

39 ½
Latin

17 ½

37 ½
Greek and Latin Philology, etc.

…

6
English and Rhetoric

10

24
German

15

20
French

18

26
Italian

6

10 ½
Spanish

6

10 ½
Philosophy and Ethics

11

25
Political Economy

4 ½

14
History

11 ½

24
Roman Law

1 ½

4 ½
Fine Arts

…

10 ½
Music

…

14
Mathematics

30 ½

42 ½
Physics

4

23 ½
Chemistry

2

24
Natural History

11

49 ½
International Law, etc.

1 ½

…
Linguistics

½

…
Hygiene

1

…

170

434 ½

In other words, the Harvard undergraduate has the allurement and opportunity of over two and a half times the amount of instruction that is offered by Yale. In this respect the latter is somewhat behind where Harvard was in 1871, when 168 hours were offered in the elective courses alone.

Thoroughness of instruction is a more difficult factor to estimate, and one which I approach with great diffidence. I shall be contented with a table of comparison showing the courses given in political economy, which, in importance to the citizen, yields to no other science. At Harvard the instruction is given by a professor, an assistant professor, and an instructor. At Yale one man performs all these functions and is Professor of Social Science as well. The time occupied by each course is reduced to the number of hours per week annually offered:

YALE.

HARVARD.
Elementary course.

1 ½ hrs.

 Elementary course.

3 hrs.
Longer elementary course

2 hrs.
History of economic theory

3 hrs.
Economical history of America and Europe

3 hrs.
Tariff legislation

1 hr.
Financial legislation

1 hr.
Discussion and investigation

1 hr.

 Discussion and investigation

3 hrs.
Independent research say

3 hrs.
For Seniors

4 ½ hrs.

 For Sophomores, Juniors, and Seniors.

17 hrs.

From this it is apparent that something more is offered at Harvard than a merely superficial knowledge of a subject which few men have the time to pursue in after life. Yale now devotes scarcely more time to the subject than Harvard did in 1872.

It may be well to note in passing that while psychology is a required study for four terms at Yale, political economy is an optional study, which can be pursued at utmost for but two. It is difficult to discern the principle on which this discrimination is based, unless, indeed, that otherwise a smaller attendance would flatter the one course given by the President of the University!

Source: From Edward D. Page, “A Comparison” the Nation, 25 February 1886. A follow-up to his article “Two Decades of Yale and Harvard” 18 February, 1886.

__________________________

Edward Day Page’s Business Career

Old Dry Goods Firm to Quit
Faulkner, Page & Co., in Business 78 Years, to End with the Year.
The New York Times. 9 October 1911

Conformable to the wishes of the two senior partners, who are eager to retire, the dry goods commission firm of Faulkner, Page & Co., of 78 Worth Street and 80 Fifth Avenue, will go out of business at the end of the current year, after seventy-eight years of activity.

The business was founded in Boston in 1834, by Charles Faulkner, who had been a salesman for Thomas Tarbell, a dry goods jobber of Boston. Faulkner’s family operated several woolen mills, and he united the agency for these mills with the business of Mr. Tarbell, under the namerof Thomas Tarbell & Co.

In 1850 the name of the firm was changed to Faulkner, Kimball & Co., Thomas Tarbell retiring, and M. Day Kimball and Robert C. Billings being admitted. The importing end of the business was dropped at the outbreak of the civil war, and the house went more largely into the sale of goods, both woolen and cotton, manufactured by New England mills. On Jan. 1, 1859, Henry A. Page, a nephew of Mr. Kimball, who had been brought up in the retail dry goods business in Haverhill, Mass., was admitted to partnership. Mr. Page came to New York and opened a branch office, the business of which grew rapidly, and within three years its sales had passed those of its Boston parent. On the death of Mr. Kimball in 1871 the name of the firm was changed to Faulkner, Page & Co. In 1870 Joseph S. Kendall, formerly senior partner of Kendall, Cleveland & Opdyke, had been admitted, and in 1878 Alfred W. Bates, formerly of Leland, Allen & Bates, and George M. Preston, a nephew of Mr. Faulkner, became members of the firm.

Edward D. Page, now the senior partner, entered its employ as an office boy in 1875, upon his graduation from Yale. He was admitted to the firm in 1884. Charles Faulkner died later in the same year.

Shortly after the death of Henry A. Page in 1898, and of Robert C. Billings in 1899, the firm was reorganized. George W. Bramhall, formerly of Bramhall Brothers & Co., joined on Jan. 1, 1900, and on Jan. 1, 1903, Nathaniel B. Day, formerly of H.T. Simon & Gregory of St. Louis, but at that time selling agent for the Mississippi Mills, was admitted to partnership. Alfred W. Bates died in 1892; Joseph S. Kendall died in 1903.

Satisfactory arrangements haven made for transferring the mill accounts of the retiring firm to other well established houses.

__________________________

Obituary for Edward Day Page
The Morning Call (Patterson, New Jersey). 26 December 1918. Pages 1, 9.

STRICKEN FATALLY AT DINNER TABLE
Edward Day Page, Scientist and Art Patron, Dies While Entertaining Friends.

ESTATE AT OAKLAND.
Was Known in This City for His wonderful collection of Paintings and His Library.

Edward Day Page, known in the mercantile and scientific circles of this country and Europe, died of heart failure yesterday afternoon while eating a Christmas dinner with his family and guests at his residence in Oakland. Mr. Page, a graduate of the Sheffield scientific school of Yale university, class of 1875, was a member of forty-two scientific societies and other organizations In the United States and European countries. The library attached to his late home contains 40,000 volumes.

For the past three weeks Mr. Page had been suffering from influenza and pleurisy. His physician reported that he was on the road to recovery, therefor his sudden death yesterday came as a great shock to the family. News that Mr. Page had passed away brought forth many expressions of deep regret in Oakland, where the deceased man was the leading and wealthiest citizen.

The deceased man was born in Haverhill, Mass., in 1856. He was a resident of Oakland for several years and was known in Paterson. At the outbreak of the war between this country and Germany. Mr. Page was appointed as chairman of the civilians’ advisory committee to the quartermaster’s department and acted also as the expert on textiles for the department. He continued in this service until the quartermaster’s department was reorganized. In New York Mr. Page was a member of the Century club, Merchants’ club, and up to the time of his death took an active interest in the affairs of the Merchants’ association of New York. Mr. Page published several books on political and economical subjects which were well received throughout the country. At the time of his death he was editor-in-chief of the Sussex Register, part of the estate of his late son, Harry S. Page, who passed away about a year ago. Until several years ago, Mr. Page was a member of the late firm of Falkner, Page & Co., commission merchants, of New York.

The Page property, consisting of 700 acres of ground and the most up-to-date equipment and buildings, was looked upon by residents and farmers throughout the northern part of the state as an ideal farm. It has been said that the Page home has no equal In beautiful surroundings. The residence holds an exceedingly valuable collection of paintings, Mr. Page having been a connoisseur of the art, and a magnificent organ. Mr. Page’s library of 40,000 books is believed to have no equal as a private collection in the country.

In naming his property Mr. Page selected “Die Tweeligen,” which, in the German language, means “The Twins.” This name was chosen because of two great boulders found on the property. Mr. Page named his farm “The Vygeberg.”

Mr. Page was a resident of Oakland since 1896. His son, Lee Page, is a professor of civics in Yale college. The first wife of the deceased man, who was Miss Nina Lee, of Orange, died in 1915. He married again less than a year ago, to the present Mrs. Page, who formerly was Miss Mary Hall, of Newton, by whom he is survived. A daughter, Mrs. Nelson Deitch, of Oakland, and son, Lee Page, also survive him. Funeral arrangements have not been completed.

__________________________

Fun Fact:
Washington Slept There

“It was a mere 235 years ago that General George Washington temporarily used the then-home of Hendrick Van Allen as his headquarters on July 14 and 15, 1777. The home’s history begins in 1748, when Hendrick Van Allen, his wife Elizabeth, and their ten children moved to what is today Oakland. Hendrick was a deacon at the Ponds Church, which was located approximately one mile west of his home. The stone masonry home that Hendrick built consisted of four rooms. Its architecture reflects the Dutch design of the period…

Hendrick Van Allen lived in the home with his wife and children until his death in July 1783, at the age of 76. Van Allen’s property was divided amongst his children. Records indicating the ownership of the property between 1788 and 1864 are illegible. Between 1864 and 1900, three other families owned the property.

In 1900 the property was transferred to Edward Page, a successful merchant and businessman. Edward Day Page was born in Haverhill, Massachusetts in 1856, but by 1860 was living in South Orange, New Jersey with his family. Because of his father’s business connections, Page became a partner at the wholesale dry goods firm Faulkner, Page & Co., located in New York. Page began his employment as an office boy and became a full member of the firm in 1884, eventually working his way to senior partner. The business continued until December 1911.

Edward Page’s purchase of the property in 1900 corresponds with a period in the region’s history when many wealthy New York merchants and industrialists moved from the urban centers to the rural countryside and modern suburbs of northeastern New Jersey. The 700 acres of land that Page purchased became the Vygeberg Estate, which he built for himself and his family. The estate was a working farm that encompassed almost all of the Mountain Lakes section of Oakland. Seeing the need for fresh dairy products in Oakland, the farm was primarily a dairy farm with several cow barns. As part of the estate, Page constructed a family mansion, known as De Tweelingen, barns and other necessary outbuildings, including the Vygeberg Office (Stream House), which was built in 1902 on the Van Allen House property….

Page belonged to a number of organizations and served several elected positions in Oakland including councilman from 1902 to 1908, mayor from 1910 – 1911, recorder in 1912 and as vice president of the Board of Education in 1913. Page passed away at his home in Oakland on December 25, 1918 at the age of 62.”

Source: “From Dutch Homestead to Dairy Farm Estate: The Van Allen / Vygeberg Property” in The Oakland Journal, 16 January 2014.

Image Source: Find A Grave Website, Edward Day Page.

 

 

Categories
Columbia Cornell Duke Economists

Columbia. Economics PhD alumnus, later first Duke grad school dean, William Henry Glasson

 

Today’s post, another in the series “Meet an economics Ph.D. alumnus/a…”, comes from a tip provided Economics in the Rear-view Mirror by friend of the blog, Roy Weintraub of Duke University. William Henry Glasson received his Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1900 and was appointed professor of political economy and social science at Trinity College in 1902. When Trinity College evolved into Duke University in the 1920s, Glasson played a pivotal role in establishing graduate education in Durham, North Carolina. 

__________________________

Miscellany

  • Acknowledgements in Glasson’s thesis: Professor J. W. Jenks of Cornell University who suggested the subject of military pension legislation. Thesis advisers Professsor H. R. Seager of the University of Pennsylvania and Professor F. J. Goodnow of Columbia University.
  • William H. Glasson. “Some Economic Effects of the World War” in Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Session of the State Literary and Historical Association of North Carolina, Raleigh, N.C. (November 20-21, 1919), pp. 96-104.

__________________________

Short Biographical Note

William Henry Glasson was born in Troy, NY. on July 26, 1874. He received his Ph.B. from Cornell University in 1896 and his Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1900. Glasson was head of the Dept. of History and Civics at the George School (Newton, Pa.) from 1899-1902. He came to Trinity College in 1902. During this tenure at Trinity and Duke University, Glasson was instrumental in the development of the Dept. of Economics and the Graduate School. He was Professor of Political Economy and Social Science from 1902-1940; appointed in charge of the establishment of the retirement annuity plan for the faculty and administration; the head of the department of economics and business administration; chairman of the faculty committee on graduate instruction; and Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences from 1926-1938. Glasson was secretary of the Phi Beta Kappa Society for the South Atlantic district; editor of the South Atlantic Quarterly from 1905-1909; and a member of the Durham Board of Education.

Source:  Duke University. Duke University Archives. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. William Henry Glasson papers, 1891-1946.

__________________________

William Henry Glasson, 1874-1946

William Henry Glasson (26 July 1874-11 Nov. 1946), economist, first dean of the Duke University Graduate School, author, and editor, was born in Troy, N. Y. A first-generation American whose parents had emigrated from England shortly before his birth, he was the son of John Glasson, a native of Cornwall, and Agnes Allen Pleming Glasson, the daughter of a master tailor in Probus. He received the Ph.B. degree from Cornell University in 1896, the Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1900, and the LL.D. from Duke University in 1939.

Glasson began his professional career as a fellow in political economy and finance at Cornell (1896-97), Harrison Fellow of Economics, University of Pennsylvania (1897-98); and fellow in administration, Columbia University (1898-99). From 1899 to 1902 he was head of the history and civics department in the George School, Newtown, Pa. He became professor of political economy and social science at Trinity College in 1902; was appointed chairman of the faculty committee on graduate instruction in September 1916, when the college had only six graduate students; and was named the first dean of the graduate school of arts and sciences at Duke University in 1926, in which capacity he served until 1938. By that time 249 graduate students were enrolled. Glasson continued to teach at Duke until 1940. He was also professor of economics during the summer session at Cornell University in 1907, acting professor of economics and politics at Cornell in 1910-11, nonresident lecturer at Johns Hopkins University during the spring of 1913, and professor of economics at the University of Virginia during the summer quarter of 1928.

In addition to his teaching and administrative responsibilities, he was coeditor of the South Atlantic Quarterly with Edwin Mims (1905-9); and both joint editor with President William P. Few, of Trinity College, and managing editor of the Quarterly (1909-19). He also served as advisory editor of the National Municipal Review (1912-22). From 1940 to 1945 he was a director of the South Atlantic Publishing Company. An authority on the U.S. pension system, Glasson was the author of History of Military Pension Legislation in the United States (1900) [Columbia University Ph.D. thesis] and Federal Military Pensions in the United States (1918) [published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Division of Economics and History], as well as a contributor to The South in the Building of the Nation (1910) and the Cyclopaedia of American Government (1913). Many of his articles appeared in the South Atlantic Quarterly(1905-19), Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, National Municipal Review, Review of Reviews, Survey, the publications of the American Economics Association and of the North Carolina Literary and Historical Association, and other economic and historical periodicals. He contributed poetry to various newspapers and magazines, and in 1945 was a feature writer for the Cornell Countryman.

His influence extended far beyond university campuses and scholarly publications. When he gave up the deanship of the graduate school in 1938, A. A. Wilkinson, director of the Duke University News Service, wrote: “It is entirely no coincidence that Dean Glasson’s years of activity have paralleled development in the educational, economic, and social life of the South: he has had a definite part in those phases of life that have come within the range of his participation.” His academic and other achievements were often so closely interwoven that they cannot be easily separated.

Glasson’s first experience in helping to mold public opinion came with his involvement in the famous Bassett case, which centered national attention on Trinity College and, in particular, John Spencer Bassett, who was being excoriated by much of the southern press for an opinion he had stated in the South Atlantic Quarterly of October 1903. The affair was concluded when Trinity College took a strong, unequivocal stand on academic freedom. Glasson served on the committee that wrote the memorable document on the subject which was duly signed by the faculty and accepted by the college trustees on 1 Dec. 1903.

As early as 1909 he was an advocate of the Australian ballot in North Carolina elections. Also in 1909, he was appointed by President William H. Taft to serve as the supervisor of the U.S. Census of 1910 for the Fifth District of North Carolina. He resigned after a few months, however, because of the political opposition of John Motley Morehead, Republican congressman from the district. (His objection was that Glasson had not been born and reared in the state.) During 1913-18 Glasson was a collaborator in the division of economics and history of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Soon after World War I Mayor John M. Manning appointed him a member of the Durham City Housing Commission; from 1919 to 1923 he was on the City Board of Education. For many years he was a director of the Home Building and Loan Association and of the Morris Plan Industrial Bank. Because of his early interest in medical insurance, he became one of the first directors and vice-president of the Hospital Care Association of North Carolina (1933-35). In the summer of 1934 he visited Germany on the Carl Schurz goodwill tour, visiting a number of cities including those in the Saar district. He was appointed by Governor J. C. B. Ehringhaus to serve as a member of the North Carolina State Commission for the Study of Plans for Unemployment Compensation or Insurance (1934-35).

Glasson was a Methodist and a Republican. He was a member of Phi Beta Kappa (charter member and president of the Trinity chapter when it was installed on 29 Mar. 1920, and secretary for the South Atlantic District 1925-37); Kappa Delta Pi; American Economics Association (member of the executive committee, 1916-18); Conference of Deans of Southern Graduate Schools, 1927-37 (an organizer of the conference and, in 1929, president); and Quill and Dagger, Cornell University.

On 12 July 1905, he married Mary Beeler Park, a native of Speedwell, Ky., and a 1902 graduate of Cornell. They were the parents of four children: Lucy (Mrs. Harold Wheeler), Mary (Mrs. Thomas Preston Brinn), Marjorie (Mrs. Norman Ross), and John, M.D. While returning from a meeting in Raleigh on 9 Dec. 1934, he was seriously injured in an automobile accident. After years of invalidism, he died at his home in Durham and was buried in Maplewood Cemetery. His papers and a portrait by Irene Price are in the William R. Perkins Library, Duke University.

