Tag: Seligman

Categories
Columbia Socialism

Columbia. Seligman and Hillquit debate “Desirability of Socialism”. February, 1915

 

Economists have been debating the whats and hows of socialism from the earliest days of the socialist movement. As the term has taken on a renewed life in current political debate, from time to time Economics in the Rear-View Mirror will listen in to earlier debates in historical time. One sees that Seligman attempted to frame the debate for progress as striking the correct balance between individualism and socialism whereas Hillquit argued for the wholesale replacement of capitalism and its evils with socialism and its virtues.

________________________

“SOCIALISM A MERE VISION”—SELIGMAN
Charges Morris Hillquit With Failure to Produce Proofs of Its Practicability
LARGE CROWD HEARS DEBATE
[February 16, 1915 report]

            Before an audience that crowded the Horace Mann Auditorium to the doors, in spite of the bad weather, Prof. E. R. A. Seligman and Morris Hillquit debated the “Desirability of Socialism.” George Gordon Battle, the well-known lawyer, presided. While no decision was given, the sympathy of the audience seemed to go to Professor Seligman, who rested his argument, not on the perfection of the capitalist system, but on the failure of his opponent to show how Socialism would remedy the existing evils.

Mr. Hillquit opened the debate with an exposition of the principles of Socialism in which he defined the doctrine and showed its applicability to present-day civilization. The rest of his twenty-five minutes he spent in assailing the capitalistic system, which he asserted was responsible for every social evil now existing.

He outlined the development of the factory system which, according to his statement, took the tools from the workman and left him nothing. One hundred years ago the workman was independent, and he owed that independence not to the possession of capital but to his skill with his tools. The factory system substituted ten machines for the tools of a thousand workmen, but the workmen did not own the machines which took the place of their tools. The machines were owned and the workers were dependent upon the employer for their livelihood. Their employment was dependent solely upon the amount of profit resulting for the employer. This brought about the present conditions of widely prevalent unemployment, which was responsible for all the poverty, crime and vice now found in society.

Professor Seligman, in opening his speech, told his audience that far from being scientific, Socialism is an ideal. As an ideal, or religion, it deserves our gratitude, for it has been a spur to thought at all times.

He went on to say, in part: “The real point in the whole argument is this: We are told that conditions are bad. I grant you this, but the point is, is Socialism adequate to bring about better conditions?

“Let us come to this idea of Socialism being a ‘scientific and planful’ scheme, as Mr. Hillquit terms it. I think that Mr. Hillquit will agree that the ‘scientific’ Socialism is founded upon these bases: The labor theory of value, as advanced first by Carl Marx; the surplus labor theory of profits which was also also advanced by Carl Marx; and the generally accepted economic interpretation of history. It is upon these bases that ‘scientific’ Socialism stands—and yet not only has Marx been proven wrong in all these theories, but the foremost Socialists of today have refuted them.

“Here’s the way Carl Marx argued: He studied conditions about him, and he said, first, things are getting worse and worse; second, prices are getting worse and worse; third, therefore, things will get so bad that we will get to a cataclism of society, and all society will break up. And he said that this stage would be reached in five years at the most. But has it been reached, even though that was a century ago? I respect Carl Marx possibly more than any other economist, except Ricardo. Nevertheless, I think we can leave this ‘scientific’ Socialism there, flat on its back.”

In his rebuttal, Professor Seligman said, in part: “Capitalism, says Mr. Hillquit, is responsible for the present social evils; and he maintains that Socialism will do away with them. We have always had social evils, no matter what our state of society; and what reason is there for believing, beyond mere assertion and declaration, that Socialism will remove the social evils. We will all admit that civilization has progressed, and that we have from time to time remedied the evils of society; and I maintain that these social evils will be done away with in the course of progress, whether we have Socialism or no!

“I have shown you that competition and regulation, individualism and Socialism, have always been necessary to our progress; and I maintain that we shall need them for our progress, until the end of time. The Socialists say, individualism has certain evils, let us do away with individualism. No! for Socialism has even greater evils. What I want is socialized individualism, and that is what we are going to get. What we want is to preserve the good things of our society, and get rid of the bad things.”

Professor Seligman went on to say that it was absurd to condemn capitalism, before capitalism had fairly taken a start. He pointed out in elaborating this point, that it takes centuries to change systems. He said in conclusion: “Everyone is conscious of the mal-adjustment of society. We need light and guidement. We must not be blinded by the blatant light of capitalism, the press. And, on the other hand, we must not be misguided by the unreal vision that we can follow one principle to the exclusion of the other. Be sure that the foundation is solid, before you build upon it. In that way only can we hope to erect the lasting structure of social progress and social peace.”

Mr. Hillquit made his greatest stand in his rebuttal. He declared that his opponent had not controverted either of his main points that private or corporate capitalistic ownership was at the bottom of prevalent social ills and that social ownership would ameliorate these conditions. In reply to Professor Seligman’s assertion that the public schools and the Post Office were Socialism, Mr. Hillquit declared that they were only the forerunners of Socialism. He traced the growth of the early capitalism and its fight against feudalism and drew parallels between that and the conflict between capitalism and Socialism, incidentally stating that capitalism was beginning to show unpleasant and unmistakable signs of old age.

Taking up Professor Seligman’s main points, Mr. Hillquit waxed eloquent. Bringing his refutation to a conclusion, he said:

“My opponent states that production under Socialism will be less than at present, predicting his statement on the assertion that human beings are as lazy as they dare to be. Under the capitalistic system they are. Their work is not congenial or attractive. No man ever shirked work that he liked.

“In regard to distribution, let me say that we have no competition in distribution of wealth under the present system, and we will have under Socialism. Take the case of Mr. Harry K. Thaw. From what we know of the gentleman, we can hardly say that he is intellectual. But he has wealth because some ancestor bought stocks and bonds and passed them on to him. Under Socialism there will be no drain on productivity such as is furnished by the present abuses of capitalism. If we were to throw the wealth into the air and let the people race after it, we should have better distribution than at present.”

Source:  Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LVIII, Number 105, 16 February 1915, pp. 1, 6.

Image Source: Morris Hillquit from Bain News Service (July 25, 1924) original glass negative, digitized by the Library of Congress.

 

 

 

Categories
Barnard Columbia Economics Programs Gender Undergraduate

Columbia. Splitting the costs. Department of Economics v. Barnard College, 1906-9

 

The growing pains of the modern university can be seen in attempts to mould ad hoc understandings made earlier into long-term, binding, and explicit rules and regulations. We see this in E. R. A. Seligman’s untiring reminders to the Columbia University central administration and to Barnard College deans as to how to manage the legacy of having first hired John Bates Clark to fill a Barnard position while swapping Clark Barnard hours with the Department of Economics in the Faculty of Political Science hours, either by having department professors offer courses in Barnard College or by allowing Barnard women to take Columbia College or graduate courses. It was complicated, leaving plenty of room for misunderstandings. Seligman can be seen in the following memo and letters to have been one smooth intra-university operator. Still we come away (at least hearing his side of the story) that he would neither give nor take an inch. His motto apparently: Pacta sunt servanda.

____________________

MEMORANDUM AS TO PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN BARNARD COLEGE AND COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN RESPECT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS. [Carbon copy, 1906]

I. HISTORICAL STATEMENT.

In 1895 a friend of Barnard College established for three years the Professorship of History and the Professorship of Economics, on the understanding that each of these departments should offer a corresponding amount of separate instruction to Barnard seniors and graduates, and that the Barnard Corporation would endeavor to maintain these Professorships after the expiration of such term. It was arranged that these professors should lecture at Columbia as well as at Barnard, and that for every course given by them at Columbia, a course should be given at Barnard by them or their departmental associates. The normal number of lectures by a professor was fixed at six; so that the Professor of Economics gave 2 hours at Barnard, the other four being supplied by his colleagues.

In 1898 Barnard College agreed to continue those professorships; and as a recognition of the action of the Barnard Trustees, the Faculty of Political Science decided to open to women holding a first degree, the graduate courses in History and Economics.

When Barnard College was incorporated into the educational system of the University, this arrangement was perpetuated. The 5th and 6th Sections of the Agreement of June 15, 1900, read in part, as follows:

“On and after January 1st, 1904, all of the instruction for women leading to the degree of B.A. shall be given separately in Barnard College……Barnard College will assume as rapidly as possible all of the instruction for women in the Senior year ****** and undertakes to maintain every professorship established thereof or an equivalent therefor shall be rendered in Barnard College; and when means allow, establish additional professorships in the University which shall be open to men and women, to the end that opportunities for higher education may be enlarged for both men and women.

The University will accept women who have taken their first degree on the same terms as men, as students of the University and as candidates for the degree of M.A. and Ph.D. under the Faculty of Philosophy, Political Science and Pure Science, in such courses as have been or may be designated by those Faculties, with the consent of those delivering the courses.

From the foregoing it is clear that so far as the Faculty of Political Science is concerned the opening of the University courses to women was in return for the establishment and maintenance of the professorships, and Barnard College thus declared itself ready to pay one-third of the salary of the professors of Economics, at that time three in number. In addition, Barnard College paid for the Junior work under the Department of Economics.

On this basis the whole system has reposed and has been continued. Changes in the personnel have been made in the mean time, and the instruction given to Juniors by the Department of Economics has been strengthened. Two professors, (or as during this year a professor and an instructor) have taken the place of what was originally an assistant. These changes, which called for an additional outlay on the part of Barnard College, were made with the consent of Barnard.

The Department of Economics and Social Science as it existed up to last spring, has kept strictly to the letter of the agreement. At an earlier period Professor Giddings had agreed to give at Barnard College a course in sociology in return for a suitable compensation. In 1900, however, he ceased to be paid an additional sum and his two hours were counted with the consent of Barnard College toward the six due from the Department, the other four being provided by Professors Seligman and Clark. In 1902 two additional hours were given at Barnard College by the new instructor, Professor Moore. Since then the Department has provided six hours of instruction at Barnard College, (two hours by Professor Clark, two by Professor Seager, and two by Professor Giddings.) It has given an additional two hours by Professor Moore to the Seniors, and it has put the Junior work in the hands of Professors Moore and Johnson (this year [word torn off from corner] Moore and Dr. Whitaker.) Every course given to the Columbia College undergraduates is duplicated at Barnard College, with the exception that it seemed unwise to the Barnard authorities to give the course on Taxation and Finance as being somewhat too remote from the interests of the Barnard undergraduates. The substance of this course is however included in that given by Professor Seager. This explains the fact that 12 hours are given at Barnard College whereas 14 hours are given at Columbia College. This arrangement was made with the consent of the Barnard authorities. In 1906 again with the consent of Barnard College, Barnard Seniors were admitted to the course of Prof. Giddings at Columbia, the Barnard course being discontinued. This arrangement has, however, not yet received the permanent sanction of the Faculty of Political Science.

Although Barnard College is not only getting all that was bargained for at the time, and although it has in addition the services of a full professor for both Senior and Junior work (Prof. Moore.), and although the proportion of the original expense of the Department of Economics paid by Barnard College was at the outset considerably over e4%,–being one-third of the salaries of the professors plus a payment for the Junior work, the proportion of the total expense of the Department of Economics and Social Science borne by Barnard College has now been reduced to 29.19%, Barnard paying at present $8350 out of a total budget of $28,600.

 

Barnard pays:

Columbia pays:
Seligman $5000
Giddings $5000
Seager $3500
Moore $1750
Clark $5000 Devine $3500 University Courses
Moore $1750 Simkhovitch $500
Whitaker $1600 Tenney $1000
$8350 $20250 Total $28600

 

In other words Barnard College receives more than it originally did and pays proportionately less.

 

II. WHAT SHOULD BE THE SHARE OF BARNARD COLLEGE.

Up to the year 199[blank] Barnard College made a money contribution to Columbia for each of the women graduate students enrolled, under the Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy, and Pure Science. In that year the money contribution was abandoned, and since then women graduate students have paid their fees directly to Columbia. It might be claimed by Barnard College that this new arrangement absolved it in future from all financial responsibility for or interest in the purely university (graduate) work. This claim is however, negatived by the provisions of the agreement of June 15, 1900 still in force, whereby Barnard College obligated itself to “maintain every professorship established at its instance” and to “establish additional professorships in the University upon foundations providing for courses which shall be open to men and women.” These contractual obligations are in no wise impaired or weakened by the modification subsequently introduced in the method of payment of fees by women students.

It might again be claimed that the financial obligations of Barnard are reduced whenever a Senior course, hitherto repeated at Barnard, is given only at Columbia, but open to Barnard Seniors. This claim, however, is likewise inadmissible if the change be made by and with the consent of Barnard College. For as long as the Barnard undergraduates receive the instruction, and as long as the Barnard authorities consent for any reason, that this instruction be given at Columbia, the financial obligation cannot be deemed to be impaired. As a matter of fact, this situation has not permanently arisen in the department of Economics and Social Science. In only one case, that of the Senior course by Professor Giddings, has a purely provisional arrangement been made for the year 1906-’07, with the understanding and the express statement on the part of the Barnard authorities that this would make no difference whatever in the financial arrangement for the year. It was on this understanding that the scheme was provisionally ratified by the Faculty of Political Science.

No opinion is here expressed by the Department of Economics as to the desirability of opening Senior courses at Columbia to Barnard students. It may be that for pedagogical reasons it is desirable in some cases to repeat courses at Barnard, or in other cases to admit Barnard Seniors to the Columbia courses. It may also be desirable to utilize the services of a professor, hitherto repeating a Senior course at Barnard for instruction in one of the lower classes at Barnard. But whatever decision may be reached by the Barnard authorities in conjunction with the Department of Economics, it is clear that this will not change the financial obligations of Barnard, as long as the Barnard undergraduates receive the same amount of instruction as before.

If it be maintained that the existing contract should be abrogated, the question arises: What share should Barnard College in equity contribute to the expenses of the Department? This question may be discussed on the basis of the number of hours given by the members of the department at Barnard College, at Columbia College, and in the University courses which are open to men and women graduates.

In any such computation it must be recognized that some part of the cost of the graduate instruction should be borne by Barnard College. For, irrespective of the existing contract, it cannot be claimed that women ever possessed a right to share in the advantages offered by an institution, originally established and endowed for the instruction of men without making some proportionate contribution to the support of that institution. The force of this argument is strengthened when it is remembered that every student costs the University more than he or she pays and that every increase in the student body entails the necessity of increasing the teaching course and of providing additional lecture rooms, educational appliances and library facilities.

It is for this reason that in any estimate of the share of the University expenses which is to be borne by Barnard College, a proportionate share of the expense of graduate instruction should be allotted to that institution.

On this assumption, the figures would be as follows:

 

Hours given

Barnard College

 Columbia College

University
Clark

2

 2 (109-110)

3 (205-6 & 291)
Seligman

—

 3 (1 & 101-102)

3 (203-4 & 292)
Seager

2

 2 (105-106)

2 (233 & 289)
Moore

3

 1 (104)

2 (210 & 255)
Whitaker

3

 4 (1-2)

—
Giddings

2

 2 (151-152)

3 (251-2 & 279)

12

 14

13

 

For undergraduate instruction

For Professors giving undergraduate instruction

Barnard pays:

Columbia pays:
Seligman

$5000
Clark

$5000

 Moore

$1750
Moore

$1750

 Seager

$3500
Whitaker

$1600

 Giddings

$5000

$8350

$15250

 =Total $23600
In addition Columbia pays for Purely University work

$5000
Grand Total

$28600

Total hours given as above by Professors giving undergraduate instruction = 41.

There is thus chargeable to:

The University 15/41 of $23600 = $8635 + $5000 = $13,635
Columbia College 14/41 of $23600 = $8,058
Barnard College should pay 12/41 of $23,600= $6907
                                                + 1/3 of $13,635= $4543[sic]
$11450

 

Barnard gets 12 hours to Columbia’s 14 and both share equally in the University work, although Barnard is here charged with only 1/3, not ½ of the purely university expenses. Yet Barnard pays $8350 instead of $11,450.

In the above computation Barnard College is charged with 1/3 of the purely university instruction because this was the proportion as arranged when the original professorship was established. On the basis, however, of the actual enrolment of women students the obligation of Barnard College would be slightly less. In the year 1906-07 there re-enrolled (not counting duplicates) in the purely university courses 60 women out of 251 students or 23.90%, i.e. roughly ¼. The contribution of Barnard College on this basis ought then to be: 12/41 of $23,600 = $6,907 + ¼ of $13,635 = $3,490 [sic, should be $3409] or a total of $10,316 in lieu of $8350, the present payment.

 

III. THE REDUCTION CONTEMPLATED BY BARNARD COLLEGE.

Although the authorities of Barnard College have not yet formulated any definite scheme it is understood that they have in contemplation a plan which calls on the one hand for a considerable reduction of the contribution, and on the other hand, the opening to Barnard Seniors of several Senior courses at Columbia College to make good the reduced facilities at Barnard College. In other words, Barnard College does not propose more opportunities with the same contribution as hitherto, nor does it demand the same opportunities with a smaller contribution; but it suggests more opportunities with a smaller contribution.

In considering the contemplated proposition of Barnard College it must finally be remembered that the Department of Economics has been built up on the assumption that the original scheme would be adhered to. All the instructors giving courses in Barnard College have been called with the advice and consent of Barnard College. Some of them have been put in part on the Barnard salary list. The contractual obligation “to maintain the professorships established at its instance” clearly attaches to the new professorships, which were established in 1902 in the department of Economics at the joint instance and expense of Barnard and Columbia. Any financial comparison between the Department of Economics and other departments on the basis of relative hours of instruction given at Barnard College is not pertinent in view of the contractual obligations hereinbefore recited. Barnard College entered at the outset into a definite contractual relation which has been perpetuated by the agreement of 1900 and which has not been impaired by the minor changes of 190[blank] hereinbefore referred to. Above all, the admission of women to university courses was arranged as a quid pro quo, and is specifically restricted in the agreement of 1900 to such courses “as have been or may be designated by these Faculties, with the consent of those delivering the courses”.

It is sincerely hoped that no action will be taken that might imperil this arrangement and that Barnard College may see its way, if not to make what it here suggested as an equitable contribution, at all events to maintain the status quo so that on the one hand Columbia may not be made to assume a still heavier burden, or that on the other hand the department of Economics may not be seriously crippled in its endeavor to provide adequate instruction at Columbia and Barnard alike.

Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Papers of Edwin Robert Anderson Seligman. Box 36, Folder “Barnard 36-37”.

____________________

Letter of Seligman to Gill [carbon copy]

New York, December 30, 1906.

Miss Laura D. Gill, Dean,
Barnard College, Columbia University
New York City.

My dear Miss Gill:

Your letter of December 13th was received shortly before the Holidays. In reply, I would say that several weeks ago, at the request of the University authorities I submitted to the Committee on Education of Columbia University a detailed memorandum giving facts and suggestions as to the financial arrangements between Barnard College and Columbia University so far as the Department of Economics is concerned. That matter has now passed out of my hands entirely.

Let me however call your attention to the fact that these suggestions contained in your letter will require action not alone by the Department of Economics, but also by the Faculty of Political Science, as well as by the Faculty of Columbia College. If the recommendation contained in my memorandum to the Trustees were carried out, I think that I could urge the Department of Economics to prevail upon the Faculties concerned to take action in accordance with your wishes; but I am quite decidedly of the opinion that until some definitive financial arrangement is entered into between Barnard College and Columbia University, so far as the Department of Economics is concerned, it will be hopeless for the Department of Economics to expect any action whatever on the part of the Faculties concerned; and without such action nothing could of course be done.

Again assuring you of my readiness to co-operate with you and to take up the matter with the Department and with the respective Faculties as soon as we can learn from the Committee on Education what the financial arrangements are for next year,

I remain
Very respectfully yours

[E.R.A. Seligman]

 

Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Central Files 1890-. Box 338, Folder 13 “Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson 7/1904-12/1910”.

____________________

President Butler to Seligman [carbon copy]

December 28, 1908

Professor E. R. A. Seligman,
324 West 86 Street,
New York

My dear Professor Seligman:

I beg to hand you for your information an important letter which I have received today from the Acting Dean of Barnard College. Mr. Brewster points out that Barnard, under the present arrangement, is not securing its just due in the matter of economics teaching. Will you give this matter your attention and offer such suggestions as seem to you appropriate as to how the situation can be bettered?