Esther Evans

SEE: Durham Morning Herald, 12 Nov. 1946; William H. Glasson File, Duke University News Service (Durham); Greensboro News, 28 Aug. 1938; Raleigh Christian Advocate, 17 Apr. 1913; Who Was Who in America, vol. 2 (1950).

Source:  William Henry Glasson, 1874-1946 page from the website Documenting the American South. Original source: Dictionary of North Carolina Biography edited by William S. Powell. University of North Carolina Press, 1979-1996.

Image Source:  William Henry Glasson portrait by Irene Roberta Price.

Categories
AEA

American Economic Association. Economic Studies, 1896-1899

 

A few posts ago I put together a list of links to the contents of eleven volumes of monographs published by the American Economic Association from 1886 through 1896.

Those eleven published volumes were briefly followed (1896-1899) by two series of AEA publications, viz.: the bi-monthly Economic Studies, and an extremely short “new series” of larger monographs that would be printed at irregular intervals. In 1900 the American Economic Association reverted to the policy of issuing its monographs, called the “third series” of the publications, at quarterly intervals.

This post provides links to the 1896-1899 intermezzo of AEA publications.

______________________

American Economic Association
ECONOMIC STUDIES.

Price of the Economic Studies $2.50 per volume in paper, $3.00 in cloth. The set of four volumes, in cloth, $10.00.

VOLUME I, 1896
[prices in paper]

No. 1 (Apr., Supplement) Eighth Annual Meeting: Hand-Book and Report. Pp. 178. Price 50 cents.

No. 1 (Apr.). The Theory of Economic Progress, by John B. Clark, Ph.D.; The Relation of Changes in the Volume of the Currency to Prosperity, by Francis A. Walker, LL.D. Pp. 46. Price 50 cents.

No. 2 (Jun.). The Adjustment of Wages to Efficiency. Three papers: Gain Sharing, by Henry R. Towne; The Premium Plan of Paying for Labor, by F.A. Halsey; A Piece-Rate System, by F.W. Taylor. Pp. 83 Price 50 cents.

No. 3 (Aug.). The Populist Movement. By Frank L. McVey, Ph.D. Pp. 81 Price 50 cents.

No. 4 (Oct.). The Present Monetary Situation. An address by Dr. W. Lexis, University of Göttingen translated by Professor John Cummings. Pp. 72. Price 75 cents.

Nos. 5-6 (Dec.). The Street Railway Problem in Cleveland. By W.R. Hopkins. Pp. 94. Price 50 cents.

 

VOLUME II, 1897

No. 1 (Feb., Supplement). Ninth Annual Meeting: Hand-Book and Report. Pp. 162. Price 50 cents.

No. 1 (Feb.). Economics and Jurisprudence. By Henry C. Adams, Ph.D. Pp. 48. Price 50 cents.

No. 2 (Apr.). The Saloon Question in Chicago. By John E. George, Ph.B. Pp. 62. Price 50 cents.

No. 3 (Jun.). The General Property Tax in California. By Carl C. Plehn, Ph.D. Pp. 88. Price 50 cents.

No. 4 (Aug.). Area and Population of U. S. at Eleventh Census. By Walter F. Willcox, Ph.D. Pp. 60. Price 50 cents.

No. 5 (Oct.). A Discourse Concerning the Currencies of the British Plantations in America, etc. By William Douglass. Edited by Charles J. Bullock, Ph.D. Pp. 228. Price 50 cents.

No. 6 (Dec.). Density and Distribution of Population in U.S. at Eleventh Census. By Walter F. Wilcox, Ph.D. Pp. 79.Price 50 cents.

 

VOLUME III, 1898

No. 1 (Feb., Supplement). Tenth Annual Meeting: Hand-Book and Report. Pp. 136. Price 50 cents.

No. 1 (Feb.). Government by Injunction. By William H. Dunbar, A.M., LL.B. Pp. 44. Price 50 cents.

No. 2 (Apr.). Economic Aspects of Railroad Receiverships. By Henry H. Swain, Ph.D. Pp. 118. Price 50 cents.

No. 3 (Jun.). The Ohio Tax Inquisitor Law. By T. N. Carver, Ph.D. Pp. 50. Price 50 cents.

No. 4 (Aug.). The American Federation of Labor. By Morton A. Aldrich, Ph.D. Pp. 54. Price 50 cents.

No. 5 (Oct.). Housing of the Working People in Yonkers. By Ernest Ludlow Bogart, Ph.D. Pp. 82. Price 50 cents.

No. 6 (Dec.). The State Purchase of Railways in Switzerland. By Horace Micheli; translated by John Cummings, Ph.D. Pp. 72. Price 50 cents.

 

VOLUME IV, 1899

No. 1 (Feb.). I. Economics and Politics. By Arthur T. Hadley, A.M.; II. Report on Currency Reform. By F. M. Taylor, F.W. Taussig, J.W. Jenks, Sidney Sherwood, David Kinley; III. Report on the Twelfth Census. By Richmond Mayo-Smith, Walter F. Willcox, Carroll D. Wright, Roland P. Falkner, Davis R. Dewey. Pp.70. Price 50 cents.

No. 2 (Apr.). Eleventh Annual Meeting: Hand-Book and Report. Pp. 126. Price 50 cents.

No. 2 (Apr.). Personal Competition: Its Place in the Social Order and Effect upon Individuals; with some Consideration upon Success. By Charles H. Cooley, Ph.D. Pp. 104. Price 50 cents.

No. 3 (Jun.). Economics as a School Study. By Frederick R. Clow, A.M. Pp. 72. Price 50 cents.

Nos. 4-5 (Aug.-Oct.). The English Income Tax, with Special Reference to Administration and Method of Assessment. By Joseph A. Hill, Ph.D. Pp. 162. Price $1.00.

No. 6. (Dec.) The Effects of Recent Changes in Monetary Standards upon the Distribution of Wealth. By Francis Shanor Kinder, A.M. Pp.91. Price 50 cents.

______________________

NEW SERIES

No. 1 (Dec., 1897). The Cotton Industry. By M. B. Hammond. Pp. 382. (In cloth $2.00.) Price $1.50.

No. 2 (Mar., 1899). Scope and Method of the Twelfth Census. Critical discussion by over twenty statistical experts. Pp. 625. (In cloth $2.50.) Price $2.00.

 

 

Categories
AEA Bibliography

American Economic Association. Monographs: 1886-1896

 

Besides transcribing and curating archival content for Economics in the Rear-view Mirror, I occasionally put together collections of links to books and other items of interest on pages or posts that constitute my “personal” virtual economics reference library. In this post you will find links to early monographs/papers published by the American Economic Association. 

Links to the contents of the four volumes of AEA Economic Studies, 1896-1899 have also been posted.

A few other useful collections:

The virtual rare-book reading room (classic works of economics up to 1900)

The Twentieth Century Economics Library

Laughlin’s recommended teacher’s library of economics (1887)

_____________________

PUBLICATIONS OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION. MONOGRAPHS.
1886-1896

_____________________

General Contents and Index to Volumes I-XI.
Source: Publications of the American Economic Association, Vol XI (1896). Price 25 cents.

VOLUME I

No. 1 (Mar. 1886). Report of the Organization of the American Economic Association. By Richard T. Ely, Ph.D., Secretary. Price 50 cents.

Nos. 2 and 3 (May-Jul. 1886). The Relation of the Modern Municipality to the Gas Supply. By Edmund J. James, Ph.D. Price 75 cents.

No. 4 (Sep. 1886). Co-öperation in a Western City. By Albert Shaw, Ph.D. Price 75 cents.

No. 5 (Nov. 1886). Co-öperation in New England. By Edward W. Bemis, Ph.D. Price 75 cents.

No. 6 (Jan. 1887). Relation of the State to Industrial Action. By Henry C. Adams, Ph.D. Price 75 cents.

 

VOLUME II

No. 1 (Mar. 1887). Three Phases of Co-öperation in the West. By Amos G. Warner, Ph.D. Price 75 cents.

No. 2 (May 1887). Historical Sketch of the Finances of Pennsylvania. By T. K. Worthington, Ph.D. Price 75 cents.

No. 3 (Jul. 1887). The Railway Question. By Edmund J. James, Ph.D. Price 75 cents.

No. 4 (Sep. 1887). The Early History of the English Woolen Industry. By William J. Ashley, M.A. Price 75 cents.

No. 5 (Nov. 1887). Two Chapters on the Mediaeval Guilds of England. By Edwin R. A. Seligman, Ph.D. Price 75 cents.

No. 6 (Jan. 1888). The Relation of Modern Municipalities to Quasi-Public Works. By H. C. Adams, George W. Knight, Davis R. Dewey, Charles Moore, Frank J. Goodnow and Arthur Yager. Price 75 cents.

 

VOLUME III

No. 1 (Mar. 1888). Three Papers Read at Meeting in Boston: “The Study of Statistics in Colleges,” by Carroll D. Wright; “The Sociological Character of Political Economy,” by Franklyn H. Giddings; “Some Considerations on the Legal-Tender Decisions,” by Edmund J. James. Price 75 cents.

No. 2 (May 1888). Capital and its Earnings. By John B. Clark, A.M. Price 75 cents.

No. 3 (Jul. 1888) consists of three parts: “Efforts of the Manual Laboring Class to Better Their Condition,” by Francis A. Walker; “Mine Labor in the Hocking Valley,” by Edward W. Bemis, Ph.D.; “Report of the Second Annual Meeting,” by Richard T. Ely, Secretary. Price 75 cents.

Nos. 4 and 5 (Sep.-Nov. 1888). Statistics and Economics. By Richmond Mayo-Smith, A.M. Price $1.00.

No. 6 (Jan. 1889). The Stability of Prices. By Simon N. Patten, Ph.D. Price 75 cents.

 

VOLUME IV

No. 1 (Mar. 1889). Contributions to the Wages Question: “The Theory of Wages,” by Stuart Wood, Ph.D.; “The Possibility of a Scientific Law of Wages,” by John B. Clark, A.M. Price 75 cents.

No. 2 (Apr. 1889). Socialism in England. By Sidney Webb, LL.B. Price 75 cents.

No. 3 (May. 1889). Road Legislation for the American State. By Jeremiah W. Jenks, Ph.D. Price 75 cents.

No. 4 (Jul. 1889). Report of the Proceedings of Third Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, by Richard T. Ely, Secretary; with addresses by Dr. William Pepper and Francis A. Walker. Price 75 cents.

No. 5 (Sep. 1889). Three Papers Read at Third Annual Meeting: “Malthus and Ricardo,” by Simon N. Patten; “The Study of Statistics,” by Davis R. Dewey, and “Analysis in Political Economy,” by William W. Folwell. Price 75 cents.

No. 6 (Nov. 1889). An Honest Dollar. By E. Benjamin Andrews. Price 75 cents.

 

VOLUME V

No. 1 (Jan. 1890). The Industrial Transition in Japan. By Yeijiro Ono, Ph.D. Price $1.00.

No. 2 (Mar. 1890). Two Prize Essays on Child-Labor: I. “Child Labor,” by William F. Willoughby, Ph.D.; II. “Child Labor,” by Miss Clare de Graffenried. Price 75 cents.

Nos. 3 and 4 (May-Jul. 1890). Two Papers on the Canal Question. I. By Edmund J. James, Ph.D.; II. By Lewis M. Haupt, A.M., C.E. Price $1.00.

No. 5 (Sep. 1890). History of the New York Property Tax. By John Christopher Schwab, A.M. Ph.D. Price $1.00.

No. 6 (Nov. 1890). The Educational Value of Political Economy. By Simon N. Patten, Ph.D. Price 75 cents.

 

VOLUME VI

No. 1 and 2 (Jan.-Mar. 1891). Report of the Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association. Price $1.00.

No. 3 (May 1891). I. “Government Forestry Abroad,” by Gifford Pinchot; II. “The Present Condition of the Forests on the Public Lands,” by Edward A. Bowers; III. “Practicability of an American Forest Administration,” by B. E. Fernow. Price 75 cents.

Nos. 4 and 5 (Jul.-Sep. 1891). Municipal Ownership of Gas in the United States. By Edward W. Bemis, Ph.D. with appendix by W. S. Outerbridge, Jr. Price $1.00.

No. 6 (Nov. 1891). State Railroad Commissions and How They May be Made Effective. By Frederick C. Clark, Ph.D. Price 75 cents.

 

VOLUME VII

No. 1 (Jan. 1892). The Silver Situation in the United States. Ph.D. By Frank W. Taussig, LL.B., Ph.D. Price 75 cents.

Nos. 2 and 3 (Mar.-May 1892). On the Shifting and Incidence of Taxation. By Edwin R.A. Seligman, Ph.D. Price $1.00.

Nos. 4 and 5 (Jul.-Sep. 1892). Sinking Funds. By Edward A. Ross, Ph.D. Price $1.00.

No. 6 (Nov. 1892). The Reciprocity Treaty with Canada of 1854. By Frederick E. Haynes, Ph.D. Price 75 cents.

 

VOLUME VIII

No. 1 (Jan. 1893). Report of the Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association. Price 75 cents.

Nos. 2 and 3 (Mar.-May 1893). The Housing of the Poor in American Cities. By Marcus T. Reynolds, Ph.B., M.A. Price $1.00.

Nos. 4 and 5 (Jul.-Sep. 1893). Public Assistance of the Poor in France. By Emily Greene Balch, A.B. Price $1.00.

No. 6 (Nov. 1893). The First Stages of the Tariff Policy of the United States. By William Hill, A.M. Price $1.00.

 

VOLUME IX

No. 1 (Supplement, Jan. 1894). Hand-Book and Report of the Sixth Annual Meeting. Price 50 cents.

Nos. 1 and 2 (Jan.-Mar. 1894). Progressive Taxation in Theory and Practice. By Edwin R.A. Seligman, Ph.D. Price $1.00, cloth $1.50.

No. 3 (May. 1894). The Theory of Transportation. By Charles H. Cooley Price 75 cents.

No. 4 (Aug. 1894). Sir William Petty. A Study in English Economic Literature. By Wilson Lloyd Bevan, M.A., Ph.D. Price 75 cents.

Nos. 5 and 6 (Oct.-Dec. 1894). Papers Read at the Seventh Annual Meeting: “The Modern Appeal to Legal Forces in Economic Life,” (President’s annual address) by John B. Clark, Ph.D.; “The Chicago Strike”, by Carroll D. Wright, LL.D.; “Irregularity of Employment,” by Davis R. Dewey, Ph.D.; “The Papal Encyclical Upon the Labor Question,” by John Graham Brooks; “Population and Capital,” by Arthur T. Hadley, M.A. Price $1.00.

 

VOLUME X

No. 3, Supplement, (Jan. 1895). Hand-Book and Report of the Seventh Annual Meeting. Price 50 cents.

Nos. 1,2 and 3 (Jan.-Mar.-May 1895). The Canadian Banking System, 1817-1890. By Roeliff Morton Breckenridge, Ph.D. Price $1.50; cloth $2.50.

No. 4 (Jul. 1895). Poor Laws of Massachusetts and New York. By John Cummings, Ph.D. Price 75 cents.

Nos. 5 and 6 (Sep.-Nov. 1895). Letters of Ricardo to McCulloch, 1816-1823. Edited, with introduction and annotations by Jacob H. Hollander, Ph.D. Price $1.25; cloth $2.00.

 

VOLUME XI

Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (Jan.-Mar.-May 1896). Race Traits and Tendencies of the American Negro. By Frederick L. Hoffman, F.S.S., Price $1.25; cloth $2.00.

No. 4 (Jul. 1896). Appreciation and Interest. By Irving Fisher, Ph.D., Price 75 cents.

 

Image Source: As of 1909 the former Presidents of the American Economic Association (S. N. Patten in the center, then clockwise from upper left are R. T. Ely, J. B. Clark, J. W. Jenks, F. W. Taussig.) in Reuben G. Thwaites “A Notable Gathering of Scholars,” The Independent, Vol. 68, January 6, 1910, pp. 7-14.

Categories
Cornell Courses Lecture Notes Principles Suggested Reading Syllabus

Cornell. Syllabus, Bibliography, Notes for Extension course “Practical Economic Questions”. Jenks, 1892

 

From time to time, one stumbles across a complete syllabus that really deserves to be html-edited for inclusion as an artifact in the Economics in the Rear-View Mirror collection. Today’s post runs 33-pages in MS-Word for a course that covers economic policy concerns as taught in 1892 by the newly appointed professor at Cornell, Jeremiah Whipple Jenks (1856-1929). The published syllabus prepared for the University Extension Department of the University of the State of New York includes a bibliography, reading assignments and lecture notes.

______________________

University of the State of New York
UNIVERSITY EXTENSION DEPARTMENT
Albany, N.Y.

Syllabus 1, Jan. 1892

Subject no. 330

PRACTICAL ECONOMIC QUESTIONS
By Prof. J. W. Jenks, Ph. D., Cornell University

Part I Reading list

LIST OF AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO
Not including periodicals

Adams, Henry Carter. Outlines of lectures on political economy. 85p. O. Ann Arbor. 1886. Sheehan, 50¢.

Andrews, Elisha Benjamin. Institutes of economics. 227p. D. Bost. 1889. Silver, Burdett & Co. $1.30.

Extremely concise and thorough in analysis.

Atkinson, Edward. Distribution of products; or, The mechanism and the metaphysics of exchange. 303p. D. N.Y. 1885. Putnam, $1.25.

Contents: What makes the rate of wages? What is a bank? The railway, the farmer and the public.

Baernreither, J. M. English associations of working-men; tr. by Alice Taylor. 15+473p. O. Lond. 1889. Sonnenschein, 15s.

A late survey.

Bowen, Francis. American political economy. New ed. D.  N.Y. 1885. Scribner, $2.50.

An excellent moderate statement of the protection doctrine.

Brentano, Lujo. Relation of labor to the law of today; tr. with an introd. by Porter Sherman. 300p.  D.  N.Y. 1891. Putnam, $1.75.

A late excellent book favoring trades unions.

Cairnes, John Elliot. Character and logical method of political economy. Ed. 2. 229p.  D.  N.Y. 1875. Harper, $1.50.

The best statement of method from the standpoint of the classical economists.

__________ Some leading principles of political economy newly expounded. 506p.  O.  N.Y. 1874. Harper, $2.50.

Specially valuable on wages.

Carey, Henry Charles. Manual of social science; condensed from Carey’s Principles of social science, by Kate McKean. Phil. H. C. Baird & Co. $2.25.

Carpenter, Edward. Civilization, its causes and cure. 156p.  D.  Lond. 1889. Sonnenschien, 75¢. (Social science ser. vol. 2)

A late strong work.

Clowes, W.L. “Black America.” N.Y. 1891. $1.50.

A late study by an English observer.

Cook, W.W. Trusts; the recent combinations in trade, their character, legality and mode of organization, and the rights, duties and liabilities of their managers and certificate holders. 63p.  S.  N.Y. 1888. L. K. Strouse & Co. pap. 50¢.

Cunningham, William. Growth of English industry and commerce during the early and middle ages. Ed. 2 enl. 15+626p.  O.  Lond. 1890. Macmillan, $5.

Dexter, Seymour. Treatise on cooperative savings and loan associations. 299p.  D.  N.Y. 1889. Appleton, $1.25.

A thoroughly practical manual giving New York statutes.

Dugdale, Richard. The Jukes; a study in crime, pauperism and heredity. Fourth ed. with introd. by W:  M.F. Round. 121p.  D.  N.Y. 1888. Putnam, $1.

A startling presentation of the effects of heredity.

Ellis, Havelock. The criminal. 8+337p.  D.  N.Y. 1890. Scribner, $1. (Contemporary science ser. no. 1)

Review of results thus far reached by students of criminal anthropology in Italy, France, Germany, England and the United States, with criticism.

Ely, Richard Theodore. Introduction to political economy. 358p.  O.  N.Y. 1889. Hunt & Eaton, $1.

__________ Problems of today; a discussion of protective tariffs, taxation and monopolies. 222p.  D.  N.Y. 1888. Crowell, $1.50.

__________ Labor movement in America. 373p.  D.  N.Y. 1886. Crowell, $1.50.

A history which includes the platforms of the principal labor organizations.

__________ & Finley, J. H. Taxation in American states and cities. 544p.  D.  N.Y. 1888. Crowell, $1.75.

Describes taxation as it is with suggestions for reform.

Farrer, Sir Thomas H. State in its relation to trade, II + 181p. D.  Lond. 1883. Macmillan, $1. (English citizen ser.)

Admirable.

Fawcett, Henry. Free trade and protection; an inquiry into the causes which have retarded the general adoption of free trade since its introduction into England. Ed. 6. 16+173p. D. Lond. 1888. Macmillan, $1.25.

American arguments for protection are specially considered.

George, Henry. Progress and poverty; an inquiry into the causes of industrial depressions and of the increase of want with increase of wealth: the remedy. 250p.  O.  N.Y. 1888. H: George & Co. pap. 35¢, cl. $1.

Gilman, Nicholas Paine. Profit sharing between employer and employé; a study in the evolution of the wages system. 460p. O.  Bost. 1889. Houghton, Mifflin & Co. $1.75.

The one comprehensive book on this subject.

Hadley, Arthur Twining. Railroad transportation; its history and laws. 269p.  D.  N.Y. 1885. Putnam, $1.50.

The standard book on this subject.

Howell, George. Conflicts of capital and labor, historically and economically considered. New ed. 64+536p.  D.  Lond. 1890. Macmillan, $2.50.

Treats of British trades unions from the standpoint of a trades unionist.

__________ Trades unionism, new and old. 15+235p. D.  Lond. 1891. Methuen, 75¢.

“Written in view of the later developments of trades unionism, with especial reference to what may be termed the new departure in the organization of labor.” — Pref.

Hudson, James F. Railways and the republic. 489p.  O.  N.Y. 1886. Harper, $2.

Suggests that railways be made public highways, rolling stock to be supplied by private enterprise. The author would prohibit pools.

Jevons, William Stanley. Money and the mechanism of exchange. 23+350p.  D.  N.Y. 1879. Appleton, $1.75.

Best popular book for laying a basis of the generally accepted doctrines.

__________ State in relation to labor. 166p.  D.  Lond. 1882. Macmillan, $1. (English citizen ser.)

Keynes, John Neville. Scope and method of political economy. 14+359p.  D.  Lond. 1891. Macmillan, $2.

The most complete statement of the nature and methods of political economy. An excellent work.

Laughlin, James Laurence. History of bimetallism in the United States. 258p. charts and tables,  O.  N.Y. 1885. Appleton, $2.25.

Exhaustive.

__________ Study of political economy. 153p.  S.  N.Y. 1885. Appleton, $1.

Brings out the value of economics in discipline.

List, Friedrich. National system of political economy; tr. by G. A. Matile with notes by Richelot and Colwell.  O.  Phil. 1856. Lippincott, $2.

Unfinished work, First of German protectionists.

McCulloch, Oscar. Tribe of Ishmael; a study in social degradation. Ed. 4. 8p.  O.  Indianapolis, 1891. Charity organization society, 50¢.

A brief but thorough study of heredity as a cause of pauperism; a popular lecture, with diagram.

Marshall, Alfred. Principles of economics, vol. I. 28+754p.  O.  Lond. 1890. Macmillan, $3.

The most important work in English since J. S. Mill. To be completed in a second volume.

Mill, John Stuart. Principles of political economy; abridged with critical, bibliographical and explanatory notes and a sketch of the history of political economy by J. L. Laughlin. 658p. maps and diagrams,  O.  N.Y. 1884. Appleton, $3.50.

Best abridgment of the chief modern English economist.

Morrison, William Douglas. Crime and its causes. 11+236p.  O.  Lond. 1891. Sonnenschien, 75¢. (Social science ser.)

A new thorough study.

Patten, Simon N. Premises of political economy; a reexamination of certain principles of economic science. 244p. D. Phil. 1885. Lippincott, $1.50.

A radical and suggestive piece of criticism. Emphasizes social causes.

Ricardo, David. Principles of political economy and taxation; ed. with introd. essay, notes and appendices by E.C.K. Gonner. 62+455p.  D.  Lond. 1891. Bell, $2. (Bohn’s economic lib.)

Rogers, James Edwin Thorold. Economic interpretation of (English) history. 547p.  O.  N.Y, 1888. Putnam, $3.

Showing the powerful influence economics have had in English history.

Roscher, Wilhelm. Principles of political economy. 2 v.  O. N.Y. 1878. Holt, $7.50.

Translation of the most popular German treatise.

Rylands, L.G. Crime, its causes and remedy. 264p. Lond. 1889. Unwin, 6s.

Science economic discussion.  D.  N.Y. 1886. 50¢.

Republished from papers contributed to Science, v. 7 & 8, by Adams, Ely, Hadley, &c.

Sidgwick, Henry. Principles of political economy. Ed. 2. 24+595p.  O.  Lond. 1887. Macmillan, $4.

A late thorough, suggestive work.

Smith, Richmond Mayo. Emigration and immigration. 316p.  D.  N.Y. 1890. Scribner, $1.50.

An historical and statistical survey. An able and suggestive book, much the best on the subject.

Spencer, Herbert. Principles of sociology. 2 v.  O.  N.Y. 1890. Appleton, $4.

vol. 1 Data and inductions of sociology; domestic institutions. 883p.
vol. 2 Ceremonial and political institutions. 667+26p.

Stebbins, Giles B. American protectionists’ manual. 192p.  D.  Chic. 1888. C.H. Kerr & Co. 75¢. pap. 40¢.

Contains many quotations from industrial witnesses, and comparative figures.

Sumner, William Graham. History of American currency; with chapters on the English bank restrictions and Austrian paper money. 390p.  D.  N.Y. 1878. Holt, $3.

Deals with facts more than with theories. Apx. contains in full English “Bullion report” of 1810.

Taussig, Frank William. Tariff history of the United States, 1789-1888. 269p.  D.  N.Y. 1888. Putnam, $1.25. (Questions of the day, no. 47)

Valuable record of facts. Author a tariff reformer. Best general history of our tariff.

Taylor, Sedley. Profit sharing between capital and labor. 13+170p.  D.  N.Y. 1886. Fitzgerald, pap. 15¢.

Thompson, Robert Ellis. Elements of political economy. 419p.  D.  Phil. 1882. Porter, $1.50.

Wagner, Adolf. Finanzwissenschaft. 3 v. Leipzig, 1883-90. C.P. Winter.

The most comprehensive work on taxation in any language. Uncompleted.

Walker, Francis Amasa. Land and its rent. 220p.  S.  Bost. 1883. Little, Brown & Co. 75¢.

The best American book on the subject from the conservative standpoint.

__________ Money. 550p.  O.  N.Y. 1878. Holt, $2.

The standard American treatise. States and impartially examines the various theories of money.

__________ Political economy. 537p.  O.  N.Y. 1887. Holt, $2. (American science ser. — Advanced course)

Specially valuable in its elucidations of the questions of land and wages.

__________ Wages question; a treatise on wages and the wages receiving class. 428p.  O.  N.Y. 1876. Holt, $2.

Discriminates real from nominal wages. Takes account of sentiment as affecting economic forces.

Winter, Alexander. New York state reformatory in Elmira; with a pref. by Havelock Ellis. 10+172p.  D.  Lond. 1891. Sonnenschein, 75¢. (Social science ser. vol. 19)

An excellent account of this best of all reformatories.

______________________

Lecture 1

At the close of each lecture there will be a free conference on the subject of the lecture, at which members of the class may ask questions of the lecturer, and bring forward their own views.

To aid the students in securing accurate notes of the lectures, the lecturer will distribute at the close of each meeting a printed syllabus of the lecture of the evening, to which will be added a number of questions or exercises for written work. Answers to two or more of these may be sent by mail to the lecturer, so as to reach him not less than 48 hours before the succeeding lecture.

The special class, consisting of those that do the written work, will meet 45 minutes before the beginning of the regular lecture, to receive back papers, get special information regarding reading, have difficulties made clear, etc.

NATURE OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

1 Why do we study political economy?

Marshall. Principles of economics, vol. 1, ch. 1.
Laughlin. Study of political economy.
Ely. Political economy, pt 1, ch. 1-3.
Walker. Political economy, ch. 1.
Bowen. American political economy, ch. 1.

2 Nature and development of industrial society.

Marshall. Principles of economics, ch. 2-3.
Andrews. Institutes of economics; introduction.
Ely. Political economy, pt 1.
Cunningham. Growth of English industry and commerce.

3 Definition of political economy.

Marshall. Principles of economics, ch. 1.
Adams. Outlines of lectures on political economy, §14.
Walker. Political economy, ch. 1.
Roscher. Principles of political economy, vol. 1, ch. 3.

4 Method of economic study.

Keynes. Scope and method of political economy.
Science economic discussion.
Dunbar, C.F. Reaction in political economy (see Quar. jour. econ. 1:1-27).
Cairnes. Logical method of political economy.
Andrews. Institutes of economics, ch. 1.
Marshall. Principles of economics, ch. 4-8.
Walker. Political economy, ch. 1.
Adams. Outlines of lectures, pt 1-2.
Sidgwick. Principles of political economy, ch. 3.
Nasse, E. Economic movement in Germany (see Quar. jour. econ. 1:498-506.)

The books cited are all standard works and will be useful for nearly all the lectures. The bibliography is by no means complete but rather suggestive for those not familiar with the subjects treated. For those who read German, the works of Schönberg, Wagner and Cohn are recommended; for those who read French those of Cherbuliez, Courcelle-Seneuil and Garnier. The full title of the books is given only when the first reference is made. Later a short title is used.

It is not expected that each student will read all the references. Several have been suggested under each topic, in order that the student may use the one that is most convenient for him, and so far as possible they have been arranged in order of fitness for use of extension students. Each student should do as much reading as possible, and come to the lecture with some fairly defined opinion on each topic suggested, in order that he may take a more intelligent part in the discussions at the close of the lecture.

______________________

Lecture 2

THE MONEY QUESTION

1 What is money? Its origin and nature.

Walker. Money, ch. 1-2.
Jevons. Money and the mechanism of exchange, ch. 1-5.
Carey, Social science (McKean’s abridgment), ch. 23.
Bowen. ch, 12.

2 Normal relation of government to money.

Andrews. §75.
Bowen. ch. 12.

3 Quantity of money needed.

Walker. Money, ch. 3.
Mill. Political economy (Laughlin’s ed.), bk. 3.

4 Territorial distribution of money.

Walker. Money, ch. 3.
_____. Political economy, ch. 3.

5 Single or double standard?

Laughlin. Bimetallism in U. S.
Taussig. Silver situation in the U. S. (see Quar. jour. econ. 4:291-315, Ap 90).
Silver situation in the U. S. (see Amer. econ. ass’n. publications, vol. 7, no. 1, Ja. 92.)
Jevons. Silver question (see Jour. soc. sci. 1879, no. 9, p. 14-20).
Nourse, B.F. Silver question (see Jour. soc. sci. 1879, no. 9, p. 21-43).
Sumner. History of American currency.

6 Free coinage of silver in the U.S. to-day.

Taussig. (As above under 5.)
Laughlin. Bimetallism in U.S.
Fairchild, G.S. U.S. and silver (see Forum, 11:550-58, Jl 90)
Coe, G.S. Why the silver law should be repealed (see Forum 12:611-13, Ja 92).

7 Inconvertible paper money.

Walker. Money, pt 2.
Rogers. Economic interpretation of history, ch. 10.

The standard works cited cover the whole subject. Many more articles in the current magazines can be found on the political phases of the question by consulting Poole’s Index to periodical literature and the later files of the periodicals.

______________________

Lecture 3

THE RENT PROBLEM

1 Factors in production.

Marshall, bk 4-6.
Walker. Political economy, pt 2.
Andrews, pt 1.

2 Parties to the distribution of the product of industry.

Marshall, bk 7.
Walker. Political economy, pt 4, ch. 1.
Andrews, pt 1.

3 Origin of rent.

Ricardo. Political economy, ch. 2.
Walker. Political economy, pt 4, ch. 2.
Andrews. pt 4, ch. 2.

4 Law of rent. What fixes its amount?

Ricardo. ch. 2.
Sidgwick. bk 1, ch. 7.
Carey. (McKean’s abridgment) ch. 35.
Patten. Premises of political economy, ch. 1.
Andrews, pt 4, ch. 2.

5 Relation of rent to price of product; to wages.

Marshall, bk 6.
Walker. Political economy, pt 4, ch. 2.
Ricardo. Political economy, ch. 2.

6 Effect of social progress on rent.

Marshall, bk 7, ch. 13.
Carey, (McKean’s abridgment) ch. 35.

7 Henry George and land nationalization.

George. Progress and poverty.
Walker. Land and its rent.
Single tax debate (see Jour. soc. sci. 1890, no. 27, p. 1-124. George, Seligman and others).
Ely. Taxation in American states and cities, pt 3, ch. 4.
__________ Problems of to-day, ch. 25-26.
Consult also Poole’s Index and later files of political periodicals.

______________________

Lecture 4

MONOPOLIES

1 Natural monopolies.

a. Gold, salt, etc.

Wagner. Finanzwissenschaft; — and other European writers on finance.
Ely. Problems of to-day, ch. 17-19.

b. Railroads, telegraphs.

James, E. J. Railway question (see Amer. econ. ass’n. Publications, vol. 2, no. 3).
Hadley. Railroad transportation.
Seligman. Railway tariffs and interstate commerce law (see Pol. sci. quar. 2: 223-64, 364-413).
Hudson. Railways and the republic.
Ely. Problems of to-day, ch. 22-23.

c. Municipal. Water, gas, street railways, etc.