Very truly yours,
President

 

Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Central Files 1890-. Box 338, Folder 13 “Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson 7/1904-12/1910”.

____________________

Seligman to President Butler

Columbia University
in the City of New York
School of Political Science

January 4, 1909

President Nicholas Murray Butler,
Columbia University, City.

My dear President Butler:

In reply to your letter of December 24th, 1908, I take pleasure in stating that I had a very satisfactory talk with Acting Dean Brewster a few days ago. I am enclosing to you herewith copy of the letter which I have sent to him as to the historical development, and which explains itself.

As to the new scheme, permit me to state that in my Budget letter I assumed that there would be hereafter in the second term in the Junior course at Barnard, four sections, as is now the case in the first term. It was on that assumption that I made the recommendations as to assistants.

I quite agree with Acting Dean Brewster that if the situation is to remain as at present, namely, nine hours in the first term and five hours in the second term, the new Adjunct Professor will be entirely competent to take charge of this. That would mean an average of seven hours per week, and as he is to do three hours’ work at Columbia that would mean a total of ten hours per week, which is not excessive. This would, however, reduce the Budget at Barnard from $2,700 to $2,500.

On the other hand, if, as there now seems to be some possibility, the Committee on Instruction of Barnard College decides to make the second term work nine hours (with four sections) the Acting Dean of Barnard agrees with me that the work will be a little too much for one man, and that he ought to have the aid of at all events the part time of an assistant.

Upon the decision to be reached, however, depends therefore the final recommendation of the Department for the assistants in the University as a whole. If no assistance is required at Barnard College the Department of Economics will be able to get on, although with some difficulty, with one high-class tutor, for his work will be to take charge not only of three of the four sections at Columbia, but also of the three new sections in the School of Mines, and this would mean the assumption by Columbia of his salary of $1,000. On the other hand, if the additional work is taken up at Barnard, it will be imperative to have a second man as assistant, at a salary of $500., as the amount of work to be done will be entirely too much for one tutor. We should then arrive at the final conclusion reached in my original Budget letter, which is the employment of two men, at a joint salary of $1,500., in addition to the new Adjunct Professor. What part of this salary of $1,500 is to be paid by Barnard, is, of course a matter on which I am not asked to express an opinion.

Permit me to say in conclusion that I am deeply sensible of the cordial way in which the Acting Dean of Barnard has accepted the propositions of the Department for the improvement of the work. Under the scheme as outlined not only will the work be, I think, entirely satisfactory to the authorities of Barnard College, but it will also be a considerable improvement at Columbia. The Department of Economics will be very glad indeed to adjust itself to whichever of the two alternative schemes may be adopted by Barnard: the one being the maintenance of the present situation calling for an appropriation for assistants of $1,000., to be paid entirely by Columbia, the other—involving additional work at Barnard—calling for an appropriation of $1,500 for assistants, to be defrayed in part by Barnard College.

Respectfully submitted,
[signed]
Edwin R. A. Seligman

Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Central Files 1890-. Box 338, Folder 13 “Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson 7/1904-12/1910”.

____________________

Seligman to Brewster [carbon copy]

January 4, 1909

Professor William T. Brewster,
Acting Dean, Barnard College, City.

My dear Sir:

I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of a letter of December 24, 1908, from President Butler, enclosing your letter of December 23, 1908, in which you refer to the courses offered by the Department of Economics at Barnard College.

As the existing situation is the result of steps taken by the administrative authorities of Barnard College and Columbia University, and as these agreements and instructions were never embodied in formal written documents, I venture to send you a written statement of the history of the case, in the hope that this letter may be put on file with the original agreement, in order that the question as to the interpretation of the original agreement may be settled, if it should again arise in the future.

The original agreement made with Professor Clark and the Faculty of Political Science, when he was called to the University in 1895, was to the effect that for every hour given by him at Columbia a member of the existing Columbia staff should give an hour at Barnard College. Under this agreement it was arranged that Professor Clark should give two hours at Barnard and four hours at Columbia. Of the four exchange hours due to Barnard, two were given by Professor Giddings and two by Professor Seligman. Several years later, when Professor Seager was called to Columbia, he took the courses previously given by Professor Seligman.

In the year 1905 when the Chair of the History of Civilization was founded at Columbia University, an arrangement was effected between the Dean of Barnard and the President of Columbia University, whereby the two hour course of Professor Giddings, given at Barnard, was transferred to Columbia, the Columbia course being now, however, open to Barnard students. This was recognized as a substantial equivalence, and since that time the Barnard students have been coming to Professor Giddings’ course at Columbia.

When Professor Henry L. Moore was called to the University in 1902 an arrangement was made whereby a portion of his work was to be done at Barnard in return for the payment of aa portion of his salary b Barnard College. Under this arrangement Professor Moore offered a two hour course to the Seniors at Barnard College, and took general supervision of the Junior work in Economics, which was, however, actually carried on by assistants. Several years later, as the Junior work at Barnard was not entirely satisfactory, the Dean of Barnard College suggested that Professor Moore give up his Senior course and in exchange take an active part in the lecturing and teaching of the Juniors at Barnard. This suggestion was adopted, and as the number of sections gradually increased at Barnard the work was finally divided between Professor Moore and two assistants, the class being divided into four sections in the first term and into two sections in the second term. As a compensation for the Senior course which was now dropped by Professor Moore, the Dean of Barnard College suggested that courses 107-108, given by Professor Seligman at Columbia University be open to Barnard students. This suggestion was adopted by the Department, and ratified by the Columbia Faculty, and has continued ever since.

What I desire especially to emphasize is the fact that in no case did the initiative for any of these changes come from the Department of Economics, but that in every case the initiative came either from the Dean of Barnard College or from the President of Columbia University in conjunction with the Dean of Barnard College. The Department of Economics has been at all times willing and anxious to live up to the terms of the original and supplemental agreements, and has in every case been glad to adopt the suggestions of the authorities of Barnard College. It so happens that during the present year Professor Seager is on his Sabbatical leave of absence, and that Courses 107-108 were not given at Columbia; but this is an exceptional situation, including the $5,000 salary of Professor Clark, with the corresponding work given in exchange at Barnard, the number of hours of instruction given at Barnard are economics A, 9 hours, Economics 4, 5 hours, or an annual average of seven hours per week. The salary list has been $2,700.,–$1,700 for Professor Moore and $1,000 for two assistants. This is an average of less than $400 per hour, and if we include Courses 107-108 at Columbia, which were open to the Barnard students when the supplemental agreement was made, it would reduce the cost per year to considerably less than $400, which I understand is the average in other Departments.

The new scheme of courses which has been elaborated by the Dean of Barnard College to take effect next year, meets with the entire approval of the Department of Economics, and is outlined in another letter a copy of which I have the honor of submitting herewith. I venture to hope, however, that this statement of the historical development of the situation may be put on file, in order to show that the Department of Economics has at all times endeavored to abide loyally by the spirit of the agreement between Barnard College and Columbia University.

Respectfully submitted,
[stamped signature: Edwin R. A. Seligman]

 

Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Central Files 1890-. Box 338, Folder 13 “Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson 7/1904-12/1910”.

Image Source:  Barnard College, Columbia University. Boston Public Library, The Tichnor Brothers Collection.

 

 

 

Categories
Columbia Gender

Columbia. Faculty of Political Science Not Yet Supporting Admission of Women, 1892

 

It is not clear whether the undersigned were actually against the admission of women to the graduate courses offered by the Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University in 1892 or procedural sticklers navigating troubled waters (or both). In any event, this is a pretty curious document.

___________________

Names, Ranks, and Fields of Signers

Edmund Munroe Smith, Professor of Roman Law and Comparative Jurisprudence
Frank J. Goodnow, Professor of Administrative Law
Edwin R. A. Seligman, Professor of Political Economy and Finance and Secretary of the Faculty
William A. Dunning, Adjunct Professor of History
John Bassett Moore, Professor of History and Political Philosophy
Herbert L. Osgood, Adjunct Professor of History

___________________

Admission Interruptus

Columbia College
In the City of New York
School of
Political Science

Jan. 15, 1892

Seth Low, LL.D.,
President of Columbia College.

Dear Sir:

We, the undersigned members of the Faculty of Political Science, desire to withdraw for the present our assent, given separately and without consultation, to the admission of women to our University courses. It is evident to us, on reflection, that the admission of women to certain courses makes it very difficult to exclude them from any, and that the assent of each professor in so far prejudices the decision of all: and we think that a change of policy of such importance should be made only by the Faculty, and after general and full discussion.

We see moreover the possibility of great detriment to the work of the School of Political Science if this question should be determined without a degree of harmony in the Faculty which does not as yet exist.

Yours respectfully,
[signed]
Munroe Smith
Frank J. Goodnow
Edwin R. A. Seligman
Wm. A. Dunning
J. B. Moore
Herbert L. Osgood

Source: Columbia University, Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Columbia University Archives. Central Files 1890-. Box 339. Folder: “1.1.19; Smith, Munroe; 5/1891-11/1909”.

 

 

Categories
Chicago Columbia Cornell Economics Programs Harvard Johns Hopkins Wisconsin Yale

Graduate economics enrollments in the seven leading departments (U.S.), 1909

 

The following tabulation of enrolled graduate students in economics and sociology at Columbia University and its “six leading competitors” in 1909 is striking because of  1) the modest scale of the graduate enrollments and 2) the fact that economics and sociology are reported together (an indication of their continued academic proximity). 

Ouch:  Due diligence in avoiding posting a second copy of an archival artifact was wanting. Jan 30, 2016 was the first time I transcribed and posted this artifact.

_______________

Letter from E.R.A. Seligman to Chairman of the Trustees of Columbia University

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

My dear Sir:

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

Faithfully yours
[Stamp] Edwin R. A. Seligman

(Enclosure)

To Mr. George L. Rives,
New York City

*  * *  *  *  *

 

STUDENTS WITH DEGREES ENROLLED IN
GRADUATE COURSES, Dec. 1909

Economics

 Sociology

Total of Economics and Sociology
Harvard

27

 —

27
Yale

16

 12

28
Cornell

10

 4

14
Johns-Hopkins

12*

 —

12*
Chicago

12

 19

31
Wisconsin

22

 4

26
Total in the 6 universities

99

 39

138
 

Columbia

  

67

  

71

  

138

*including duplications.