Adams, H.C., and others. Relation of modern municipalities to quasi-public works, (see Amer. econ. ass’n. Publications, vol. 2, no. 6.)
James, E. J. Relation of modern municipality to the gas supply (see Amer. econ. ass’n. Publications, vol. 1, no. 2-3).
Bemis, E.W. Municipal ownership of gas in the United States, (see Amer. econ. ass’n. Publications, vol. 6, no. 4-5.)
Bulletin of U.S. census of 1891 on street railways.
Ely. Problems of to-day, ch. 20-21,

2 Capitalistic monopolies.

a. Trusts.

Cook. Trusts.
Reports of N.Y. senate, 1888; Congressional committee on manufactures, 1888; Canadian house of representatives, 1888.
Gunton. Economic and social aspect of trusts (see Pol. sci. quar. 3:385-408, S ‘88).
Jenks, J. W. Trusts in the United States (see Economic jour. 5:70-100, Mr. ‘92).
Dwight. Legality of trusts (see Pol. sci. quar. 3:592, D ‘88).

b. Corporations.

As above under a.

3 Advantages and disadvantages of great combinations of capital.

As above under 2.

4 Legislative action regarding monopolies.

James and Adams as above and references under 2a.
Swift, M. I. What shall be done with trusts (see Andover review, 10:109-26).
Bankers’ magazine (New York), October ‘88.
Consult Poole’s Index for many magazine articles.

______________________

Lecture 5

THE WAGES QUESTION

1 Factors determining the rate of wages.

Walker. Wages question.
A full discussion of the whole subject. See also several articles by Walker, Clark and McVane in the last two volumes of the Quarterly journal of economics.
Sidgwick. Political economy, bk 2, ch. 8-12.
Atkinson. Distribution of products.

2 Highest and lowest limits of wages.

Walker. Wages question, ch. 14-16, 19.
Brentano. Relation of labor to the law of to-day, bk 2, ch. 7-8.
Andrews. Institutes of economics, pt 4, ch. 4.
Ricardo. Political economy, ch. 5.

3 Interest of society in the rate of wages.

Brentano. bk 2, ch. 12.
Journal of social science, 1891.
Andrews, pt 4, ch. 4.
Walker. Wages question and Political economy,
Ely. Labor movement.

4 Influence of trades unions on wages.

Journal of social science, 1891.
Sidgwick. bk 2, ch. 10.
Brentano. bk 2, ch. 6-8.
Ely. Labor movement.

5 Labor legislation.

Journal of social science, 1891.
Jevons. State in relation to labor.
Brentano, bk 2, ch. 9-10.
Howell. Conflicts of labor and capital, ch. 11.
Baernreither. English associations of workingmen, ch. 4.
Consult Poole’s Index for magazine articles.

______________________

Lecture 6

COOPERATION AND PROFIT SHARING

1 Significance of cooperation.

Walker. Political economy, pt 6, §2.
Cairnes. Leading principles, ch. 5.
Howell. Conflicts of labor and capital, ch. 12.

2 Distributive cooperation.

Bemis, E.W. Cooperation in New England (see Amer. econ. ass’n. Publications, vol. 1 no. 5).
Warner, A.G. Three phases of cooperation in the west (see Amer. econ. ass’n. Publications, vol. 2, no. 1).
History of cooperation in the U. S. (in Johns Hopkins Univ. studies in hist, and pol. sci., vol. 6).

3 Productive cooperation.

History of cooperation in the U.S. (in J.H.U. studies in hist. and pol. sci. vol. 6).
Shaw, Albert. Cooperation in a western city (see Amer. econ. ass’n. Publications, vol. 1, no. 4).
Bemis, E.W. (As above under 2a.)
Howell. Conflicts of labor and capital, ch. 12.

a Building and loan associations

Dexter. Cooperative savings and loan associations.
Journal of social science, 1888, no. 25.

4 Profit-sharing. Its nature.

Gilman. Profit-sharing.
Taylor, Sedley. Profit-sharing.
Journal of social science, 1887, no. 23, p. 25-67.

a. Examples and methods.

Articles in Chicago Daily news, 1889.

Gilman. Profit-sharing.

5 Future of cooperation and profit-sharing; and adaptability for special industries.

Gilman, ch. 10.
Walker. Political economy, and other general works on economics.
Consult also Poole’s Index to periodical literature.

______________________

Lecture 7

EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION

1 The good of society the standpoint of discussion.

Smith. Emigration and immigration. The best authority on the whole subject.
Smith, R.M. Control of immigration (see Pol. sci. quar. 3:46-77, 197-225, 409-24).
Schuyler, Eugene. Italian immigration into the U. S. (see Pol. sci. quar. 4:480-95).
Reports of the consular officers of the United States, 1885-1886.

2 History of immigration into the United States.

Liégeard, Armand. Immigration into the U. S. (see Statistical society. Journal, 47:496-516).
Census of the United States, 1850-90.
See also under 1.

3 Forces of assimilation.

Boyesen, H.H. Dangers of unrestricted immigration (see Forum, 3:532-42).
See also under 1.

4 Political effects of immigration.

Boyesen, H.H. (As above under 3).
Coxe, A.C. Government by aliens (see Forum 7:597-608).
Round, W.M.F. Immigration and crime (see Forum 8:428-40).
Altgeld, J.P. Immigrant’s answer (see Forum 8:684-96).
Bemis, E.W. Restriction of immigration (see Andover rev. 9: 251-64).
Munger, T.T. Immigration by passport (see Century 35: 791-99).
Powderly, T.V. A menacing irruption, (see North Amer. rev. 147:165-74).

5 Economic effects.

Powers, F.P. Occupations of immigrants (see Quar. jour. econ. 2:223-28).

In England.

Fox, S.N. Pauper invasion of foreigners (see Contemporary review, 53: 855-67).

In France.

Spectator, 61: 1350.
See also under 1 and 4.

6 Social effects.

See under 1, 4, 5.

7 Relation of the state to emigration and immigration.

See specially Smith, Emigration and immigration.
Many other reports and articles in reports of bureaus of labor statistics, reports of the Conference of Charities and Corrections, etc.

______________________

Lecture 8

THE PROTECTIVE TARIFF

1 Duty of the state toward industry.

Adams, H: C. Relation of the state to industrial action, (Amer. econ. ass’n. Publications, vol. 1, no. 6.)
Science economic discussion.
Sidgwick. Political economy, bk 3, ch. 3-4.
Jevons. State in relation to labor.
Farrer. State in relation to trade.

2 A protective in distinction from a revenue tariff.

Fawcett. Free trade and protection, ch. 2.
Pulsford, Edward. An Australian lesson (see 19th century, 24:393-409).

3 On what classes of goods may a protective duty be levied?

See under 5.

4 Who pays the protective tax?

Bowen. American political economy, ch. 20.
Sidgwick. Political economy, bk 3, ch. 5.
Stebbins. American protectionists’ manual, ch. 6.

5 Development of natural facilities and of industries.

List. National system of political economy, bk 2.
Carey. (McKean’s abridgment.)
Thompson. Political economy.
Stebbins. American protectionists’ manual,

6 “Infant industries” argument.

Taussig. Tariff history of the United States.
Sidgwick. Political economy, bk 3, ch. 5.

7 How high should a protective tariff be and for how long continued?

See under 5 and 6.

8 Protective tariff and wages.

Gladstone, W.E. Free trade (see North Am. rev. 150:1-27).
Blaine, J.G. Protection (see North Am. rev. 150:27-54).
Powers, F.P. Australian tariff experiment (see Quar. jour. econ. 3:87-98).
Thompson. Political economy, §224.
Stebbins. Protectionists’ manual, ch. 10.

9 Protective tariff and politics.

Taussig. Tariff history of the United States.

a. Is Congress able properly to adjust duties? See Poole’s Index for magazine articles.
b. Tariff in elections. See 9a.

10 General conclusion.

______________________

Lecture 9

THE RACE PROBLEM

1 Nature of the problem.

Bryce, James. Thoughts on the negro problem (see North Amer. rev. 152: 641-60, D 91). Excellent on the whole subject.
Cable, G.W. Freedman’s case in equity (see Century, 7:409-18).
Grady, H.W. In plain black and white; a reply to Mr Cable (see Century, 7:909-17).

2 Statement of historic facts.

Clowes, W.L. Black America.
Craighead, J.B. Future of the negro in the south (see Pop. sci. mo. 26:39-46).
Gannett, Henry. Are we to become africanized? (see Pop. sci. mo. 27:145-65).
Keating, J.M. 20 years of negro education (see Pop. sci. mo. 28: 24-37).’
See also under 1

3 Present social conditions.

Clowes, W.L. Black America.
Census reports of 1870, 1880, 1890, vol. 1 on Population.
Price, J.C. Does the negro seek social equality? (see Forum 10:556-64).
See also under 2.

4 Present political conditions.

Census reports as above.
Mayo, A.D. Progress of the negro (see Forum 10:335-45).
Tourgée, A.W. Right to vote (see Forum 9: 78-92).
North American review, vol. 147, Oct. 1888.
See also under 1 and 3.

5 Remedies proposed.

a. Intermarriage.

Rawlinson, George. Duties of higher toward lower races. (see Princeton rev., Nov. 1878, p. 804-47).
Gardiner, C.A. Race problem in the U. S. (see Jour. soc. sci. 1883, no. 18, p. 266-75).

b. Congressional interference to raise social or political standard.

Tourgée, A.W. (As above under 4.)
Morgan, J.T. Federal control of elections, (see Forum 10:23-36).
North Am. rev., vol. 147, Oct. ‘88.

c. Colonization.

Clowes, W.L. Black America.
Gilliam, E.W. African in the U. S. (see Pop. sci. mo. 22:433-44, F ‘83).

d. Education.

As under 2.
Keating, J.M. (As above under 2.)
Dudley, T.U. How shall we help the negro? (see Century, 8:273-80.)
Shaler, N.S. Negro problem (see Atlantic mo., 54:696-709).

6 Measures to recommend.

See Poole’s Index for other articles.

______________________

Lecture 10

PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL REFORM

1 Nature of society.

Spencer. Principles of sociology, pt 1, ch. 1-4, 27; pt 2, ch. 1-2.

2 What is a social evil?

Spencer. Sociology, pt 3, ch. 1-2.
Carpenter. Civilization, ch. 1, 4, 6,

3 Reform deals with individuals.

Morrison. Crime and its causes.
Rylands. Crime; its causes and remedy .
Winter. Elmira reformatory.

4 Heredity. How its influence may be modified.

Dugdale. The Jukes.
McCulloch. Tribe of Ishmael.
Ellis. The criminal.

5 Environment may be modified.

Spencer. Sociology, pt 1, ch. 2-4; pt 2, ch. 11; pt 5, ch. 5. Papers in penology published by Elmira reformatory.

a. For individuals.

Morrison. Crime and its causes.
Rylands. Crime, ch. 5.
Winter. Elmira reformatory.

b. By individuals for their own benefit.

See many short articles in the Summary, the paper published at the Elmira reformatory.
See also 5a.

6 Responsibility of individuals for social evils.

Ellis. The criminal.

7 Our duty regarding social evils.

______________________

Part 2 Syllabus

Lecture 1

NATURE OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

1 Why we study political economy.

a. To learn how to do wisely our share in governing.

The economist knows what is desirable for the people along industrial lines; the statesman sees how much of this it is possible to obtain and how to -lead the people toward this attainment.

“The science of economics has to-day the important task of working directly for practical life; and on the other hand not only the statesman, but also the merchant, the manufacturer and the farmer are in duty bound to take notice of economic science, and to form their own independent judgments on the economic problems of the day, because almost daily they are compelled to give their opinions, and votes, in political and social life, on these most important economic questions.” — Conrad.

b. To aid in business life.

A business man has to deal with economic facts, but may be successful without being a trained economist. A driver on an electric car must know some principles of electricity, but need not be a scientific electrician. An economist can not know too much about business, for he has to do with business principles which are drawn from business facts.

c. To help us in social and home life, and keep us from mistakes.

“Whoever can teach the masses of people how to get five cents’ worth a day more comfort or force out of the food which each one consumes, will add to their productive power what would equal a thousand million dollars a year.” — Quoted in Andrews. How much of our so-called charity is cruelty! A great fire is rarely a social blessing, though it does make work. If the best goods are the cheapest, the most expensive may not be. We fail to realize fully our interdependence upon one another.

d. To gain interesting knowledge and valuable mental discipline.

2 Nature of industrial society.

Industrial society — the world of business — is a great social organism, a structure of interdependent parts, each working for all, and all for each. Consider how many people have contributed their efforts to produce the things that satisfy your needs for one day; where they live; in what ways they have worked; what their motives have been; why you have benefited by their work. There can be no society without this harmonious cooperation; no complete man outside of society. The organism is very complex; its study must be difficult.

3 Definition of political economy.

It is the task of political economy to find out the principles that guide this industrial organism in its working.

“Political economy, or economics, is the science of wealth.” “Political economy has to do with nothing but wealth.” — Walker.

“Political economy may be properly defined as the science of industrial society. Its purpose as an analytic science is to explain the industrial actions of men. Its purpose as a constructive science is to discover a scientific and rational basis for the formation and government of industrial society.” — Adams.

“Political economy, or economics, is a study of man’s actions in the ordinary business of life; it inquires how he gets his income and how he uses it.” — Marshall.

It seems wise to keep prominently in mind man in society as the standpoint for our investigations because (1) This standpoint calls special attention to the forces at work in society; and (2) This standpoint shows us best the proper relations of economic theory and practice, man’s actions, practice, often forming a premise from which we reason to a principle, theory; as well as the theory furnishing a basis for practice.

4 Development of economic science.

In ancient times, industrial society was so organized that there could be no developed economic science in the modern sense.

In 11th and 12th centuries the development of cities, guilds and commerce started more thorough economic study.

In 16th and 17th centuries the mercantilists taught. (Colbert, Petty, et al.) Exaggerated ideas regarding the importance of money, foreign trade, etc. Relied too much on state interference.

In 18th century physiocrats (Quesnay, Gournay, Turgot, et al.) taught freedom of trade, single tax on land, etc.

1776 Adam Smith’s Wealth of nations published. His English followers and modifiers, especially Ricardo, Malthus, Senior, Mill, etc., the so-called orthodox or classical school.

The main premises for their reasoning are:

a. A few common traits of human nature, especially man’s desire for wealth and his dislike for labor.

b. Each man will follow his own interest, and the interest of all will thus be secured.

c. External nature, especially well known facts regarding grain production.

d. Free competition is generally assumed as the condition of business. Other motives and conditions are excluded in reasoning, and the method of reasoning is mainly deductive from the above premises.

The principles reached were sometimes called natural laws, and were considered to be universal in their application.

The historical school, starting in Germany a little before the middle of this century (Roscher, Knies, Hildebrand) takes for its premises all facts regarding man and nature, as far as is possible; declares that there are no natural laws in industrial society, universal in application; but hopes to find some few general principles that will be of wide application. The main work at present is to get facts, historical and statistical, as a basis for inductive reasoning to principles of wide application.

Most of the leading economists of to-day occupy a middle ground in doctrine and method. It is recognized that the desire for wealth is a chief motive, but others must be taken into account. Even nature gives us no fixed premise, for man getting command over nature brings about changes. We need also to study the legal structure of society, the artificial conditionings of society. “Land is a natural fact; private property in land a legal fact;” both are economic facts.

We must seek principles, but we may also study how to modify conditions. Society is not like an animal; it is an organism that is consciously modifying its own structure and conditions.

We need in our studies the individual stand-point, the national standpoint, the cosmopolitan standpoint.

5 Hindrances and aids to the study of economics.

Among hindrances may be mentioned the many premises and their complicated nature, the difficulty of employing, in a fixed scientific sense, terms which are in every day use with varied meanings, — wealth, value, price, etc.; the wide-spread conviction that, because economics deals with every day life, our every day experience is enough to enable us to solve the problems of economics, etc.

It is an advantage that every one is interested in the problems of economics, because they concern every one’s business and life; that from our consciousness of our own motives and our knowledge of our own business we are able to know without study some of our premises, etc.

Topics for papers

  1. How far may a man be a good banker, and still not understand the science of money.
  2. Mention three mistakes in methods of life or in economic belief that are common among the uneducated, but that a knowledge of economics would prevent.
  3. Compare in detail, as regards their relative excellence, the definitions of political economy given by Walker and Marshall.
  4. If an economist could demonstrate beyond question that paper money was the best currency for the United States, would congress be justified in any case in refusing to pass a law to make paper money our currency? Give full reasons.
  5. Defend the orthodox school of political economy, as regards their method of reasoning and investigation.
  6. Give examples of man’s action upon nature within the last 50 years that would change our results in reasoning upon any economic question.