 

Source:  Columbia University Rare Book and ManuscriptLibrary. Columbia University Archives. Central Files, 1890-. Box 338. Folder “2/5; Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson; 7/1904-12/1910”.

Image Source:  The Library of Columbia University, New York. H.C. White Co., Publishers, 1909. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540.

 

Categories
Columbia Rochester

Columbia. Economics PhD Alumnus, Meyer Jacobstein, 1907

 

Today in our continuing historical series “Get to know an economics Ph.D.”, we meet Meyer Jacobstein (1880-1963), a Columbia University Ph.D. (1907) who, before serving as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives (1923-1929), taught economics at the University of North Dakota and the University of Rochester.

Jacobstein’s disssertation was published by the Columbia Faculty of Political Science in its house journal:

Meyer Jacobstein. The Tobacco Industry in the United States. Studies in History, Economics and Public Law (Vol. XXVI, No. 3), 1907.

In his introduction Jacobstein thanks E.R.A. Seligman, H. R. Seager and H.L. Moore for criticism and suggestions.

______________

From: Columbia University Catalogue of Officers and Graduates

Meyer Jacobstein, A.B., 05; A. M., 05; Ph. D, 07; Asst. Prof. Univ. N. Dak. (University, N. Dak.)

Source:  Catalogue of Officers and Graduates of Columbia University from the Foundation of King’s college in 1754.(XVI edition, 1916), p. 200.

______________

From: Biographical Director of the U.S. Congress

JACOBSTEIN, Meyer, a Representative from New York; born in New York City, January 25, 1880; moved with his parents to Rochester, N.Y., in 1882; attended the public schools and the University of Rochester, Rochester, N.Y.; was graduated from Columbia University, New York City, in 1904; pursued postgraduate courses at the same university in economics and political science; special agent in the Bureau of Corporations, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., in 1907; assistant professor of economics, University of North Dakota at Grand Forks 1909-1913; professor of economics in the University of Rochester 1913-1918; was a director in emergency employment management at the University of Rochester under the auspices of the War Industry Board 1916-1918; elected as a Democrat to the Sixty-eighth, Sixty-ninth, and Seventieth Congresses (March 4, 1923-March 3, 1929); was not a candidate for renomination in 1928; delegate to the Democratic National Conventions in 1924 and 1932; declined the nomination of mayor of Rochester, N.Y., in 1925; engaged in banking in Rochester, N.Y., 1929-1936; in 1936 became chairman of the board of the Rochester Business Institute; member of the Brookings Institution staff 1939-1946; economic counsel in the legislative reference service of the Library of Congress from 1947 until his retirement May 31, 1952; resided in Rochester, N.Y., until his death there on April 18, 1963; interment in Mount Hope Cemetery.

Source: Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.

______________

Obituary

Dr. Meyer Jacobstein, Noted Economist and Educator, Dies in Rochester
(Apr. 21, 1963)

Funeral services were held here for Dr. Meyer Jacobstein, former member of the U.S. Congress, college professor and publisher of the Rochester Journal-American, who died last Thursday at the age of 83.

Born in New York, Dr. Jacobstein spent most of his life in Rochester. He was elected in 1922 to Congress on the Democratic ticket, and was the second Democratic representative from the 38th Congressional District since the Civil War. He was reelected twice but chose not to run in 1928. He was assistant professor of economics in the University of North Dakota from 1909 until 1913. In 1913 he joined the faculty of the University of Rochester as professor of economics.

Dr. Jacobstein was publisher of The Journal American here, from 1924 until the newspaper suspended in 1937. He then became a research consultant for the Brookings Institute in Washington. In 1944, he was director of a Senate special committee on postwar economic policy and planning. He retired from public life in 1957, after completing a one-year study of Rochester employment at the request of Governor Averell Harriman. He is survived by his widow, Lena (Lipsky), two daughters and eight grandchildren.

Source: Jewish Telegraphic Agency, April 22, 1963.

______________

Image Source: Campaign button from U.S. Congress, History of the House website; Meyer Jacobstein in Wikipedia.

Categories
Columbia Curriculum Gender Undergraduate

Columbia. Economics and social science curriculum as of Dec. 1898

Columbia 1890-1898

 

One of the duller parts of my project that covers roughly a century’s development (1870-1970) of undergraduate and graduate economics education is gathering information on the nuts-and-bolts of curriculum structure. Today, looking at a report of the Faculty of Political Science published in the December 1898 issue of Columbia University Quarterly, I saw the announcement that 1898-99 was the first time that women were admitted to graduate courses in history and economics. The report also presented an easy to follow outline of the four or five year curriculum in economics and the social sciences. The idea behind the curriculum was to provide an orderly and logical sequence of courses, yet with sufficient flexibility to serve the needs of undergraduates, graduates (a.k.a. specialists), and special students (those from outside the Faculty of Political Science).

_____________________________

Other Relevant Columbia University Artifacts

_____________________________

Highlights from the December 1898 report of the Faculty of Political Science

“For the first time in its history women are admitted to its courses in history and economics, but only women who are graduates and who are competent to carry on the work of the courses. No women are admitted as special students or to the courses given to the undergraduates, the idea being to put the women graduate students on the same footing as the men, giving them the same opportunities.” p. 75.

“Several new volumes in the series of Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law are now completed, including volumes eight and nine. These studies comprise the most successful of the dissertations which are submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the doctor’s degree.”

Economics and social science curriculum (four or five years)

“Columbia University has attempted thus to formulate in the Department of Economics and Social Science a programme that shall be systematic, in the sense of orderly development and logical sequence (the course covers four or five years), and at the same time flexible, for the purpose of meeting the just demands of a great variety of students—the undergraduate, the specialist, and the special student.” p. 77.

Junior year economics:

“The undergraduate begins with the Economic History of England and America (Economics 1), which gives him that understanding of the evolution of economic institutions, such as the systems of land tenure, the factory system, the institutions of commerce and trade, which is necessary for any approach to economic discussion. That is followed by the Elements of Political Economy (Economics A), where the fundamental principles of the science are laid down and illustrated by contemporary events. These courses are usually taken during the Junior year, but may be taken a year earlier by students desiring to specialize in this direction. The lettered course is required of every student, and is in the nature of logical discipline for clear reasoning and a preparation for good citizenship. The College is held thereby to have discharged its duty to itself, in fulfilling the minimum required for the degree of A.B., and to the community, in inculcating sound principles in its graduates.” p. 76.

Senior year economics:

“For the majority of undergraduates these courses are but the preliminary sketch, the details of which are to be filled out by the more intensive study of Senior year. For this abundant opportunity is offered in the course on modern industrial problems, money, and labor (Economics 3), in the treatment of finance and taxation (Economics 4) and in the critical consideration of theories of socialism and projects of social reform (Economics 10 and 11). At the same time the elements of sociology (Sociology 15) furnish a broader foundation for generalization in regard to the fundamental principles of social life, and afford the student on the eve of graduation an opportunity to coordinate his knowledge of history, economics, philosophy, and ethics into a theory of society.

These courses of Senior year constitute the fundamental university courses, and are frequented by graduates of other colleges and by many students from the law school, the theological seminaries, and Teachers College, who find them valuable as auxiliary to their main lines of study. For the specialist and special student these courses in their turn are preliminary. They form the introduction to the university courses proper.” pp. 76-77.

Graduate (or specialist) economics:

“Here the specialist finds opportunity for development in economic theory (Economics 8, 9, and 10) and for further practical work (Economics 5 and 7), for sociological theory (Sociology 20, 21, and 25), for the treatment of problems of crime and pauperism (Sociology 22 and 23). and for the theory and practice of statistics as an instrument of investigation in all the social sciences (Sociology 17, 18, and 19). Crowning the whole are the seminars in political economy and sociology, and the statistical laboratory, where the student is trained for original work.” p. 77.

_____________________________

Faculty of Political Science
[Full Report for Dec. 1898 Columbia University Quarterly]

Department of History.—The late war seems to have had its effect on educational matters, and several resulting tendencies have been particularly marked at Columbia University. Thus, in the School of Political Science the attendance of students in the course on the general principles of international law has been very large and much interest is being manifested in the subject. Ordinarily this course, as well as a number of others treating of kindred subjects, is given by Professor Moore, who is at present in the service of the United States government. In his absence the course is being conducted by Mr. Edmond Kelly, who has lectured before the school on numerous occasions. Professor Moore’s course on diplomatic history is now being given by Dr. Frederic Bancroft, formerly librarian of the State Department, and a former lecturer in this Faculty.

The Faculty of Political Science has commenced the term with every indication of a most prosperous year. For the first time in its history women are admitted to its courses in history and economics, but only women who are graduates and who are competent to carry on the work of the courses. No women are admitted as special students or to the courses given to the undergraduates, the idea being to put the women graduate students on the same footing as the men, giving them the same opportunities.

The number of publications from the members of this faculty is constantly increasing, and several important works have recently been published or are in preparation. The Macmillan Company will soon publish Professor John B. Clark’s two-volume work on the distribution of wealth and the new edition of Professor Seligman’s Shifting and Incidence of Taxation. Several new volumes in the series of Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law are now completed, including volumes eight and nine. These studies comprise the most successful of the dissertations which are submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the doctor’s degree. Professor Robinson has just published a volume entitled Petrarch’s Letters, and Professor Munroe Smith’s Study of Bismarck has been issued from the University Press.

As Wednesday, October 19, was appointed Lafayette Day, President Low arranged for an address on “The Life and Services to this Country of Lafayette,” by Professor J. H. Robinson.

The department of history has enrolled about four hundred students from Columbia and Barnard. It offers a total of thirty-three courses. The new circular which explains fully its resources and gives a detailed account of its work can be had on application to the Secretary of the University. Professor Dunning is absent on leave. He is spending the winter in Rome, engaged in certain researches connected with the history of political theories and ancient institutions.

W. M. S. [William M. Sloane]

 

Department of Economics and Social Science.—The courses in this department have been so systematized as to meet the needs of both undergraduate and graduate students, while offering to other members of the University and of allied institutions the opportunity to broaden their studies by some knowledge of social theory and social problems.

The undergraduate begins with the Economic History of England and America (Economics 1), which gives him that understanding of the evolution of economic institutions, such as the systems of land tenure, the factory system, the institutions of commerce and trade, which is necessary for any approach to economic discussion. That is followed by the Elements of Political Economy (Economics A), where the fundamental principles of the science are laid down and illustrated by contemporary events. These courses are usually taken during the Junior year, but may be taken a year earlier by students desiring to specialize in this direction. The lettered course is required of every student, and is in the nature of logical discipline for clear reasoning and a preparation for good citizenship. The College is held thereby to have discharged its duty to itself, in fulfilling the minimum required for the degree of A.B., and to the community, in inculcating sound principles in its graduates.

For the majority of undergraduates these courses are but the preliminary sketch, the details of which are to be filled out by the more intensive study of Senior year. For this abundant opportunity is offered in the course on modern industrial problems, money, and labor (Economics 3), in the treatment of finance and taxation (Economics 4) and in the critical consideration of theories of socialism and projects of social reform (Economics 10 and 11). At the same time the elements of sociology (Sociology 15) furnish a broader foundation for generalization in regard to the fundamental principles of social life, and afford the student on the eve of graduation an opportunity to coordinate his knowledge of history, economics, philosophy, and ethics into a theory of society.

These courses of Senior year constitute the fundamental university courses, and are frequented by graduates of other colleges and by many students from the law school, the theological seminaries, and Teachers College, who find them valuable as auxiliary to their main lines of study. For the specialist and special student these courses in their turn are preliminary. They form the introduction to the university courses proper.

Here the specialist finds opportunity for development in economic theory (Economics 8, 9, and 10) and for further practical work (Economics 5 and 7), for sociological theory (Sociology 20, 21, and 25), for the treatment of problems of crime and pauperism (Sociology 22 and 23). and for the theory and practice of statistics as an instrument of investigation in all the social sciences (Sociology 17, 18, and 19). Crowning the whole are the seminars in political economy and sociology, and the statistical laboratory, where the student is trained for original work.

Columbia University has attempted thus to formulate in the Department of Economics and Social Science a programme that shall be systematic, in the sense of orderly development and logical sequence (the course covers four or five years), and at the same time flexible, for the purpose of meeting the just demands of a great variety of students—the undergraduate, the specialist, and the special student.

R. M.-S. [Richmond Mayo-Smith]

 Source: Columbia University Quarterly, Vol. 1 (December 1898), pp. 74-77.

Image Source:  Art and Picture Collection, The New York Public Library. (1890). Columbia University Retrieved from http://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47e0-cc6c-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99

 

Categories
Columbia Economists Harvard

Harvard. Career of A.M. in economics alumnus, Arthur Morgan Day (1867-1942)

 

This post began as a simple transcription of two typed pages that Alvin S. Johnson sent to Joseph Dorfman, who at the time was collecting material on the history of economics at Columbia University. The Columbia economics instructor who was the subject of Johnson’s letter, Arthur Morgan Day, was new to me, and I presume something of an unknown even to Joseph Dorfman. My curiosity sparked a chase through a variety of genealogical sources accessible at Ancestry.com, then a search through yearbooks of Barnard College and Columbia University catalogues at archive.org, and eventually a discovery of the reports of the Harvard Class of 1892 (available at hathitrust.org) that taken together provide us a fairly good account of Day’s life and career through age 55.

I have located only a single source that gives the year of his death: “Arthur Morgan Day (1867-1942)” in the National Cyclopaedia of American Biography. Vol. 31. New York: James T. White & Co., 1944.

_______________

Alvin Johnson’s recollection of Arthur Morgan Day at Columbia College

THE NEW SCHOOL
66 West 12th St. New York 11
[Tel.] Oregon 5-2700

July 17, 1951

Dear Joe Dorfman:

This is the best I can do on Day. If you don’t like it, throw it into the waste-basket.

Sincerely,
[signed]
Alvin Johnson

encl.

Dr. Joseph Dorfman
Faculty of Political Science
Columbia University
New York 27, N.Y.

[Handwritten addition by Johnson]

I’m trying to write
something on the
Faculty
AJ

* *  *  * *

Alvin Johnson’s attachment to his letter to Joseph Dorfman of July 17, 1951

When I presented myself to Dean Burgess for registration in November 1898 and announced that I wished to study economics, the Dean advised me to register for the Marshall course by Mayo-Smith, the course on History of Economics by E. R. A. Seligman, the course on theory by John Bates Clark. I confessed that my training had been in classics; that I had never attended a course, nor even a single lecture in economics. I asked whether I ought not to take the course in elementary economics, under an instructor, Arthur Morgan Day. No, said Dean Burgess, that course was only for undergraduate cubs, who had no desire to know economics. The Committee on College Requirements had seen fit to make a required course out of it; but a mature man would be wasting his time under Day.

I did not register for Day’s course. I’m sorry I did not. For Day was a true representative of the old, solid economics of Adam Smith and Malthus and Ricardo, of Senior and Cairnes and John Stuart Mill. He made shift to comprehend the marginal utilitarianism of Marshall, but it gave him no inspiration. He saw no advance in Clark’s theory and he regarded Seligman’s Historismus as merely a change of venue in economic reasoning.

Day detested me, for my ardent devotion to J. B. Clark, for my eager acceptance of Seligman’s wide explorations in all literatures. He pitied me for my destiny of going forth into the world equipped only with fluff and froth, with no sense of the grand old economists who looked facts in the face and wrote in language that the most unlicked cub of a business man could understand. When I was awarded a fellowship Day proposed that I should have the privilege of reading and grading all his examination papers, a privilege I was too immature to appreciate. The President of the University vetoed the proposal. I had my year of complete freedom, to follow my teachers, Clark and Seligman, with uncrippled ardor.

Yet I came to realize that Day was a better economist than we then assumed. It was not possible for him to follow the marginal utility calculus into a field of abstractions divorced from the comprehension of the ordinary citizen. Any man, however sodden in business thinking, could follow John Stuart Mill, agreeing, or most likely disagreeing. Only the intellectual elite could follow Menger and Wieser and Böhm[-]Bawerk, Marshall and Clark, Fisher and Fetter.

If Day were living he would find justification for his repugnance to the marginal utility theories. Keynes, an adept in marginal theory, shifted the emphasis from value to price.

Said Chesterfield, “In mixed company I always talk bawdy, for that is something in which all men can join.” Keynes always talked price. Day, prematurely, talked price, believed in talking price. There was no place for him in the marginal utility universe of talk, of those days. But I surmise, Day was a good deal of a man.

[signed]
Alvin Johnson

 

Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Joseph Dorfman Collection, Box 13, Folder “C.U. Dept.al history”.

_______________

From the Columbia College Catalogue, 1898-99

Economics A—Outlines of Economics—Recitations, lectures, and essays. 3 hours, second half-year. Professor Mayo-Smith and Mr. Day. [Economics A was required of juniors in the College, and open to sophomores who have taken economics I.]

Economics 1—Economic history of England America—Selected textbooks, recitations, essays, and lectures. 3 hours, first half-year. Professor Seligman and Mr. Day. [Economics I was open to juniors and qualified sophomores in the College.]

[Note: p. 11 under officers of instruction, Assistants. Address given as 128 West 103d Street.]

Source:  Columbia University in the City of New York. Catalogue 1898-99, p. 74.

_______________

1900 U.S. Census

Name: Arthur M Day
Age:    33
Birth Date:     Apr 1867
Birthplace:      Connecticut
Home in 1900:           Danbury, Fairfield, Connecticut
Ward of City: 2
Street: Westoria Avenue
House Number:          28
Race:   White
Gender:           Male
Relation to Head of House:   Son
Marital Status:           Single
Father’s name:            Josiah L Day
Father’s Birthplace:    New York
Mother’s name:          Ellen L Day
Mother’s Birthplace:  Connecticut
Occupation:    College Instructor
Months not employed:         0
Can Read:       Yes
Can Write:      Yes
Can Speak English:    Yes
Household Members:

Josiah L Day  60
Ellen L Day    58
Arthur M Day           33

_______________

From Mortarboard 1902
[Barnard College Yearbook]

Leisure Hours of Great Men
or
Intimate Glimpses of the World’s Workers at Play

Arthur Morgan Day

It is certainly pathetic
How he smothers the aesthetic
Under money, banking, trusts and corporations,
But he soothes his longing heart,
Studying dramatic art,
And high tragedy completes his aspirations.

Source: 1902 Mortarboard , p. 71.

_______________

From the Columbia Daily Spectator, 1902

Mr. Day Resigns

Mr. A. M. Day, Instructor in Economics, has resigned his position at Columbia to take a position on the new Tenement House Commission of New York City. He is to serve as one of two men to take charge of registration and compilation of statistics of tenement houses in the boroughs of Manhattan and Brooklyn. Mr. Henry Raymond Mussey, Fellow in the Department, has taken Mr. Day’s position as instructor in Economics for the time being. Mr. Mussey has already acquired much popularity and confidence among the students in his classes.

*  *  *  *  *

Congratulations for Mr. Day.

The members of the Course Economics I have sent the following message of congratulation to their instructor, upon his appointment as chief of the Bureau of Statistics of the New York City Tenement House Commission. “We the undersigned members of the course, Economics I, of the current University year, having heard with pleasure of the great honor which has been conferred upon our former instructor Mr. Arthur Morgan Day, desire to extend to him our sincere congratulations and to assure him of our best wishes for a successful career in his new office.

 

Source:  Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume XLV, Number 42, 21 March 1902, page 1.

_______________

From Harvard College Class of 1892 Reports

Arthur Morgan Day (1892)

[Joined the Harvard Class of 1892 in the junior year, received A.B. together with the degree of A.M.]
Honorable Mention: English Composition; Political Economy; History.

 

Source:  Secretary’s Report Harvard College Class of 1892, Number I, (1893), pp. 6, 27, 29.

 

*  *  *  *  *

Arthur Morgan Day (1896)

“1892-93, graduate student in History and Economics, H.U.; 1893-94, graduate student in History and Economics and assistant in History, H.U.; 1894-95, assistant in Economics, School of Political Science, Columbia College; 1895-96, assistant and lecturer in Economics, School of Political Science, Columbia College, and lecturer in Economics, Barnard College.”

Published “Syllabus of six lectures on ‘Money’ for Extension Department of Rutgers College, 1895.”