    ______________________

Lecture 2

THE MONEY QUESTION

1 Origin and nature of money.

The earliest form of trading is barter, i.e., the exchange of one commodity directly for another commodity that one wishes to use. As economic society develops and exchanges increase in number, the difficulty for a buyer of finding a person who has the desired object that he wishes to sell, and for a seller of finding a purchaser who can give in exchange for one’s goods an exact equivalent of some desired object, leads practically to the adoption of some one article of general desirability as a medium by which exchanges may be readily effected. This commodity differs from others specially in this, that it is generally desired, so that any one is willing to take it, feeling sure that he can readily dispose of it when he wishes to make purchases.

To do its work well, it must, of course, be in some form that may be taken as a standard, and that can be used as a measure by which the values of other commodities are estimated.

As business becomes complex, and the credit system is established, this generally used commodity will naturally be the one in the terms of which contracts for deferred payments will be drawn.

To perform these functions to the best advantage, this commodity must have the properties of general acceptability, portability, durability, divisibility, stability of value, cognizability, homogeneity. Gold and silver have these properties to a greater degree than any other known commodity.

This instrument by which exchanges are effected, one of the most important instruments for saving labor, is called money.

2 Normal relation of government to money.

For convenience of its citizens the government may well impress its stamp on coins, thus practically certifying to their weight and fineness. So, to insure business convenience, it may well make some standard coin a legal tender for the payment of debts.

“A standard unit of value must always be a fixed quantity of a fixed quality of a specific commodity.” — Adams.

This government stamp certifies to value; it does not give value, as experience shows. Again, experience shows that a legal tender act, irrespective of quantity of issue, can not sustain value of light coin or of paper money.

3 Quantity of money needed.

Enough money must be on hand in a country to effect the cash payments due at any one time. This amount varies with the season, the method of doing business, and other circumstances. The value of the money unit varies inversely as the amount in the country, and consequently inversely as general prices.

4 Territorial distribution of money.

If money is good, that is in coin of full weight or in some form exchangeable on demand into such coin, it will be distributed between exchanging countries freely to meet the needs of business. A surplus of money in any country, by increasing prices, will check the foreign demand for goods while increasing the home demand for foreign goods, thus creating a demand for money abroad. Too small an amount in a country will produce the opposite effects, and thus in time secure the extra amount needed. Bad money always drives out good money. — Gresham’s law.

5 Single or double standard?

a. A single standard has the advantage of simplicity. The disadvantage of the single gold standard is that, in the opinion of many excellent authorities, gold is increasing less rapidly than the demand for it, so that its value is constantly rising, thus, by lowering prices, exerting a bad effect on business.

b. With a double standard, if the ratio of values can be maintained, the fluctuation of the standards in value will be much less. If many countries unite, the ratio could probably be maintained.

As yet, the ratio never has been maintained for a long period, and monometallists think it can not be maintained.

6 Free coinage of silver in the U. S. to-day.

With the continued large-purchase of silver, and use of silver in paying dues to the government, it seems but a question of time when the supply of gold in the U.S. treasury will be so small that it will have to make all its payments in silver. If this happens, the market value of the silver dollar would probably fall to the bullion value, and instead of a bimetallic currency we should have, or shall have, a single silver standard, in fact, whatever the law may be.

7 Inconvertible paper money.

a. If strictly limited in amount to business needs, it may not depreciate.

b. The interest of debtors and the exigencies of the treasury in time of need are powerful influences tending to overissue, and in practice, an overissue is found to be almost inevitable.

Topics for papers

  1. May any commodity become money without the sanction of law? Reasons for answer.
  2. Explain why our silver dollars pass in the United States as equal to gold.
  3. Why is not the argument in favor of a double standard even stronger in favor of a quintuple standard?
  4. Explain the territorial distribution of money of full bullion value.

______________________

Lecture 3

THE RENT PROBLEM

1 Factors in production.

If we consider the process of production of any commodity, for example, a pair of shoes, we at once see that natural forces, labor and capital (tools) have contributed as factors to its production. Some economists think that the work of the business manager, the organizer of business, the entrepreneur, is so different in character from that of the ordinary work-man and that of the capitalist that the business manager as such is better considered as a fourth factor in the production of wealth.

2 Parties to the distribution of the product of industry.

If these factors unite to make a product, it seems but right that this product be divided among them in proportion to the service that each has rendered, as far as this proportion can be ascertained.

It is so difficult to discover this just proportion that the classes representing these factors are apt to disagree, and from this arise in good part the discords of society.

This distribution, too, it is to be noted, is a matter of human institution solely, and may vary in its principles in different ages and countries; hence the method and results of the distribution of the product of human industry in any society form a fair criterion of the character of that society.

One man may, of course, represent all the parties in distribution, but for the sake of clearness in discussion, the parties must be distinguished.

3 Origin of rent.

Rent arises from the varying degrees of productivity of different pieces of land cultivated for the supply of the same market. The price of the product of all being the same, the more productive pieces can be cultivated to greater advantage, and the cultivators can afford to pay rent to the owners.

4 Law of rent.

“The normal rent of any piece of land is fixed by the difference between its annual yield and that of the least productive land actually cultivated for the supply of the same market.” — Walker.

5 Relation of rent to price of product; to wages.

Economic rent forms no part of the price of the product, when there is free competition, and when there is still free land.

The payment of economic rent has no effect on wages under free competition.

6 Effect of social progress on rent.

The effect of increasing density of population, or of other progress that strengthens the demand for land is to increase rent. Note a similar effect on railroad stock, and other kinds of property whose value depends largely on a dense population.

7 Henry George and land nationalization.

As rent is due to the demand for land consequent on the increase of society, and not to the individual efforts of the owner, it seems that the economic rent is not earned by the land-owner, but comes to him through his right of ownership. Consequently, many have thought that, as society creates the demand for products that results in rent, society should get the rent either through state ownership of the land, or through taxation.

Most advocates of this doctrine think that present owners of land should be compensated for the capital they have invested in the land, or that the state should take by taxation only the increase of the rent. Henry George favors taxing to full amount without compensation, a course that seems entirely unjust.

George’s statement that there is a tendency for the benefit of all improvements in production to be absorbed by rent is not true.

State ownership would probably not secure so efficient use of the land as does private ownership.

It would increase the state machinery, perhaps, to an undesirable extent.

In cities, in many cases, the government might probably retain to advantage the ownership of the land, and rent for short fixed periods at an appraised valuation, thus securing a large revenue without injustice.

Topics for papers

  1. If wheat sells at $1 a bushel, and the various tracts of land contributing to the supply of the market produce respectively 18, 20, 22, and 24 bushels to the acre, what will be the economic rent per acre on each tract?
  2. Show that the principle of rent applies also to exceptional business ability, so that the profits or extra wages made by a man possessing this exceptional ability might fairly be called rent.
  3. Mention other kinds of property besides land whose value is increased by the mere growth of society, without effort on the part of the owner.
  4. Show clearly that economic rent forms no part of the price of agricultural products, while an increase in price will raise rent.
  5. How does the rent of mines differ from that of farm land?

    ______________________

Lecture 4

MONOPOLIES

1 Natural monopolies.

a. Certain natural products, some of which are of common use in society, such as salt, nickel, gold, from the nature of their production are not capable of increased production at will. Their production is limited to a certain place, and the owner of this place has of necessity a monopoly of the product, and may fix the price within certain limits at will.

In such cases the people may readily be unduly oppressed. Free competition is impossible.

b. Other kinds of business, (especially those connected with transportation, railroads, telegraphs, etc.,) that require a large initial outlay of capital, but that, after the plant is established, for every additional outlay bring a return in product much more than proportional to the increased outlay, have also the nature of a monopoly. For when they are once established, no rival can enter their territory without a much greater outlay of capital than they need make to do the same business.

In such cases competition on equal terms is impossible. An attempted competition results in great waste of capital. To parallel a railroad costs vastly more than to double the capacity of one already built. Shall the saving be made, or competition attempted?

c. In cities, the supply of water, gas, electric lighting, transportation by street railways, etc., is subject to the same conditions as those enterprises mentioned under b, for the number of street railways, gas mains, etc., in any one street is strictly limited by physical and economic conditions.

The case is the same as under b, but the government can more readily take control and manage for the good of the public than in the other larger enterprises.

2 Capitalistic monopolies.

A great aggregation of capital in business frequently gives the same advantage, in good part, as that held by the so-called natural monopolies; for the extent of business through more complete organization enables the large establishment to produce at much less expense than the small one.

a. The trust, a union of many corporations under one management, so that a pooling of profits makes their interests one, has proved one of the most successful forms of such capitalistic monopolies.

b. But the same result is accomplished by extending a corporation so that its business is equally great.

There may be competition in these cases, but only on a great scale. The consequence is that competition is very destructive, and in practice will not continue.

The combination has the advantages (1) Of the most skilled management, (2) Of great saving in the cost of management, (3) frequently of saving in the cost of transportation, (4) in purchase, making and use of inventions, etc.

Its disadvantages are that it has the power to raise prices above that normally fixed by free competition, e. g., the sugar trust and whiskey trust have done so at times. Still, this power is always strictly within limits fixed, (1) by the lessening demand for goods as the price increases, and (2) by the danger of attracting new capital into the business, if the profits become too great. Claus Spreckles and sugar trust, etc.

3 Legislative action regarding monopolies.

a. Experience seems to show that municipalities can wisely manage water and gas works at a saving generally to the citizens.

b. Legislation that forbids combinations, pooling, etc., providing a legal penalty for such acts, either deprives the community of the really great savings made by such combinations, or more commonly in important industries leads to the more complete consolidation into huge corporations. Neither result, perhaps, is desirable.

c. But the state should protect the citizens against extortion on the part of such combinations, (1) by providing for the fullest publicity regarding their business, (2) by forbidding undue increase of prices. How the latter provision is best enforced, whether by private suit, by commission, or otherwise, must be determined by experience. In some cases it is probable that state ownership of the enterprise is the readiest and best means of protecting the rights of the people.

The legal monopoly held by owners of patents frequently becomes oppressive. A careful revision of the law so as to prevent this, while still encouraging inventors, is desirable.

Topics for papers

  1. Why will great establishments compete in lowering prices till all are losing money?
  2. What good arguments for state ownership of the telegraph are not sound for state ownership of the railroads?
  3. Is complete publicity of the methods of business and of the status of a great monopolistic enterprise a real check to abuse of power?
  4. In what respects is the telephone monopoly, based on our patent laws, less injurious or dangerous than the telegraph monopoly, based on the nature of the business?
  5. Under what conditions only should the franchise be granted to street railways?
  6. What arguments can you give against city ownership and management of street railways, gas works, etc.?

______________________

Lecture 5

THE WAGES QUESTION

1 Factors determining the rate of wages.

a. Wages are determined in the main by the productivity of the labor. The efficiency of laborers is affected by their food, physique, intelligence, training, hopefulness, faithfulness, etc. Brassey found in building railways that English navvies at 6s. per day were often cheaper than French navvies at 3s. A New England factory superintendent has found that a rest of ten minutes and a glass of milk in the middle of the forenoon, given to his factory girls, more than pay for themselves in increased product.

b. Machinery, if intelligently used, and skillful organization increase the product, thus affording the opportunity for increase of wages, if prices of product can be prevented from falling proportionally.

c. Laborers must know and seek their own interests in order to secure the gains that come from the increase in their efficiency with improved methods of production.

2 Highest and lowest limits of wages.

a. Highest limit of wages, all that the employer can pay and remain in business. If wages are about uniform in any line of business, the best manager could pay more than he will need to pay. Other things equal, under competitive system, the workman is best off who works for the employer that makes the largest profits.

b. Lowest limit of wages, the least sum that will keep the laborer in working condition. In exceptional cases, it might pay the employer, economically, to work horses or slaves to death, or to pay starvation wages. Generally it is an economic mistake to pay less than good living wages. Lassalle’s “iron law of wages” rarely true in real life.

3 Interest of society in the rate of wages.

Whatever may be true of individual employers, society is interested in keeping up and improving the “standard of life.” To secure this end, employers and laborers must meet on equal terms in arranging wages, rules regarding work, etc.; and society may be justified in taking measures to secure this result.

4 Influence of trades unions on wages.

Trades unions are a product of modern methods of production that put large numbers of workingmen of the same trade under one employer. They are suited to the conditions, a development.

a. They may at times raise wages by their direct influence on employers, by threats of strikes, etc. Their power is limited by the productivity of the industry, but (1) they may, by increased energy and saving, increase their own productivity and get then an increase in wages; (2) in exceptional cases, they may force up wages at expense of employer; (3) in exceptional cases, their efforts may keep up prices or raise prices, and thus permit them to increase wages.

b. They may improve the conditions of their members, their real wages, by traveling funds, insurance funds, bureaus of information, etc.

5 Labor legislation.

Legislation is a dangerous method of reform, but is sometimes necessary. The legislative measures that have seemed to aid laborers most are:

a. Factory acts, providing for government inspection;

b. Regulation of labor of women and children;

c. Employers’ liability acts;

d. Laws providing for payment of wages regularly, and in cash;

e. Courts of arbitration, etc.;

f. In Europe, especially in Germany, compulsory insurance of workingmen against accident, sickness, disability from old age and other causes partly at the expense of the workingman, partly of the employer and partly of the state. The German government seems satisfied with the results so far; the opinions of economists regarding the success of the experiment differ.

The aim of legislation is not to give workingmen an advantage over their employers, but to remedy social abuses and to put the competing classes on an equal footing.

Topics for papers

  1. In hard times, why do employers more frequently discharge the poorest paid workmen first?
  2. Are the American workingmen more productive than European workingmen because their wages are higher? Or are their wages higher because they are more productive? Or is there no relation between their relative wages and productivity?
  3. Under what circumstances ought trades unions to limit the amount of work that they will permit their members to do?
  4. May we look forward to any great increase in the wages of skilled laborers? If so, from what source will this increase in wages be drawn?
  5. Mention any law passed in the interest of workingmen, or advocated by them that is, or would be, injurious to them.
  6. Why ought not the state to supply labor for the unemployed?

______________________

Lecture 6

COOPERATION AND PROFIT-SHARING

1 Significance of cooperation.

Cooperation means the union of the industrial classes. By this union the employer, the entrepreneur, is done away with, and the profits that he ordinarily reaps are divided among the laborers. The laborers may get interest, but if so they must own the capital. They may save rent, but if so they must own the land. In order to gain by cooperation, the business must be better managed than it is by the poorest class of employers; otherwise there will be no profits to save.

Since on account of their personal interests in the business cooperating laborers are likely to work better than for an employer, a cooperative industry, fairly well managed, is likely to be profitable.

2 Distributive cooperation.

The first, and on the whole, the most successful example of distributive cooperation is that of the Rochdale pioneers in England. In 1844, 28 weavers agreed to put one pound sterling each into a common fund to supply themselves with provisions. One of their number was to attend the store for two evening’s each week. The first investment made so great a profit that other members came into the business, and it rapidly grew until it is now one of the largest establishments in England with hundreds of stores and millions of pounds of capital The average rate of profit has been over 25% clear.

Similar enterprises have been started in the United States, notably by the farmers of the West in their cooperative stores, and in many similar establishments in New England. The most successful stores have followed the Rochdale plan: (a) they give no credit; (b) they always sell genuine goods; (c) as they are sure of customers they do little advertising; (d) they declare and fix a dividend of four or five per cent on their stock and divide the surplus among the purchasers in proportion to the amounts purchased. Members usually get a larger proportion on their purchases than non-members.

The chief dangers surrounding such enterprises come from competition with outsiders, ignorance and short-sightedness on the part of the managers, too low an estimate of the difficulties to be encountered, and voting by stock instead of by membership.

3 Productive cooperation.

The most successful enterprises in the United States have been in cooperage in Minneapolis; in stone cutting in Vermont; in iron manufacture in New York; in shoe making in Massachusetts. The work is usually done by the piece; the usual wages are paid; and the profits are divided in proportion to the work, after a low dividend has been declared.

Cooperation is especially suited to industries requiring comparatively little skill, in which piece work is common, and for which relatively little capital is required, and little supervision.

One of the chief advantages is that it trains men to understand business, to appreciate its difficulties and to be independent. It has a promising future.

A building and loan association is a cooperative enterprise in which men of small means, by each paying in a small amount, monthly or weekly, and loaning the sum thus accumulated to the one of their members most desiring it, supply themselves with capital for the building of houses, payment of debts, etc. These associations take the place in many cases of savings banks, and have acquired great importance in this country.

4 Profit-sharing.

a. Profit-sharing differs from cooperation in that the employer still remains to direct the business enterprise. It resembles cooperation in that a part of the profits is divided among the workingmen.

b. The plan was first developed by M. Leclaire in Paris. In 1842 Leclaire, a painter, agreed to give his regular workmen a share of his profits. He showed them how unusual excellence of work and diligence and saving would provide a fund from which he might, while obtaining greater profits for himself, increase their wages. They were skeptical at first, but the first division of profits satisfied them. He paid the highest wages in the city and was able eventually to add over 20% to their wages.