Delivered “six lectures on ‘Money,’ Univ. Ex. course, New Brunswick, N.J., December-January, 1894-95; two lectures on ‘Monetary Literature in U.S.’ in course of ‘Free Lectures to the People,’ under direction of Board of Education, N.Y.”

Source:  Secretary’s Report Harvard College Class of 1892, Number II, (1896), pp. 30-31.

*  *  *  *  *

Arthur Morgan Day (1902)

From 1892 to 1894 was graduate student in History and Economics at Harvard; 1893-4, was assistant in History at Harvard; 1894-1902, was successively assistant lecturer, and instructor in Economics at Columbia and Barnard Colleges, and also assistant editor of “Political Science Quarterly” and “Columbia University Quarterly “; in March, 1902, resigned from Columbia to become Registrar of the Tenement House Department of New York City for Brooklyn, Queens, and Richmond.

Has given numerous courses of lectures for the New York Board of Education; has lectured also in extension department of Rutgers College and in the Educational Alliance. Has published syllabi of lectures on “Money” and “Economic History”, signed reviews in the “Political Science Quarterly” and elsewhere, and editorials in a New York daily. Assisted in the preparation of Seligman’s “Essays in Taxation” and “Incidence of Taxation”, Giddings’ “Democracy and Empire “, Clark’s “Distribution of Wealth,” and the second edition (rewritten) of White’s “Money and Banking.”

Source:  Harvard College, Record of the Class of 1892. Secretary’s Report No. III for the Tenth Anniversary (1902),  pp. 46-47.

*  *  *  *  *

Arthur Morgan Day (1907)

Son of Josiah Lyon Day and Ellen Louisa (Baldwin) Day. Born at Danbury, Connecticut, April 12, 1867. Prepared for college at the Danbury High School.

Received A.M. in 1892. From 1892 to 1894 was a graduate student in History and Economics at Harvard; 1893-94, was Assistant in History at Harvard; 1894-1902, was successively Assistant, Lecturer, and Instructor in Economics at Columbia and Barnard Colleges; also Assistant Editor of Political Science Quarterly and Columbia University Quarterly; in March, 1902, resigned from Columbia to become Registrar of the Tenement House Department of New York City for Brooklyn, Queens, and Richmond. In May, 1902, resigned Registrarship to become Assistant to President of Manhattan Trust Co.; in July, 1903, was made Secretary and Treasurer of Casualty Company of America; in January, 1905, entered publicity business. Has published syllabi of lectures on “Money” and “Economic History,” signed reviews in the Political Science Quarterly and elsewhere, and editorials in a New York daily. Assisted in the preparation of Seligman’s “Essays in Taxation” and ” Incidence of Taxation,” Giddings’ “Democracy and Empire,” Clark’s “Distribution of Wealth,” and the second edition (rewritten) of White’s “Money and Banking.” Belongs to Harvard Club of New York.

Source:  Secretary’s Report for the Fifteenth Anniversary. Harvard College Class of 1892, Number IV, (1907), p.48.

*  *  *  *  *

Arthur Morgan Day (1912)

Son of Josiah Lyon Day and Ellen Louisa (Baldwin) Day. Born at Danbury, Connecticut, April 12, 1867. Prepared for college at the Danbury High School.

Attended Harvard 1888-92, A.B. and A.M.; Graduate School 1892-94.

1892 to 1894, graduate student in history and economics at Harvard; 1893-94, assistant in history at Harvard; 1894-1902, successively assistant, lecturer, and instructor in economics at Columbia and Barnard colleges; also assistant editor of Political Science Quarterly and Columbia University Quarterly; in March, 1902, resigned from Columbia to become registrar of the Tenement House Department of New York City for Brooklyn, Queens, and Richmond. In May, 1902, resigned registrarship to become assistant to president of Manhattan Trust Company; in July, 1903, was made secretary and treasurer of Casualty Company of America; in January, 1905, entered publicity business; in June, 1906, employed by United Gas Improvement Company of Philadelphia; in August, 1906, serious attack of typhoid caused long absence from business; in June, 1908, with Blair & Co., bankers, New York; in April, 1910, began independent work as financial agent for various clients; in January, 1912, entered bond department of Prudential Insurance Company at Newark. Has published syllabi of lectures on “Money” and “Economic History,” signed reviews in the Political Science Quarterly and elsewhere, and editorials in a New York daily. Assisted in the preparation of Seligman’s “Essays in Taxation” and “Incidence of Taxation,” Giddings’ “Democracy and Empire,” Clark’s “Distribution of Wealth,” and the second edition (rewritten) of White’s “Money and Banking.” Belongs to Harvard Club of New York.

Source:  Secretary’s Report for the Twentieth Anniversary. Harvard College Class of 1892, [Number V, (1912)], p.54.

*  *  *  *  *

Arthur Morgan Day (1917)

Born at Danbury, Conn., April 12, 1867. Son of Josiah Lyon and Ellen Louisa (Baldwin) Day. Prepared for College at Danbury High School, Danbury, Conn.

Attended Harvard:  1888-92; Graduate School, 1892-94.

Degrees: A.B. and A.M. 1892.

Occupation: Investments.

Address: (home) 28 Westville Ave., Danbury, Conn.; (business) 37 Wall St., New York, N.Y

FROM 1892 to 1894 I was a graduate student in history and economics at Harvard, and during 1893-94 I was assistant in history at Harvard. From 1894 to 1902 I was successively assistant, lecturer, and instructor in economics at Columbia and Barnard colleges; also assistant editor of the Political Science Quarterly and the Columbia University Quarterly. In March, 1902, I resigned from Columbia to become registrar of the Tenement House Department of New York City for Brooklyn, Queens, and Richmond. I held this position until May, 1903, when I resigned to become assistant to the president of the Manhattan Trust Company. In July, 1903, I was made secretary and treasurer of the Casualty Company of America; and in January, 1905, I entered publicity business. I was employed by the United Gas Improvement Company of Philadelphia in June, 1906, but a serious attack of typhoid fever in August of that year caused a long absence from business. In June, 1908, I was with Blair & Co., bankers, in New York, and in April, 1910, I began independent work as financial agent for various clients. In January, 1912, I entered the bond department of the Prudential Insurance Company at Newark, and since December 1, 1915, I have been with Wood, Struthers & Co., bankers, 37 Wall St., N. Y.

Publications: Syllabi of lectures on “Money” and “Economic History,” signed reviews in the Political Science Quarterly and elsewhere, and editorials in a New York daily. Assisted in the preparation of Seligman’s “Essays in Taxation” and “Incidence of Taxation,” Giddings’ “Democracy and Empire,” Clark’s “Distribution of Wealth,” and the second edition (rewritten) of White’s “Money and Banking.”

Clubs and Societies: Harvard Club of New York.

Source:  Secretary’s Report for the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary. Harvard College Class of 1892, Number VI, (1917), pp. 68-69. Includes Graduation picture.

*  *  *  *  *

Arthur Morgan Day (1922)

Born at Danbury, Conn., April 12, 1867. Son of Josiah Lyon and Ellen Louisa (Baldwin) Day. Prepared for College at Danbury High School, Danbury, Conn.

Attended Harvard: 1888-92; Graduate School, 1892-94.
Degrees: A.B. and A.M. 1892.

Occupation: Investments.
Address: (home) 152 Deer Hill Ave., Danbury, Conn.; (business) 5 Nassau St., New York, N.Y.

Since December 1, 1915, I have been with Wood, Struthers & Co., bankers, 5 Nassau Street, New York.

Clubs and Societies: Harvard Club of New York.

Source:  Harvard College Class of 1892, Thirtieth Anniversary Report, Number VIII, (1922), p. 70.
[note: Number IX, June 19-22, 1922 is the Supplementary Report of the Thirtieth Anniversary Celebration]

_______________

From the State of Connecticut, Military Census of 1917

State of Connecticut

By direction of an act of the Legislature of Connecticut, approved February 7th, 1917, I am required to procure certain information relative to the resources of the state. I therefore call upon you to answer the following questions.

MARCUS H. HOLCOMB, Governor.

TOWN or CITY: Danbury
DATE: March 4, 1917
POST OFFICE ADDRESS: 28 Westville Ave.

  1. What is your present Trade, Occupation or Profession ? Banking and Brokerage
  2. Have you experience in any other Trade, Occupation or Profession? College Professor
  3. What is your Age? 49
    Height? 5 ft 8 in
    Weight? 165
  4. Are your Married? Single? or Widower? Single
  5. How many persons are dependent on you for support? None wholly
  6. Are you a citizen of the United States? Yes
  7. If not a citizen of the United States have you taken out your first papers? [not applicable]
  8. If not a citizen of the United States, what is your nationality? [not applicable]
  9. Have you ever done any Military or Naval Service in this or any other Country? No
    Where? [not applicable]
    How Long? [not applicable]
    What Branch? [not applicable]
    Rank? [not applicable]
  10. Have you any serious physical disability? Yes
    If so, name it. Near sighted
  11. Can you do any of the following:
    Ride a horse? [No]
    Handle a team? [No]
    Drive an automobile? [No]
    Ride a motorcycle? [No]
    Understand telegraphy? [No]
    Operate a wireless? [No]
    Any experience with a steam engine? [No]
    Any experience with electrical machinery? [No]
    Handle a boat, power or sail? [No]
    Any experience in simple coastwise navigation? [No]
    Any experience with High Speed Marine Gasoline Engines? ? [No]
    Are you a good swimmer? [Yes]

I hereby certify that I have personally interviewed the above mentioned person and that the answers to the questions enumerated are as he gave them to me.

[signed]
Chas A Stallock[?]
Military Census Agent

Source: Connecticut Military Census of 1917. Hartford, Connecticut: Connecticut State Library. [available as database on-line at Ancestry.com]

 

Image Source: Class portrait and current portrait (ca 1917) of Arthur Morgan Day from Secretary’s Report for the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary. Harvard College Class of 1892, Number VI, (1917), pp. 68-69.

 

Categories
Columbia Syllabus

Columbia. Course outline, Railroad Problems. Seligman, 1898-1904

 

The following course outline was found in the papers of the historian of American economic thought, Joseph Dorfman. It has neither date nor instructor listed but from the Columbia University catalogues and the Bulletins of the Faculty of Political Science we can conclusively determine that the second semester course with this name and number was taught by E.R.A. Seligman every other academic year beginning 1897-98 going through 1903-04. He also taught the course in earlier years (course number VIII) and later years (course number 108).

___________________

Course Description

Economics 7 — Railroad Problems; Economic, Social and Legal. — These lectures treat of railroads in the fourfold aspect of their relation to the investors, the employees, the public and the state respectively. A history of railways and railway policy in America and Europe forms the preliminary part of the course. The chief problems of railway management, so far as they are of economic importance, come up for discussion.

Among the subjects treated are: Financial methods, railway construction, speculation, profits, failures, accounts and reports, expenses, tariffs, principles of rates, classification and discrimination, competition and pooling, accidents, and employers’ liability. Especial attention is paid to the methods of regulation and legislation in the United States as compared with European methods, and the course closes with a general discussion of state versus private management. — Two hours a week, second half-year (1899-1900): Prof. [Edwin R. A.] Seligman.

Source: Columbia University, School of Political Science, Announcement, 1898-99, pp. 29-40.

___________________

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 7

OUTLINE OF LECTURES
ON
RAILROAD PROBLEMS:
ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND LEGAL

  1. The problems stated.
  2. Literature of the subject.

BOOK I. HISTORY OF RAILWAYS AND RAILWAY POLICY.

Chapter I. England.

  1. Turnpikes and canals.
  2. Genesis of the railway system and development to the investigation of 1844.
  3. Development to Cardwell’s Act of 1854.
  4. Development to Railway Commission of 1873.
  5. Commission of 1881-1882.
  6. Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1888.
  7. Present conditions and outlook.

Chapter II. United States.

  1. Highroads and internal improvements.
  2. The Erie Canal and Mississippi River.
  3. Genesis and development of the railway system.
  4. The early charters.
  5. Railway consolidation.
  6. Sleeping car and express companies.
  7. Fast freight lines, co-operative and joint-stock.
  8. Pools and traffic associations to 1877.
    1. Chicago-Omaha Pool.
    2. Southern Railway and Steamship Association.
    3. Southwestern Rate Association.
  9. Trunk Line combinations to 1877.
    1. Saratoga Conference.
    2. Railway wars of 1874-1876.
    3. Live stock pool and evening system.
    4. Standard oil contract and petroleum pool.
    5. Anthracite coal pool.
  10. Trunk line pools 1877-1887.
    1. West bound pool.
    2. East bound pool
    3. Joint Executive Committee of 1879.
    4. Railway wars and Trunk Line organization of 1885.
  11. Railway co-operation 1887-1898.
    1. The Inter-state Commerce Act of 1887.
    2. The Anti-Trust Law of 1890.
  12. Present outlook

Chapter 3. Other Countries.

  1. Belgium. The mixed system.
  2. France. Division of the field.
    1. Development to the law of 1842.
    2. Development to the law of 1859.
    3. Development to the law of 1884.
    4. Present outlook.
  3. Germany. Government ownership.
  4. Italy. System of leases.
    1. The law of 1865.
    2. The agreements of 1885.
  5. Holland, Austria and other European countries.
  6. Australia and the British colonies.
  7. Comparison with the rest of the world.

BOOK II. THE RAILWAYS AND THE INVESTORS.

  1. The railway as a corporation.
  2. Financial methods.
    1. The financing of a railway.
    2. Conflict of interests between directors, stockholder and bondholders.
  3. Railway Construction.
    1. Cost of railways in America and Europe.
    2. Construction companies.
    3. Other subordinate corporations.
    4. Parallel roads.
  4. Railway speculation.
    1. Stock exchange speculation.
    2. Railways and commercial crises.
  5. Railway profits.
    1. Stock watering.
    2. Limitation of dividends.
  6. Railway failures and receiverships.
  7. Railway accounts and reports.

BOOK III. THE RAILWAYS AND THE PUBLIC

  1. Railway competition.
    1. The law of competition.
    2. Competition and combination.
    3. Competition for the field.
    4. Competition with waterways.
    5. Competition of carriers on the line.
    6. Separation between motor and carrier.
    7. Running powers or working arrangements.
  2. Railway expenses.
    —Fixed charges and operating expenses.
  1. Railway tariffs.
    1. Principle of railway rates.
    2. Cost of service principle.
    3. Value of service principle or charging what the traffic will bear.
    4. Relation between the two principles.
  2. Classification of Rates.
    1. Theory of classification.
    2. History and practice of classification in Europe and America.
  3. Personal discriminations.
    1. Allowance for quantity.
    2. Rebates and special rates.
  4. Local discriminations.
    1. History and practice of local discriminations.
    2. Just and unjust discriminations.
    3. Principle of profits vs. principle of tolls.
    4. Sliding scale or zone system.
    5. Pro-rata or equal mileage, and short-haul rates.
      —Other projected reforms.
    6. Differentials between cities and export trade.
  5. Pools.
    —Money pools vs. traffic pools.
  1. Extortion and reduction in rates.
    —Comparison of European and American rates.
  1. Passenger rates.
    —The Zone system in Austria-Hungary.
  1. Accidents.

BOOK IV. THE RAILWAYS AND THE EMPLOYEES

  1. Employers’ liability for accidents.
    —Comparison of European and American legislation.
  2. Railway strikes. Especially strikes of 1877 and 1886.
  3. Profit sharing and other schemes.
  4. Relief associations. Compulsory and private insurance.
    1. Insurance against sickness.
    2. Insurance against accidents.
    3. Insurance against dishonesty. Guarantee funds.

BOOK V. THE RAILWAYS AND THE STATE.

  1. Early State legislation.
  2. The Granger movement and its results.
  3. Maximum and minimum laws.
  4. Pro-rataand short-haul laws.
  5. Laws requiring improved facilities.
  6. General railroad acts.
  7. State and national aid to railroads. Land grants, etc.
  8. Railway taxation.
    1. Basis—Taxation of franchise, property, gross earnings, net income, etc.
    2. Double taxation. Inter-state complications.
  9. State railroad commissions.
    1. Compulsory commissions.
    2. Advisory commissions.
  10. National Legislation.
    1. Early attempts.
    2. The Reagan and Cullom bills.
    3. The Inter-state Commerce Law of 1887.
  11. The Inter-state Commerce Commission.
    1. Character of decisions.
    2. Powers and duties.
    3. Comparison with English commission.
    4. Projected amendments.
  12. Present outlook and prospects.
  13. General conclusion as to State vs. private ownership and management.
    1. Financial arguments.
    2. Political arguments.
    3. Socio-economic arguments.

 

Source:  Columbia University Libraries. Manuscript Collections. Joseph Dorfman Collection.Box 13. Folder “Economics History Project”.

Categories
Chicago Columbia Cornell Economists Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania. Ph.D. Alumnus, William H.S. Stevens, 1912

 

The following letter from E.R.A. Seligman that recommended the appointment of three young economists to junior positions in Columbia College for 1912/13 was the starting point for this post.  B. M. Anderson, Jr. and R. M. Haig were already well known to me.  The third economist, W. S. Stevens, was completely new however, even though I have become reasonably familiar with the comings and goings of people who had taught economics at Columbia during the first half of the 20thcentury. And so I went to work to figure out the future career (with respect to this April 23, 1912 letter) of Mr. W.S. Stevens.  My results are found below, following the letter and they present a teachable moment about the use of the subscription genealogical website ancestry.com in tracking down economists of yore. Incidentally many research and public libraries provide access to ancestry.com for their users. That site together with the digital archives of hathitrust.org and archive.org were used to follow this economist’s career. 

What did I learn from this exercise? Well, a reprint of a single QJE article represented a dissertation at the University of Pennsylvania in 1912. Also the life of an itinerant scholar is a real challenge to reconstruct, but especially for those cases when the absorbing state turns out to be a job outside of academia. An obituary or a tip from a death certificate pointing to the last employment is extremely useful should you be able to find one.

Incidentally, for those with more of a genealogical interest in this economist: W. S. Stevens was married three times: to Edyth Josephine Frost (1911-1922, divorce; one child, Joseph Libby Stevens b. 1913, d. 2000); to Mary E. Laird (1923-?); and to Rachel Bretherton (?-1966, died in 1966). 

_________________

Copy of Seligman letter recommending three instructional appointments to Columbia College

April 23, 1912

Mr. F. P. Keppell
Dean, Columbia College.

My dear Dean Keppel:-

I take pleasure in nominating herewith the following gentlemen for positions in the College:-

Dr. B. M. Anderson, Jr., [A.B., Missouri, 1906; A.M., Illinois, 1910; Ph.D., Columbia, 1911] instructor, reappointment.

W. S. Stevens, Colby College, A.B., 1905; George Washington University, A.M., 1909; Chicago University, Summer, 1910; Cornell University, 1910-11; Chicago University, Summer, 1911; University of Pennsylvania, 1911-12; Fellow in Economics and Political Science, George Washington University, 1908-1909; Fellow in Economics, Cornell, 1910-1911; Assistant in Economics, Pennsylvania, 1911-12, lecturer in Economics.

R. M. Haig, A.B., Ohio Wesleyan University, 1908; A.M., University of Illinois, 1909; Secretary and Research Assistant to the Dean of Graduate School, University of Illinois, 1909-11; Garth Fellow, Columbia, 1911-12, lecturer in Economics. (Will receive degree of Ph.D. this autumn).

If there is any further information that I can give you about these gentlemen, pray command me.

Faithfully yours,

SE-S

Source:  Columbia University Archives.  Edwin Robert Anderson Seligman Collection, Box 36, Folder “Box 98A, Columbia (A-Z) 1911-1913”.

_________________

 

William Harrison Spring Stevens, 1885-1972
Publications

William Harrison Spring Stevens (University of Pennsylvania). The powder trust, 1872-1912. [cover: “Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1912. Reprint of QJE article].

William S. Stevens (William S. Stevens). The powder trust, 1872-1912. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 26, No. 3 (May, 1912), pp. 444-481.

W. S. Stevens (Columbia University). A group of trusts and combinations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 26, No. 4 (August, 1912), pp. 593-643.

William S. Stevens (Ph.D. Columbia University), ed. Industrial combinations and trusts. New York: Macmillan, 1914.

William H. S. Stevens (Ph.D. Sometime Professor of Business Management in the Tulane University of Louisiana). Unfair Competition: A Study of Certain Practices. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1917. [Dedication: “To Professor James C. Egbert of Columbia University with pleasant recollections of my experience in administrative work as his subordinate”]

 

_________________

William Harrison Spring Stevens, 1885-1972
C.V.