In the Pillsbury Flouring Mills in Minneapolis, in a number of years, 33 1/3% has been added from the profits to the regular wages of a large portion of the men, although their wages had been the highest in the city. Mr Pillsbury says it pays the firm also.

The N. O. Nelson Manufacturing Company of St Louis have for several years divided part of their profits among all men who have worked for them for more than six months. Mr Nelson says, “I look upon this plan as business and duty, and not as any philanthropy or kindness.” Both employers and laborers are benefitted.

Proctor and Gamble, the soap manufacturers; Rogers, Peet & Co., manufacturers of clothing in New York; Rand, McNally & Co. of Chicago; John Wanamaker, and many other wealthy employers of labor have followed similar plans, to the satisfaction of themselves and their workmen.

Some railroads in France, and the Toledo and Ann Arbor railroad in the United States, have adopted similar plans with gratifying success.

c. Methods of division of profits.

Some employers give an indeterminate sum to the employees; some divide all the profits above a certain per cent, among the employees; some divide the surplus profits, after interest on the capital has been paid, between capital and wages in proportion to their relative amount; some in proportion to the relative amounts of sales of goods and wages, etc. All agree that the system is as profitable to the employers as to the employees.

5 Adaptability of cooperation and profit-sharing for special industries.

While cooperation is best adapted to industries requiring small capital in proportion to the labor, to those needing little supervision and employing unskilled labor, profit-sharing is best adapted to those that require large capital and careful supervision, and in which much waste may be avoided by care on the part of the laborers. The effect of both is to educate the laborers, to make their interests one with those of their employers and thus to bring about harmony between the industrial classes.

Topics for papers

  1. Is farming an industry well-adapted for cooperation or profit-sharing? Reasons for answer.
  2. Non-borrowing members of building and loan associations often make from 12 to 20 per cent, profit on their investment. What is the source of this large profit?
  3. Why are railroads not well-adapted to profit-sharing?
  4. If the plan can be well applied to railroads, what special benefits to society would come therefrom?
  5. What are the chief causes of failures (a) of cooperative enterprises (b) of profit-sharing enterprises?

______________________

Lecture 7

EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION

1 The good of society the standpoint of discussion.

We must consider the effects of immigration not merely on the wealth of our country, but on our politics, our social life, our morals, our religion, etc. The question is, perhaps, to be considered as mainly social and political, and only to a less degree economic.

2 History of emigration and immigration.

Early migrations were for purposes of conquest or colonization. Emigration in these later days is for the benefit of the individuals, though it is frequently thought that emigration will relieve the pressure of population on the means of subsistence in the older densely populated countries. Statistics show that only from Ireland is emigration large enough to absolutely decrease population. Those countries with large emigration have also high birth rates. “Had there been no emigration in this century, the population of Europe would probably have been even less than now.” Emigration is not a remedy for over-population, unless the emigrants are the weak and thriftless.

From 1783 to 1820 there were perhaps 250,000 immigrants into the United States. In 1842 there came some hundred thousand; in 1854, 427,833; in 1882, 730,000. The immigration of 1882 probably represents a normal birth increase of a population of 50,000,000 of people. We have therefore now an annual immigration nearly equal to a normal increase by births of a population of some 45,000,000.

3 Causes of immigration and forces of assimilation.

The chief causes of immigration are: (a) commercial disaster; (b) cheap transportation; (c) solicitation of steamboat companies; (d) prepaid tickets from friends; (e) hope of improving one’s political and social conditions.

The chief forces of assimilation are: (a) economic prosperity, with the consequent love of the country that has helped them; (b) free institutions; the vote, schools, etc.; (c) the English language; (d) intermarriage.

4 Political effects of immigration.

The immigrants of one nationality largely vote as a unit, instead of from individual convictions. At times they permit foreign politics to influence their votes here; their foreign customs and training leads them at times to vote against our peculiarly American institutions. The vote force of our immigrants is much greater than that of the same number of Americans. Among immigrants the proportion of males is large, and they average older than native-born citizens. Their voting force compared with that of the same number of native-born Americans is about as 46 to 25.

5 Economic effects.

(a) They bring small amounts of property; (b) the cost of raising and educating them is saved to the country; but (c) the economic value of a man lies mainly in his capacity and character, not in the cost of bringing him up. It is the amount of wealth which he will add to the community before he dies.

Three-fourths of the immigrants are unskilled laborers, and the proportion of unskilled laborers is much greater of late years. In earlier days, when we needed much unskilled labor, our immigrants were doubtless an economic advantage; at present the advantage is much less. If their standard of life is very low, their competition on the labor market is dangerous to our standard of life.

3 Social effects.

The immigrants in many cases come from the lower classes, and have, therefore, a tendency to lower our standard of thrift, morality, health and intelligence. The more favorable conditions here may remove this danger, as it often has done. It cannot be shown statistically that the foreign-born furnish a larger proportion of the insane, blind, deaf, and so on, than do natives. The immigrants furnish a large proportion of our criminals, a still greater proportion of our paupers, and our illiteracy is doubtless greatly increased by immigration.

4 Relation of the state to emigration and immigration.

Early in this century, emigration of the poor and criminal classes was assisted at times by foreign states, at times by private societies, at times by steamship companies for the sake of the fare. Since the American nations have protested against these acts, they have been largely stopped. Europe should protect her citizens from emigration brought about by false representations.

Immigration of contract labor, and of the defective, dependent and criminal classes is forbidden by our laws. The best methods of controlling immigration are doubtless: (a) rigid enforcement of our present laws; (b) an extension of those laws in such a way as to ascertain more thoroughly the character of the immigrants before permitting them to enter our country; and (c) by working in unison with the European nations.

A state ought to restrict an immigration that is degrading. It owes it to itself and to the world not to lower its plane of civilization. “One nation on a high plane of civilization is better than half the world in a state of semi-civilization.”

Topics for papers

  1. Mention laws, either national or local, passed by the votes of the foreign-born, contrary to the will of the native-born.
  2. Make an estimate of the net cash value to the country of an average, diligent, sober laborer, whose working period covers 40 years, who is supported by his parents 15 years, and by his children five years.
  3. If a Chinaman works in this country for 10 years at one-third less wages than the American workmen, and then takes his savings with him to China, has the country lost by him?
  4. Is restriction of immigration un-American? Give reasons for your answer.
  5. Can you give any reason against making the English language the medium of study and communication in all our schools, even though some schools be in German districts, where nearly all the children are German?

______________________

Lecture 8

THE PROTECTIVE TARIFF

1 Duty of the state toward industry.

The interests of individuals do not always coincide with the interests of the people. It is the duty of the state to further the general welfare, even though it be at times at the expense of individuals. There is, however, always danger in state interference. Society is so complicated that the ultimate effects of laws are with difficulty traced. The primary duty of a State is, so far as may be, to keep opportunities equal for all.

2 A protective tariff vs. a revenue tariff.

The main purpose of the revenue tariff is to provide means for the support of government, and it should be so levied as to interfere as little as possible with the natural course of industry in a country. A protective tariff, on the other hand, finds its chief purpose in aiding the development of certain industries.

Does it thereby check the development of others? Any revenue that comes from a protective tariff is to be considered as incidental. It is no argument in favor of a protective tariff that it furnishes a large revenue.

3 On what classes of goods should a protective tariff be levied?

A protective tariff should not be levied, (a) On goods that without it can be produced here more advantageously than abroad. Such laws have a bad effect in that they deceive the people, are used for “log-rolling” in congress, and often lead to the making of new laws through wrong motives, (b) On goods for the production of which the country is ill adapted, unless they be needed for defense or for their educational value.

It can be justified, then, only for those industries to which our country is well adapted, but in which, for the present at least, foreign nations have the advantage.

4 Who bears the burden of the duty?

Trade is usually for the advantage of both parties to the bargain. As a rule, however, the advantage is not equal to both. The one that is put at the greatest disadvantage in making the bargain, profits least. When foreign nations must send goods through our country or into our country to get rid of a surplus, the probability is that the price is such that the foreign manufacturer pays a good part or all of the tariff duty; when we are at a like disadvantage, we pay it all. Generally speaking, the consumer of the imported goods pays in increased prices, not all, but a good part of the tariff, and he pays often an equal amount on the home manufactures protected.

5 Development of natural resources.

It is well to have the natural facilities of any country developed and to have a great variety of industries in every country. This development and variety may be reached at too great a cost, and the cost is always to be taken into consideration in proposing laws to aid in the development of new industries.

6 Infant industries.

The inhabitants of a city frequently pay a large bonus for the establishment of a new industry in their midst; similarly, a country might profitably at times pay, by means of a tariff, for the introduction of new industries, until they became strong enough to stand alone. But these industries will come in time at any rate, if the country is well adapted for them; and care must be taken that they are not procured at too great a cost. By the policy of protection, capital is drawn for a time from productive industry into a business that is less productive than the average in the country, unless the new industry be established by foreign capital. If the industry when established becomes more profitable than the average, the policy may pay.

7 How high should a protective tariff be and how long continued?

A protective tariff should be high enough to protect, but not higher; otherwise bad investments will be made that will prevent the lowering of the tariff at the proper time.

A protective tariff should continue till an industry is fully established, if it is one well adapted to the country, but no longer. If experience shows that the protected industry can not thrive, it is evident that the tariff was unwisely laid, and it should be withdrawn on due notice.

8 Protective tariff and wages.

A protective tariff may and frequently does raise the wages in certain protected industries, but this is in part, temporarily at least, at the expense of other industries in the country. A protective tariff, however, cannot raise the general level of wages in the country, so long as the tariff itself is necessary.

9 Protective tariff in politics.

From the political side, a protective tariff is dangerous. A proper adjustment of duties is a task of the greatest difficulty and one for which congress from its nature is ill adapted.

Interested parties may and do bring strong pressure to bear to obtain duties unduly high and to keep them longer than is wise. To secure these ends, large corruption funds will naturally be raised for use in elections.

10 Conclusion.

Unless well laid and managed, a task of very great difficulty, a protective tariff may well do more harm than good. One should not be levied, until a strong affirmative case is made for every product protected.

Topics for papers

  1. Does not every argument in: favor of a protective tariff by the United States against England apply as well to a tariff by Minnesota and Illinois against New York and Pennsylvania?
  2. If an industry, protected by a fair tariff for 60 years, is not yet well enough established to meet foreign competition without the tariff, what course ought to be pursued regarding it?
  3. Is it an advantage or a disadvantage to the workingmen of the United States that foreign workingmen have lower wages?
  4. If our tariff were abolished to-morrow in toto and all our revenues were raised by direct taxation, should we probably have, after 20 years, more or fewer different industries than we have now?
  5. (a) Are American workingmen really more productive than foreign workingmen, or are their higher wages due to the tariff? (b) How can an immigrant become much more productive immediately on his arrival here than he was in Germany or Ireland a month earlier?

______________________

Lecture 9

THE RACE PROBLEM

1 Nature of the problem.

Foreigners, in general, consider the race problem the most difficult one before the American people. In its nature it is economic, social and political. It concerns the welfare, not only of the negro, but of the white as well, and it is a question that is becoming of greater import every day.

2 Statement of historic facts.

History and science seem to show that the negro is an inferior race, and one as yet incapable of an advanced, civilized self-government. Throughout all history, the race has been an enslaved one. The experience of the West Indies shows that, as left to themselves, the negroes are rapidly relapsing from a state of higher civilization into a state of barbarism. In the reconstruction period in the United States, the negro governments of the South invariably ran the states heavily into debt, even to bankruptcy, passed laws of shameful oppressiveness against the whites, fostered corruption, dishonesty and tyranny.

3 Present social conditions.

While the negroes in the South have made some advancement in the accumulation of property in the last 25 years, still the advance in most places is so slight that it shows them now, as a race, to be exceedingly careless and improvident. Relatively very few of them in the South ever accumulate enough to become regular tax-payers. In whole states, where they are as numerous as the whites, not one will be found with any shares in bank, railroad or other business stock. In Chatham Co., Georgia, in which Savannah is situated, the negroes constitute 61 per cent of the population and hold 2 per cent of the property. There is in the South not more than one negro lawyer or physician to 50 white men of the same profession and not one within 25 years has risen above mediocrity in any line. Douglass and Bruce are not pure-blooded negroes.

The morals of the negroes in the South are unspeakably bad. “They are full of base, downright hypocrisy and falsehood.” — Rev. Isaac Williams (colored). In many places, legal marriage and marital faith are almost unknown. In Mississippi, in one county where the negroes should have taken out 1,200 marriage licenses, only three were taken out.

The negro has made since the war decided gains in education. In 1880, in the black belt, more than 50 per cent of the negroes were illiterate; in 1890, probably about 30 per cent. The education is, however, very meagre; but there are more than 16,000 colored school teachers, a noteworthy fact. Most of the negroes are wofully superstitious.

Socially the negroes have no standing among the whites. Education or partly white blood seems to make no difference in this respect; and their social condition in the North does not differ materially from that in the South.

4 Present political conditions.

“The negro is not permitted to vote if the vote disturbs the judgment of the white majority; and if it changes the verdict of their former masters, it is not counted.” — W.T. Sherman. The fact illustrates the importance of the question, for the experience of reconstruction days seems to justify the whites in keeping the supremacy, even by revolutionary measures, if necessary. “Senator Hampton stated that to get the negro out of politics, he would gladly give up the representation based on his vote.” If this could be done legally by an educational qualification for the suffrage, it would seem to be desirable.

5 Remedies proposed.

  1. While intermarriage has been advocated by many, experience seems to show that race feeling is so strong as to render this solution of the problem impracticable. The mulattoes are rapidly decreasing in number, since the abolition of slavery.
  2. Congressional interference has so far proved ineffectual, when not injurious. Such interference by election laws or social rights laws beyond the present ones would probably be unwise, if not oppressive, unless they were to bring about such a solution as that suggested by Senator Hampton.
  3. Colonization by force is probably entirely impracticable, and would be unjust. A voluntary emigration to some of the best parts of Africa now controlled by civilized governments, though mainly populated by blacks, might perhaps be encouraged with good effect. The more intelligent of the race, with little hope of preferment here, might well expect to become men of influence and even of distinction there, while most of them would have grounds of hope for improving their condition.
  4. For the present, education is certainly to be fostered, as a means of elevating the race and making it less dangerous. So far the negro, with individual exceptions, gives little promise of great advancement, but the only hope is along the line of education, academic and specially industrial.

6 Measures to recommend.

Give the best education possible to elevate the negro in all ways, and study carefully the question of voluntary emigration. If the condition of the negro can be made better in some of the most fertile parts of Africa than it can become here, it would probably be the best solution of the problem to encourage him to emigrate. If he remains, it is perhaps probable that he will disappear eventually before the stronger race, as does the Indian.

Topics for papers

  1. In what respects, from the legal and moral standpoint, did the action of the whites in the South, in depriving the negro of his suffrage, at the close of the reconstruction period, differ from that of the American colonies in their resistance to Great Britain in 1776?
  2. Would it probably be best for either the southern states or the country as a whole to have the negro vote cast and counted in southern states where the negro voters are in a majority
  3. Why do not southern Democrats advocate and carry through an educational qualification for the suffrage.
  4. Define manhood

______________________

Lecture 10

PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL REFORM

1 Nature of society.

Society is not merely an aggregation of men, women and children living in the same locality, but it is this aggregation so organized under laws and institutions that it becomes an independent being. These laws and institutions, the whole form of the organization in fact, are the product of the changing thoughts, feelings, superstitions, beliefs that have come from the influences external and internal that have been brought to bear upon individuals.

2 Social good and evil.

Anything that molds the beliefs of individuals so as to lead them toward a stronger, higher civilization is a social good. Anything that molds beliefs in such a way that civilization is weakened or made worse is a social evil. Things that in one society are an evil, in another society may be a good, and vice versa. Innocent customs when they become social evils are frequently not recognized as such; and the first clear-headed people who recognize them as evil are considered fanatics.

3 The reformer deals with individuals.

If society is based upon the beliefs, feelings, superstitions of individuals, social reforms must deal with the passions, fears, hopes, aspirations and beliefs of individuals. The reformer must make individuals see evils for themselves and for society, and thus lead them to change their customs.

4 How the influence of heredity may be modified.

The influence of heredity in endowing men with evil passions, thoughts and motives, is everywhere recognized. This influence of heredity may be modified: first, by bringing good influences to bear upon the victim, especially in early youth; and second, by preventing people that are ruled by evil passions from propagating their kind. Hereditary criminals and paupers are not normal human beings. They must be treated as if ill or insane, and cured. A few days’ imprisonment of the confirmed drunkard or criminal is a waste of public time and money. “It is unsocial to plead insanity as a defense. It is an explanation. If we permit the plea we encourage crime.” The insane must be influenced toward self control.