Born April 15, 1885 [3, 4] in Eau Claire, Wisconsin [4]

Colby College, A.B., 1905 [1]

George Washington University, A.M., 1909 [1]

Chicago University, Summer, 1910 [1]

Cornell University, 1910-11 [1]

Chicago University, Summer, 1911 [1]

University of Pennsylvania, 1911-12 [1]

Fellow in Economics and Political Science, George Washington University, 1908-1909; [1]

Fellow in Economics, Cornell, 1910-1911 [1]

Assistant in Economics, Pennsylvania, 1911-12, lecturer in Economics. [1]

University of Pennsylvania. Ph.D., 1912 [2]

Instr. in econ., Columbia Univ., 1912-15 [2]

Prof. bus. management, Tulane Univ. of La., 1915-16 [2]

Special expert, Federal Trade Commission, 1917 [2]

Assistant chief economist, Federal Trade Commission [3]

Economist at Interstate Commerce Commission, 1942 [4]

Last occupation. “Dr. of Econ., Fed Government” [5]

Died September 14, 1972 in Alexandria Virginia [5]

Sources:

[1] Seligman letter (above) April 23, 1912

[2] General Alumni Catalogue, University of Pennsylvania, 1917, p. 474.

[3] World War I, Draft Registration Card. September 12, 1918.

[4] World War II, Draft Registration Card, April 27, 1942

[5] Death Certificate, State of Virginia September 20, 1972

_________________

William Harrison Spring Stevens, 1885-1972
Fun Fact: Son of the American Revolution

“John Boyes, my great grandfather, enlisted in April 1777 in the 6thCompany, 3d N.H. regiment; Daniel Livermore Capt., Alex Scammell Col. He served three years, participated in battles of Hubbardstown, Stillwater, first and second Monmouth and was in Gen. Sullivan’s expedition against the six Indian Nations (Iroquois). He was wounded in the arm at Stillwater and later was captured and transported to Limerick, Ireland, and thence to Mill Prison in England where he was confined for one year. He was honorably discharged after three years service, on April 6, 1790.”

Source: Application by William H. S. Stevens (September 24, 1962) for Membership in the Virginia Society of the National Society, Sons of the American Revolution. as great-grandson of John Boyes (27 September 1760 in Boston, died 2 May 1833 in Madison Maine).

Image Source:  William H. S. Stevens class portrait from the his college yearbook, Colby Oracle, 1906.

 

Categories
Columbia Computing Statistics

Columbia. Statistician Robert Chaddock and his Statistical Laboratory, 1912

 

 

The Statistical Laboratory at Columbia University in the second decade of the 20th century was run by the young assistant/associate professor, Robert E. Chaddock. An earlier post provided Chaddock’s 1911 request for equipment and literature for the Statistical Laboratory along with information about the calculating machines being considered and included a newspaper account of his suicide in 1940. From Professor Seligman’s papers I include today a recommendation for a promotion in rank for Robert E. Chaddock and his 1912 request for more equipment and literature. It is interesting to read that a Mannheim slide rule cost $10 in 1912. Finally from a letter from 1913, we can see that Brunsviga electric “Millionaire” must have been ordered for the Statistical Laboratory (cost $520).

_______________

Recommendation of promotion to rank of associate professor for Robert E. Chaddock
[Copy of letter to President Butler from Professor E.R.A. Seligman]

March 30, 1912

Nicholas Murray Butler, LL.D.,
President, Columbia University,
New York.

My dear President Butler:-

Referring to our conversation of the other day, I should like to bring before you more formally the matter of Professor Chaddock.

Professor Chaddock is at present assistant professor of Statistics on the Barnard Foundation, at a salary of $2,500. His work during the year as head of the Statistical Laboratory has been exceedingly fine. The Laboratory has now become a busy hive of industry at almost any time of the day or night, and Professor Chaddock has been no less successful a teacher than he has been a director.

So successful has his work been as to have attracted attention in various quarters. The New York School of Philanthropy, together with the Sage Foundation, proposes to start a comprehensive scheme of statistical investigation into social problems and on looking over the whole country decided on Professor Chaddock as by all means the best man. They have, therefore, offered him the position of head of that investigation at a salary of $1,500 in advance of what he is getting at Columbia and with all the assistance and possibilities of European travel that might be needed. After carefully considering this proposition he has finally decided to remain at Columbia on the understanding that his salary would be increased to $3,000 and with no further obligation on the part of the Department or of anyone else, except the general understanding that he will take his chance of gradual promotion with the other members of the Department as opportunity offers.

The $500 addition to his salary has been made possible by the School of Journalism. Professor Chaddock will give a one-term course in Statistics to the third year men, for which the budget in the School of Journalism appropriates the sum of $500.

The Department deems itself exceedingly fortunate in being able to keep Professor Chaddock on these terms. But precisely because he made no other conditions and because of the fine spirit manifested by him, as a married man with a family, in being willing to make this considerable financial sacrifice, we feel that we ought to do our utmost possible for him. Our proposition is that his title be changed from assistant professor to associate professor.

When Professor Chaddock was called to Columbia he was offered a full professorship at the University of Pennsylvania, but he preferred to come to Columbia. He would naturally have been given an associate professorship, which he fully deserved, but unfortunately the financial adjustments which were made by Barnard College on the resignation of Professor Clark left only $2,500 available for his salary, and under the circumstances we were compelled to offer him an assistant professorship. Now that this financial difficulty has been removed, we respectfully suggest that the spirit rather than the letter of the rule be observed and that Professor Chaddock be given the title which he would surely have received originally had it not been for this financial complication. The Department feels that not only from every point of view is Professor Chaddock worthy of an associate professorship but wishes especially to emphasize the desirability of rewarding his loyalty and the fine spirit that he has displayed in staying by us. We feel that with Professor Moore to represent the theoretical side and Professor Chaddock to represent the sound, common sense, practical side, there is no reason why the Statistical Laboratory of Columbia should not very soon become a unique institution of its kind in this country. If for no other reason than that, Professor Chaddock, as the director of the Laboratory, ought to have a title corresponding to the dignity of his position.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

[presumably E.R.A. Seligman]

_______________

Chaddock’s Additional Budgetary Request for his Statistical Laboratory

Columbia University
in the City of New York
Faculty of Political Science

April 19, 1912

Professor E. R. A. Seligman
Columbia University

My dear Professor Seligman:-

At your suggestion I am describing the most pressing needs for our statistical laboratory for the coming year. As you know, the equipment has been in pretty constant use during the past year and the effort has been made to divide the group into laboratory sections of from 6 to 10 persons in order that all might have a chance to learn the use of the mechanical devices by which the statistician makes his work possible, i.e., the Burroughs Adding Machines, the Brunsviga Calculating Machines, the graphic devices of various sorts, and the calculating tables.

With the added courses in the School of Journalism and the School of Commerce which we are undertaking for next year and the increasing use of our equipment by our graduate students, it has seemed to me that our numbers using the laboratory at one time will be larger and our present equipment will be quite inadequate.

We have one set each of tables of squares and cubes and tables (Crelle’s) for multiplication. We have no drawing set, no drawing crayon, and only 2 slide rules. I suggest the following additions, in order that a group may be kept working at the same time to better advantage.

 

10 copies Barlow’s tables of squares, etc. @ $2.50

$25.00
10 copies J. Peters’ Neue Rechentafeln for multiplication—English introduction–@15 m.

$30.00
1 Drawing set,

$20.00
Drawing crayons for graphic and map work

$10.00
3 Mannheim slide rules for calculating

$30.00

In addition, I am very anxious to see one more calculating machine added to our equipment which will do all four operations. Thus, adding one machine at a time we shall be able gradually to build up such a mechanical equipment as will enable our students to do their statistical calculations with facility and put their thesis and other statistical work in the best possible form. We have now 3 Brunsviga Machines which do all the operations but there are machines that do multiplication and division with more facility. I suggest an electric “Ensign” machine at $450. or the long tested “Millionaire” at $375. or electric “Millionaire” at $520. The selection of one of these three would be only after careful testing in our laboratory for our particular needs, altho the “Millionaire” is widely used in statistical laboratories, government offices, and insurance companies, and the “Ensign” is a Boston machine meeting with rapid adoption.

I make these suggestions only after the most careful consideration and information by correspondence with other laboratories and persons doing statistical training work, and in view of the added burdens to be placed next year upon the laboratory facilities.

Very truly yours,
[signed]
Rob’t E. Chaddock.

_______________

Approval of Chaddock’s Budgetary Increase

Columbia University
in the City of New York
Faculty of Political Science

May 6, 1912

Dear Prof. Seligman:

Thank you for sending me President Butler’s letter. It pleases me more than I can say to have our laboratory work thus recognized. It is due to your untiring interest in every detail of our whole department’s work, and for your care over my end of the work I wish to thank you very cordially.

I shall try to see that the added appropriation is well spent.

With best wishes for all your plans, I am

Sincerely
[signed]
Robt. E. Chaddock

Prof. E.R.A. Seligman
Kent Hall, Columbia U.

_______________

Regarding a Bill to the Statistical Laboratory for $520

February 3, 1913

Mr. Charles S. Danielson,
Columbia University.

My dear Mr. Danielson:-

Professor Chaddock advises me that a refund of $90.00 made by W. A. Morschhauser on bill of October 31st, 1912 has been turned over to your office. This $90.00 covers the import duty which had been included in the bill of $520.00.

Will you therefore please apply this $90.00 to the account “Special Appropriation for Statistical Laboratory,” and recharge to the same account $22.00 of the $29.20 overdraft charged to the “Economics” appropriation at the end of last year? When these entries and transfers have been made the “Economics” appropriation balance should show an increase of $22.00 and the balance of the “Special Appropriation for Statistical Laboratory” should be $68.00.

If this is not correct, kindly let me know.

Very sincerely yours.
[presumably E.R.A. Seligman]

 

 

 

 

Source:  Columbia University Archives. E.R.A. Seligman Collection. Box 98A [now in Box 36], Folder “Columbia (A-Z), 1911-1913”.

Image Source: Robert Emmet Chaddock from Barnard College, Mortarboard, 1919.