5 Influence of environment.

Criminals and paupers are not only born, but they are frequently made through the influence of their environment. Not all criminals are born evil. Society is in good part responsible for a criminal environment. “Every society has the criminals that it deserves.” An environment may be changed: (a) At times, by laws, but the effect of law is only temporary and only a means, (b) By establishing societies and leading individuals to bring purer social influences to bear upon adults and to rescue children from debasing homes and influences, (c) In the case of criminals, by the best reformatory methods.

The best method of reform for adults is to lead them to change their own environment; sometimes by pledges and promises. Children should be trained in school and in the home to self control. Civilization means freedom from the power of custom and external influences and the direction of life by reason. An educated man does as he wills, and he wills according to the dictates of reason; an untrained man acts under the influence of passion and impulse.

6 Responsibility of citizens and their duty regarding social evils.

From the very nature of society it follows that every individual in society is responsible more or less for social evils; that social reforms must come from the influence of individuals upon individuals; that, consequently, it is the duty of every citizen by influence and example and self control to train himself and others toward the highest civilization. Society is certain ultimately to improve, though the process of improvement may be very slow.

Topics for papers

  1. Which has the greater influence over us in our daily lives, law or custom?
  2. Mention some customs which are social evils with us to-day that in other times or countries have been social benefits.
  3. Why ought not the state to execute all criminals and paupers that are recognized as incorrigible, and certain to be a burden and menace to the state throughout their lives?
  4. Have you any reason for thinking that you would not be a burglar or tramp or criminal of some other kind, had you been reared as most of those classes have been?
  5. In what way are you personally responsible for the acts of the drunkards in your city?

 

Source: Jeremiah Whipple Jenks. Practical Economic Questions. University of the State of New York, University Extensions Department (Albany, N.Y.), Syllabus 1, January 1892.

Image Source:  Jeremiah Whipple Jenks. Cornell University, Rare Book and Manuscript Collections.

Categories
Cornell Harvard Suggested Reading

Harvard. Local taxation. Suggested topics and readings. Durand, 1902

 

This posting was prepared at the INET Festival for New Economic Thinking in Edinburgh (October 19-20, 2017). It turned out to be a nice case-study of preparing an artifact for Economics in the Rear-view Mirror. Edward Dana Durand was a Cornell Ph.D. in economics and statistics who was to go on to be a director of the U.S. Census. He taught at Harvard in 1902, between jobs. For this course I was only able to find the instructions for preparing a report on taxation with suggested reading.  Course description, enrollment figures as well as two short biographical pieces are included below.

A memorial piece by K. Pribram was published as “Edward Dana Durand (1871-1960)” in Revue de l’Institut International de Statistique / Review of the International Statistical Institute  Vol. 28, No. 1/2 (1960), pp. 118-120.

————————–

EDWARD D. DURAND
THE NEW CENSUS DIRECTOR

The Outing Magazine, August 1909

WHEN your chief says it will take a “corking” good man to fill your place, it means he is paying you the best compliment possible. This is what Commissioner of Corporations Herbert Knox Smith said of his deputy, Edward Dana Durand, when the commissioner was told that President Taft had decided to place Mr. Durand at the head of the Census Bureau. In his office on the floor above Mr. Durand received the news with the pleasure of feeling that a part of his ambitions were about to be realized. He felt that he had at last been chosen to fill the most exacting office that could be assigned to a statistician.

Naturally Mr. Durand will encounter many difficulties in his new position, but it is expected that his confidence in himself will be of as great aid as it has been in the past. Different from Mr. North, his work is academic, Mr. Durand being possibly the best-trained statistician ever appointed to the position of Director of the Census Bureau.

While he has held various positions as a teacher, Mr. Durand has not gained the distinction in academic work that he has outside. Nevertheless his success in government service has been speedy and gratifying. His most significant work in the public eye has been his book on the finances of New York City, his work with the Industrial Commission, and with the Bureau of Corporations. While serving as secretary of the Industrial Commission he edited a very creditable report of nineteen volumes. This proved that while Mr. Durand is not a good writer he is a good organizer. As Deputy Commissioner of Corporations he gained experience with the report on the Beef Trust, for which report he was chiefly responsible. He set his standard as a statistician, however, in his report on the Standard Oil Trust, which was issued from the same bureau.

Mr. Durand was born in Romeo, Michigan, October 18, 1871, his father being Cyrus Y. Durand, a druggist. He is one of five children, all now living.

He lived for about eleven years at Romeo, when the family moved to Huron, South Dakota, then a very new town, and “took up a claim” of land near there. Mr. Durand finished his high-school education at Huron, and then went for one year to Yankton College. From there he went to Oberlin College, Ohio, and graduated there in 1893. During the summer of 1893 Mr. Durand was stenographer to the Secretary of the World’s Columbian Exposition at Chicago. He then went to Cornell University and took a post-graduate course in political science, economics, and statistics. During this time he was assistant to Prof. J. W. Jenks, Secretary of the American Economic Association. He received the degree of Doctor of Philosophy from Cornell, in 1896.

After leaving Cornell Mr. Durand was employed for nearly two years in the New York State Library, at Albany, his special duty being to prepare material for the assistance of members of the Legislature, including the publication of indices and digests of the laws passed annually by the various states of the country.

At the beginning of 1898 Mr. Durand was appointed Assistant Professor of Political Economy and Finance at Stanford University, California, where he remained for a year and a half. When the Industrial Commission, of which he was secretary, was disbanded, he lectured on corporation and labor questions for a year at Harvard University. In 1903 he was appointed an expert on street railways in the Census Bureau, where he held the position of special examiner for about four months before being called to the Bureau of Corporations.

He was married in 1903 to Mary Elizabeth Bennett, who had been a classmate of his at Oberlin College. They have two children, both boys.

When he finishes his work with the Census he may have his other ambition gratified of being called back to academic work, possibly as president of some college.

Mr. Durand becomes Director of the Census Bureau upon the eve of taking the Thirteenth Census of the United States. This is the government’s largest statistical job, and since our census is more elaborate and detailed than that of any foreign country, it can be recognized what the new officer has to encounter. Some idea of the immensity of the work can be gained by a study of the act of Congress authorizing the taking of the census.

While Mr. Durand is very affable in his manners there is nothing effusive about him. Of medium height and build, his forehead so high as to give the impression of being slightly bald, and wearing a small moustache, he is withal of striking appearance. During the last few days that he was Deputy Commissioner of Corporations he could be found busily engaged in putting the office in order for his successor. The days were warm and he worked without his coat, wearing most of the time a white shirt and a double-ply collar with a small black bow-tie.

Source: The Outing Magazine, Vol. 54, August 1909, pp. 563-564.

————————–

 U. S. Census Bureau: History/Directors

Edward Dana Durand (1909-1913): Durand was born, in 1871, in Romeo, Michigan. When he was still a child, however, his parents moved to a homestead in South Dakota. Durand attended Yankton College for one year before transferring to Oberlin College. He received a Ph.D. from Cornell University in 1896. After receiving his doctorate, Durand moved between several government and academic positions until 1909, when he became deputy commissioner of corporations. Later that year, President Taft appointed him the new director of the census. He replaced Samuel North, who had left after repeated clashes with the secretary of commerce and labor, and took over the Census Bureau well into the planning process for the 1910 census.

Durand concentrated much of his energy on improving the preparation of census reports. He pioneered several lasting innovations in the presentation of data at the Census Bureau. For example, Durand introduced the publication of state-level reports and the early release in press releases of statistics for which there was the greatest demand (such as the total population of individual cities, states, and the United States population). These releases were be followed by bulletins, abstracts, and final reports with greater detail.

After leaving the Census Bureau in 1913, Durand eventually took a place on the U.S. Tariff Commission, where he served from 1935 until his retirement in 1952. He died in 1960.

Source:  From webpage of the U.S. Census Bureau. History, Directors 1909-21  .

————————–

Course Description

[7b2 hf. The Theory and Methods of Taxation, with special reference to local taxation in the United States. Half-course (second half-year).]

Omitted in 1902-03. [sic]

In this course both the theory and practice of taxation will be studied. Attention will be given at the outset to the tax systems of England, France, and Germany; and the so-called direct taxes employed in those countries will receive special consideration. After this, the principles of taxation will be examined. This will lead to a study of the position of taxation in the system of economic science, and of such subjects as the classification, the just distribution, and the incidence of taxes. Finally, the existing methods of taxation in the United States will be studied, each tax being treated with reference to its proper place in a rational system of federal, state, and local revenues.

Written work will be required of all students, as well as a systematic course of prescribed reading. Candidates for Honors in Political Science and for the higher degrees will be given the opportunity of preparing theses in substitution for the required written work.

Course 7b is open to students who have taken Economics 1.

Source:   Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Division of History and Political Science comprising the Departments of History and Government and Economics, 1902-03 (University Publications, New Series, no. 55, June 13, 1902), pp. 49-50.

————————–

Course Announcement

7b1 hf. The Theory and Methods of Taxation, with special reference to local taxation in the United States. Half-course (first half-year). Mon., Wed., Fri., at 12. Dr. Durand.

 

Source:   Harvard University, University Publications, new Series, No. 8 Extra Ed., Announcement of the Courses of Instruction provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for the Academic Year, 1902-03 (1902), p. 44.

————————–

Course Enrollment

7b 1hf. Dr. Durand.—The Theory and Methods of Taxation, with special reference to local taxation, in the United States.

Total: 21.   3 Graduates, 13 Seniors, 4 Juniors, 1 Other.

 

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

http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/427018754?n=70&oldpds

————————–

ECONOMICS 7b
REPORTS AND THESES, 1902

Each student is expected to prepare a brief, informal report on the system of State and local taxation in some particular State. The report should describe chiefly present methods, with considerable fullness, but need not enter into extensive criticism of the working of the system. The amount received by the State treasury from various sources should be stated wherever practicable. Reliance should be placed mainly on original documents. Among the States whose finances are most interesting and can be most easily and satisfactorily treated are: Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Maryland, North Carolina, Kansas, Mississippi, Georgia. Students will do well to write to the State comptroller or auditor for copies of tax laws and financial reports.

A more extensive and formal thesis will also be presented by each student. it should be primarily descriptive, but should involve some account of historical development, and careful criticism of the working of the system or method covered.        Exact references, by title, volume, and page, or by chapter and section, must be given for all facts cited, whether in reports or theses, and a bibliography of works consulted must be appended. Large diagrams should be prepared where statistics suitable for graphic presentation are found.

The following topics for theses are suggested, but others may be chosen if desired: —

SUGGESTED THESIS SUBJECTS

  1. The United States Internal Revenue System.
  2. History of the Tariff up to the Civil War.
  3. The Tariff during and since the War.
  4. Special War Taxes in the United States.
  5. The Federal Income Tax.
  6. Constitutionality of the Income Tax of 1894.
  7. The Tax System of Great Britain.
  8. The Tax System of Prussia.
  9. Taxation in the Australasian Colonies.
  10. Taxation in Massachusetts.
  11. Taxation in New York.
  12. Taxation in Pennsylvania—or some other selected State.
  13. Progressive Taxation in Practice.
  14. Excise Taxes in the United States and Europe.
  15. Stamp and Transaction Taxes.
  16. The Income Tax in the United States and Foreign Countries.
  17. Personal Property under the General Property Tax.
  18. Double Taxation under the General Property Tax.
  19. Theoretical Comparison of Property and Income Taxes.
  20. The Inheritance Tax.
  21. Taxation of Land Values.
  22. Business License Taxes.
  23. General Corporation Taxes.
  24. Taxation of Railroads.
  25. Taxation of Banks and insurance Companies.
  26. Legal Aspects of Corporation Taxes.
  27. Relation of State and Local Taxation.
  28. Special Assessments.
  29. Exemptions from Taxation in the United States.

CHIEF SOURCES FOR REPORTS ON STATE TAXATION

Poor, B. P.: Constitutions.

Clapperton, Geo.: Taxation in Various States and Canada. In Reports of the Industrial Commission. Vol. XI.

New York State Library: State Finance Statistics, 1890, 1895.

Census of 1890: Valuation and Taxation.

Ely, R. T.: Taxation in American States and Cities.

Seligman, E. R. A.: State Finance Statistics. In Publications of American Statistical Association, 1889.

Hollander, J. H., Ed.: Studies in State Taxation.

Chapman, J. W.: State Tax Commissions in the United States. In Johns Hopkins University Studies, 1897.

Reports of special State commissions and committees on taxation. The most important are the following, which are mostly in the library: Massachusetts, 1875, 1897; New York, 1871-72, 1894, 1900; Pennsylvania, 1889; Connecticut, 1887; Ohio, 1893; Maine, 1889; New Jersey, 1897; Illinois, 1885; Wisconsin, 1899-1901; Oregon, 1886.

Reports of State Bureaus of Labor Statistics in Illinois, 1894 and 1896; Missouri, 1896; Connecticut, 1896.

Compilations of tax laws of individual states, published separately, or in general compilations, known as Revised Statutes, General Laws, etc. Accessible in Law School.

Reports of State comptrollers or auditors, State treasurers, and State boards of assessment, equalization, etc. Few are in the Harvard Library, but many may be found in the Massachusetts State Library and the Boston Public Library, and others may be obtained by correspondence.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF GENERAL WORKS

Many of the above references will be useful in preparing theses.

Wells, D. A.: Theory and Practice of Taxation.

Cossa, L.: Taxation, its Principles and Methods.

Cohn, G.: The Science of Finance (translation).

Leroy-Beaulieu, P.: Traité de la Science des Finances.

Wagner, A.: Finanzwissenschaft.

Palgrave, R. H. I.: Dictionary of Political Economy.

Conrad, J.: Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften.

Say, L.: Dictionnaire des Finances.

Statesman’s Yearbook.

United Kingdom: Statistical Abstracts for Foreign Countries.

United States Treasury Reports.

Industrial Commission: Vol. XIX, Taxation: Vol. IX, Taxation of Transportation Companies; Vol. XI, Clapperton’s report.

Reports of the Special Commissioner of the Revenue, 1866-69.

Cooley, T. M.: Law of Taxation.

Howe, F. C.: Taxation under the Internal Revenue System.

Columbia College Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law; Various monographs on State systems and on special methods of taxation.

Seligman, E. R. A.: Essays in Taxation, Shifting and Incidence of Taxation, Progressive Taxation in Theory and Practice.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, Course Outlines and Reading Lists in Economics, 1895-2003 (HUC 8522.2.1), Box 1, Folder “Economics, 1902-03”.

 

 

 

Categories
Cornell Research Tip

Cornell. Economics in the Department of Political Science, 1900

 

 

Soon I’ll get back to the necessary work of transcribing exams to match remaining courses already entered into Economics in the Rear-View Mirror. While my core three departments (Harvard, Columbia and Chicago) constitute the source of the vast majority of the artifacts gathered thus far, regular visitors will have also noticed an occasional foray into other departments as have struck my fancy.

The next few postings are the result of my recent visit to the Library of Congress where I looked into the papers of the economic statistician Walter F. Willcox of Cornell. Following up, I checked out the digital repository of Cornell, eCommons that I can most highly recommend both to researchers (for historical material) as well as to university archivists (for its structure and user-friendliness).

Among other things I found (and immediately transcribed) the following “snap-shot” of Cornell’s department of political science in 1900 that was made up of three professors who were working on economic theory, policy and statistics. Modern eyes see there an economics department with an interdisciplinary social-scientific scope, not unsimilar to the early School of Political Science at Columbia.

Research Tip: The Cornell Register is an official Cornell University publication containing a record of the personnel and organization for the academic year.  PDF copies for 1882-1883 through 1931-32 at the digital repository of Cornell. Page views going back to 1869 from the hathitrust.org collection.

 

_____________________________

 

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

The Development of the Work—
What is being Accomplished Today.

Political Science has always been considered important at Cornell. President White, in his inaugural address, laid down the principle that “There are two permeating ideas which must enter into the work of the University in all its parts. The first is the need of labor and sacrifice in developing the individual man in all his nature and in all his powers as a being intellectual, moral, and religious. The second of these permeating ideas is that of bringing the powers thus developed to bear upon society. We should provide ample instruction in history, in political and social science and in the modern literature….We would give ample opportunity for those classes of study which give breadth to the mind, and which directly fit the student for dealing with state problems and world problems. In this view, historical studies and studies in political and social science will hold an honored place; but these studies will not be pursued in the interest of any party. On points where honest and earnest men differ, I trust we may have courses of lectures presenting both sides.”

Instruction in this line consisted at first of a course of lectures in Political Economy given during one term of each year by Dr. William D. Wilson, professor of moral and intellectual philosophy. A few years later, Theodore Dwight began a series of lectures on constitutional law, and in 1875 this course was superseded by a series of lectures on the constitution of the United States and American jurisprudence.

The department was formally organized in 1881, when a four years’ course in History and Political Science was established. Graduates from this course received the degree of Bachelor of Philosophy in History and Political Science. Courses in systematic politics, public finance, and practical economic questions were added to the curriculum year by year, and in 1887 the departments of History were organized into the President White School of History and Political Science, and a fellowship in political and social science was established. While Professor Laughlin was in charge of the work in economics, in 1890, two fellowships in that field were founded.

In 1891, Professor Jeremiah W, Jenks was called to a chair of municipal, political, and social institutions. The next year, the departments of economics and finance and of political and social institutions were brought under one head. Professors Walter F. Willcox and Charles H. Hull were appointed, with Professor Jenks, to take charge of the work, which is being carried on as a unit, in so far as this is practicable.

Each professor, with his assistants, has charge of some special branch of the work. Professor Jenks gives his time chiefly to the work in politics, political science, and economic legislation; Professor Willcox to social science and statistics; and Professor Hull to political economy and finance. The assistants, Mr. Brooks and Mr. Weston, divide their time between advanced work in economic history and municipal government and the text-book work with the classes beginning the study of economics. In all branches the aim is to make the work of direct, practical value, while not neglecting economic and political theories. Andrew D. White’s idea of presenting both sides of questions is carried out as far as possible. The political questions of the day are treated fully, and students are taught to think impartially and independently. For the last two years the department has invited the most eminent men in business and politics to give lectures before the University. John W. Foster, ex-Secretary of State, has lectured on “Diplomacy;” Charlton T. Lewis, counsel for the Mutual Life Insurance Company, on “Insurance;” W. H. Baldwin, Jr., president of the Long Island Railroad, on “Railroad Management;” and Edward Rosewater, editor of the Omaha Bee, on “Journalism.” A course of lectures on the work of the State departments by prominent State officials has been provided for this year. The object of these lectures is to give the students more accurately the point of the business man and the politician.

The work the professors are doing outside of the department shows that the practical nature of their work is widely recognized. Professor Jenks is now the expert agent of the United States Industrial Commission in their investigation of trusts and monopolies undertaken with the view of recommending legislation on the subject to Congress and the several states. He has had special charge of selecting and examining the witnesses for and against the trusts and of editing the testimony. In this connection, he has collected in one volume the laws of the United States and the different states which concert trusts, with a digest of all the decisions under these statues and leading common law decisions concerning trusts. A second volume will contain the testimony and the economic results of the study. He has, further, been assigned by the Commission the task of investigating the trusts of Europe during the coming summer. This investigation has also led Governor Roosevelt to call him into consultation several times this winter to aid in the preparation of his message and in proposing measures for state legislation concerning trusts and corporations.

The administration wished the national census department to come closely into touch with the universities of the country, and therefore appointed Professor Willcox one of the Chief Statisticians of the census. He is investigating “methods and results” and is planning the methods of taking the census and interpreting the results—the work which, more than any other, calls for breadth of statistical knowledge and soundness of judgment. To him has also been given the task, together with one of his colleagues on the Census, Mr. Gannett, of interpreting and writing up the results of our first Colonial Census, the one lately taken in Porto Rico and Cuba. His interest and experience in practical social questions is shown by his acting for years as a member of the local Board of Health, and by Governor Roosevelt’s appointing him a year ago a member of the State Board of Health. While Professor Willcox is in Washington, his work is ably carried on by Professor Powers, formerly of Leland Stanford University.

Professor Hull has just published one of the most scholarly books produced in this field for a long time. This book, a collection of the works of Sir William Petty, with an introduction and critical annotations, has been very favorably reviewed in all the principle countries of Europe. Beside his accurate scholarship and his remarkable critical acumen, Professor Hull is well known also for his sound judgment and business sense. These qualities have been long recognized by his colleagues in the faculty, of which he is Secretary. Upon earnest solicitation he has acted as President of the Cornell Coöperative Society from the beginning and is perhaps chiefly responsible for its success. For some years he has been Treasurer of the American Economic Association, and at its last meeting that body insisted on making him its Secretary also, thus putting practically all of its business—publishing included—into his hands. The joint committee of the Legislature on taxation submitted to him lately for criticism its new plan of taxation.

The department has been greatly aided in its work by having at its disposal excellent laboratory and library facilities. It has perhaps the best material in reports, apparatus, etc., for work in statistics possessed by any university in the country. It is unusually well equipped in periodical literature and rare books on the history of economics. The library of foreign statues is also large and growing rapidly.

The Seminary, for graduate students only, is carried on jointly by the three professors in the department. Each professor takes special charge of the work of those men whose theses are in his special field, and of the Seminary on days when reports on these theses are in order. Besides the regular thesis work, the Seminary usually has on hand some special subject. This year Colonial governments have been studied, the relations of our government to its dependencies is being considered, in the light of our own history, legal and political, and in that of the leading colonial powers.

The most prominent characteristic of the department throughout is that it has always tried to keep closely in touch with practical work in politics, in government, and in business, in order to prepare its students especially for practical work in life. This does not involve neglect of theory or neglect study of principles; but it does involve the effort to apply these principles to the solution of practical problems; while the experience of teachers in aiding our public men to solve non-partisan questions enables them to judge more soundly regarding what is really practical.

 

Source: Cornell Alumni News, Vol. II, No. 22 (March 7, 1900), pp. 143-144.

Image: (left to right) Jeremiah W. Jenks, Walter F. Willcox and Charles H. Hull taken from ibid.

Categories
AEA Economists

AEA Twenty-fifth Anniversary Celebration, NYC 1909

December 27, 1907 at Carnegie Hall

MAYOR McCLELLAN, OF NEW YORK, ADDRESSING THE CONVENTION OF HISTORIANS AND ECONOMISTS AT CARNEGIE HALL, DECEMBER 27.

Others on the platform, beginning at left, are: William Jay Schieffelin, Isaac N. Seligman, Davis R. Dewey, John B. Clark, Albert Bushnell Hart, William M. Sloane, Ambassador James Bryce, Governor Hughes, Nicholas Murray Butler, Frank A. Vanderlip, Waldo Lincoln and Edwin R. A. Seligman.

____________________________________

The last posting came from the 25th anniversary celebration of the University of Chicago. It just so happens that I came across a clipping from the New York periodical The Independent in the John Bates Clark Papers in the Columbia University Archive that was about the joint 25th anniversary celebration of the American Historical Association and the American Economic Association held in New York City from December 27-31, 1909. Political Science, Sociology and Labor Legislation Associations also participated in the meetings. The report includes several photos of the men who were the movers-and-shakers of their respective associations (though none from the “playlet” and tableaux provided by the “ladies’ reception committee of the Waldor Astoria”).

As I like to provide the visitors of Economics in the Rear-View Mirror both accurate transcriptions and interesting images from yore, I hunted down scanned copies of The Independent at www.archive.org and www.hathitrust.org to extract a rough text file and better images than my amateur photographs of those in John Bates Clark’s clipping to create this posting.

 

____________________________________

A Notable Gathering of Scholars

BY REUBEN G. THWAITES

[Dr. Thwaites is secretary and superintendent of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. He was for ten years managing editor of the Wisconsin State Journal and is well known as an author and editor of historical works. He attended the recent convention in New York as a delegate from Wisconsin. — EDITOR.]

 

THE twenty-fifth anniversary celebration of the American Historical Association and the American Economic Association, held in New York City from December 27 to 31, brought together the largest and doubtless the most distinguished assemblage of students of the social sciences ever convened in this country. In addition to the meetings of the two principal societies, which thus rounded out the quarter-centenary of their existence, were conferences by seven closely-related organizations—the American Political Science Association, the American Statistical Association, the American Sociological Society, the American Association for Labor Legislation, the American Social Science Association, the Bibliographical Society of America, and the American Society of Church History. Eleven hundred persons, engaged either in teaching or studying these several specialties, were gathered here from nearly every State or important institution of learning in the Union, and meetings, either — singly or jointly, occupied four busy days.

The attendance of several representative scholars from both Europe and Asia, who took part in many of the discussions, some of whom presented formal papers, and whose presence was recognized by numerous receptions and other social functions in their honor, gave to the gathering much of the significance of an international congress. Most prominent among the foreigners was the British Ambassador, Mr. Bryce, whose appearance at any of the meetings was invariably greeted with spontaneous applause, and whose many impromptu responses to calls by chairmen and toastmasters were never happier than on this anniversary occasion, into whose buoyant spirit he appeared keenly to enter.

Among other prominent foreign guests were: G. W. Prothero, of London, editor of the Quarterly Review, and former president of the Royal Historical Society; Prof. Herbert A. L. Fisher, fellow of New College, Oxford; Camille Enlart, director of comparative sculpture, of the Trocadero; Eduard Meyer, professor of ancient history, University of Berlin, exchange professor of Harvard; Dr. Cellenbrander, advisory secretary of the Dutch commission on governmental historical publications; Prof. Rafael Altamira y Crevea, professor-elect in the University of Madrid; Dr. Higgs, representing the Royal Economic Society of Great Britain, and Signor Maffeo Pantaleoni, of Rome, attending the Economic convention.

On occasions such as this presidential addresses are generally didactic, and by many of the older habitués are scrupulously avoided. But President Hart, of the Historical Association; President Lowell, of the Political Science, and President Dewey, of the Economic, always have something worth saying, and did not lack large and interested audiences. Dr. Hart’s discussion of “Imagination in history” was keen in its penetration and aglow with humor; he dwelt on the practical importance of the imaginative faculty on the part of the historian, but pointed out its manifest dangers, arising from a disposition to overemphasize dramatic episodes that really are rare in the history of a nation, whereas the most vital factors in its development are generally slow moving and commonplace. Dr. Lowell discussed “The physiology of politics”; while not deprecating the importance of library collections in the study of political science, the most useful laboratory work is, he said, the observation of the practical workings of political institutions, about which we are still insufficiently informed. Dr. Dewey spoke of “Observation in economics”; his thought being much in line with that of President Lowell, that field observation is of greater value than closet study, altho both are essential.

Ex-Presidents of the American Economic Association (S. N. Patten in the center, then clockwise from upper left are R. T. Ely, J. B. Clark, J. W. Jenks, F. W. Taussig.)
Ex-Presidents of the American Economic Association (S. N. Patten in the center, then clockwise from upper left are R. T. Ely, J. B. Clark, J. W. Jenks, F. W. Taussig.)

 

 

 

 

EARLY PRESIDENTS OF THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION Photograph by Brady, Washington, D. C. Beginning at left: William F. Poole, Justin Windsor, Charles Kendall Adams, George Bancroft, John Jay, Andrew D. White, Herbert B. Adams standing in rear.
EARLY PRESIDENTS OF THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
Photograph by Brady, Washington, D. C.
Beginning at left: William F. Poole, Justin Windsor, Charles Kendall Adams, George Bancroft, John Jay, Andrew D. White, Herbert B. Adams standing in rear.
LIVING EX-PRESIDENTS OF THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. (Clockwise from upper-left) James Ford Rhodes, Goldwin Smith, James Schouler, James Burrill Angell.

 

The programs of the nine associations were crowded with what the sporting gentry style “events,” but popular interest appeared chiefly to be with the joint sessions, some of which would have been noteworthy occurrences had they not jostled one another in this remarkable conference week. Wednesday morning’s joint session of the Historical and Economic associations called out a large and brilliant audience, with President Lowell in the chair. The general topic was “British constitutional and political development with special reference to the Gladstone centenary.” Professor Wrong, of Toronto, was hopeful concerning “Canadian nationalism and the imperial tie”; Professor Fisher, of Oxford, gave an exceptionally clear and informing account of the South African union, and Ambassador Bryce spoke forcefully on recent English history in its constitutional aspects.

Another excellent joint session was that held by the political scientists and the, association charging itself with scientific suggestion in the matter of labor legislation. The relation of the State to labor was interestingly and suggestively discussed by delegates from the Mississippi basin, where, perhaps, the best opportunities just now exist for trying out some of the theories of economic and sociological reformers.

The Historical Association, with its three thousand members, has of late years been doing its most effective work thru an admirable and impressive congerie of, commissions and conferences. This year’s meeting was chiefly noticeable for the variety and general success of these conferences, several of which were generally in session at one and the same time. One morning the topics were ancient, medieval, and American history and the treatment of archives. Later in the day the historians were conferring upon modern, European and American history, and relative to the methods and aims of State and local historical, a fertile theme, now engaging much attention in all parts of the country. One of the most interesting of the conferences was devoted to the consideration of “The contribution of the romance nations to the history of America,” in which Spain, France, Portugal and the Latin- American republics were represented either by scholars from those nations or by American specialists in the topics treated. A general session on Southern history brought out an interesting group of papers; while another on the work of historical societies in Europe was noticeable for careful reports from representatives of Great Britain, Germany, France. Holland and Spain, by the delegates from those countries.

The Economic Association has less varied interests, altho it also held a round-table conference on “Rural economics in relation to conservation.” At its first general session economic theory was treated both from the stand of “dynamic economics” and that of “theory of wages.” It was plain from the vigor of the discussion that economic theory, as doubtless it always will be, is in a state of flux, few men agreeing as to any one cure for the existing ills of the body politic. Another general session was held at the Chamber of Commerce, in connection with the financial magnates. Hereat was frankly considered “the causes and remedies for trusts,” in which the several divergent points of view, practical and theoretical, were squarely presented, presumably with mutual enlightenment.

For a young society, the Political Science people were exceptionally busy and vigorous. Ballot reform, the valuation of public service corporations (jointly with the economists), the relation of the State to labor (jointly with the labor legislation association), methods of instruction in municipal government and government of the Far East, were all duly considered, exhibiting a wide range of interest and possible future usefulness.

FRANK J. GOODNOW, Columbia University, first president American Political Science Association.

The sociologists were concerned (jointly with the Statistical Association) in such topics as the next census, the standardizing of units in studying public administration under democratic conditions, and the social marking system; and, individually, in the problems of methods in teaching psychological sociology, and in the religious factor in social revolution.

FRANKLIN H. GIDDINGS, Columbia University, vice-president Sociological Society.
FRANKLIN H. GIDDINGS, Columbia University, vice-president Sociological Society.

The labor legislation folk and the. statisticians chiefly held their sessions in conjunction with other bodies. For the most part the remainder of the participating societies confined themselves to listening to the usual presidential addresses and the transaction of necessary routine business.

HENRY W. FARNAM. Yale University, president of the American Association for Labor Legislation
HENRY W. FARNAM. Yale University, president of the American Association for Labor Legislation

The social side of the great conference was in every way notable. The entertainments offered to the thousand and more delegates ranged from receptions and breakfasts to formal dinners. The two most striking features of the daily and remarkably diverse program of hospitality were the great welcome meeting at Carnegie Hall, on Monday night, and the very attractive “historical playlet” and tableaux given by the ladies‘ reception committee at the Waldorf-Astoria (the headquarters of the several associations) on Wednesday night.

At Carnegie Hall the delegates were given the freedom of the city and State by Mayor McClellan and Governor Hughes. President Butler extended the welcome of Columbia University, and Mr. Joseph H. Choate and Professor Sloane spoke for the Committee of Arrangements. All were excellent addresses, but the Governor in particular rose to the occasion and earnestly commended the work of his hearers, who in their several ways are striving to find the correct principles underlying human society and seeking practically to apply these to the manifold problems of the State

In addition to the formal entertainments provided by the general committee were numerous unofficial attentions paid to various groups of visiting scholars. Among the most welcome of the unannounced gatherings of this character was the dinner given to fifty members of the American Antiquarian Society at the Metropolitan Club—the joyous forerunner, it was hoped, of annual banquets of these gentlemen at successive conferences of the American Historical Association. In all of these hospitalities practically every learned institution in the city, Columbia University properly leading, actively participated.

WALDO GIFFORD LELAND, A. M.,Carnegie Institution of Washington, secretary American Historical Association; THOMAS N. CARVER, Harvard University, secretary and treasurer, American Economic Association.
WALDO GIFFORD LELAND, A. M.,Carnegie Institution of Washington, secretary American Historical Association; THOMAS N. CARVER, Harvard University, secretary and treasurer, American Economic Association.

In every respect, professionally and socially, the great conference has been a marked success. The attendance was record-breaking, and the quality of the personnelle probably quite unexcelled in this country, even by the literary congresses at Chicago and St. Louis. The delegates, domestic and foreign, returned to their homes more than ever imprest [sic] by the hospitality, greatness and potentialities of America’s much favored metropolis.

Madison, Wis.

_______________________________ 

Source:  Reuben G. Thwaites “A Notable Gathering of Scholars,” The Independent, Vol. 68, January 6, 1910, pp. 7-14.

  • Copy in John Bates Clark Papers, Series II.4, Box 9, Folder 11, Report on American Economic Association’s 25th Anniversary, 1910”.
  • At www.archive.org the 68th volume of The Independent.    There I downloaded “Single Page Original JPS TAR” (warning: > 1 GB and then extracted the pages of the article, from which I have clipped the photos.