Month: October 2024

Categories
AEA Economists History of Economics Johns Hopkins

Johns Hopkins. Essay on Political Economy in America. Ely, 1887

 

NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW.
FEBRUARY, 1887.

POLITICAL ECONOMY IN AMERICA.
by RICHARD T. ELY

At a meeting of political economists held at Saratoga in the month of September, 1885, in order to form an economic society — finally called the American Economic Association — Professor Alexander Johnston, of Princeton College, defined the purposes of the contemplated organization, as understood by him, in these words:

“This is an effort to stop the formation of any ‘crust’ on the development of economics, to assert the economic right of attempts to develop in every direction, unhampered by any accusation of heterodoxy, with the assurance that unlimited freedom of individual attempt to develop will bring about the truest, most natural, and healthiest development.”

Other ideas were brought out in the interesting discussion about the aims which should animate a body of American economists at the present time, and valuable suggestions were derived from men like Hon. Andrew D. White; Rev. Dr. Washington Gladden; Professor Henry C. Adams, of Michigan University; Professor E. J. James, of the University of Pennsylvania; Dr. Herbert B. Adams, of the Johns Hopkins University; Dr. Edwin R. A. Seligman, of Columbia College; Professor Andrews, of Brown University; and President Charles Kendall Adams, of Cornell University.

There can be no doubt, however, that all present agreed with Professor Johnston, and it is equally certain that he struck the key-note of future progress in economics.

But what did the undertaking signify? What did it mean to remove the “crust” already formed on the development of economics and to prevent its formation in the future? It is necessary for us to get a clear idea of this, if we would understand the past history and present condition of economic science in America.

The word “heterodoxy” uttered by Professor Johnston is one which throws a whole flood of light on the situation. The utterly unscientific conceptions, orthodoxy and heterodoxy, had crept into political economy; and men had with their aid attempted to check every advance in the science with a strong hand. What was orthodox? What was heterodox? Certain Englishmen, Ricardo, Malthus, Mill, Senior, successors of Adam Smith, had developed an à priori political economy which was well-pleasing to influential social elements. This was still further purified by later successors until the strong and mighty could find in it nothing to terrify “or make afraid,” nothing to disturb their calm repose. This at last became the political economy of the most conservative portion of the press, and as such gave us, to use the words of Professor Gustav Cohn, not a description of actual life, but at best a picture of the life of men in society such as one might expect to find in the “Dream of the Millionaire.” It was a Utopia as dangerous as it was pleasing. Imported to this country, it acquired a strength in certain educated circles — particularly in the North and East — to which it could scarcely aspire, even in England. It was always ready with its little tests of orthodoxy to mete out praise or condemnation, to accord honor or shame. Acceptance of its creed was often a condition of academic preferment. A small clique of men, not without newspaper influence, constituted themselves its special guardians and, still maintaining that position, even now attempt to exercise a sort of terrorism over the intellect of the country. Any deviation from the straight and narrow path laid down by them was deeply damned. Was there not, indeed, that never-failing refuge of incompetence and malignity, the epithet “socialism,” ready to hurl at all offenders?

Manifestly, the first need of the hour was to break this “crust,” and this was a worthy object for the American Economic Association. “Orthodox” and “heterodox” must be as completely driven out of economic discussion as out of biology and mineralogy. Those who use these phrases must necessarily look back to the past to discover the belief of others, whereas science should ever keep its glance directed to the future and press on to the discovery of new truth.

This determination “to assert the right of attempts to develop in every direction, unhampered by any accusation of heterodoxy,” is of particular importance in political economy, because, in the nature of things, economists worthy of the name always have been, and always will be, in opposition to current opinion. What is an economist? An economist is a man who studies the economic life of men as members of society. Now, if the science of economics is not a humbug, he must know more about industrial society than others, and that is simply saying, in other words, that he holds opinions not generally received. The true economist is a guide who always keeps in advance, who marks out new paths of social progress. This explains why the “heterodox” economist of one age becomes the “orthodox” economist of a succeeding one. Social development has gone on in the direction in which he foresaw it must move. An American writer [Daniel Raymond, Thoughts on Political Economy] in 1820, for example, speaks of the “gross heresies” of Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations,” and even this great “Father” of English political economy did not escape the reproach of socialism. Could that progressive, far-seeing man know that his name was now used to retard the advance of his favorite study, he surely could not rest easy in his grave!

All articles on political economy in America written before 1880 are chiefly concerned with the question: Why have Americans done comparatively nothing to advance the science of industrial society? This is the nature of Professor Dunbar’s article on “Political Economy in the United States from 1776 to 1876,” which appeared in the NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW in the latter year; it is also the nature of T. E. Cliffe Leslie’s article on “Political Economy in the United States,” which appeared in the Fortnightly Review, in 1880. The main thought brought out is the preponderating importance attached to the pursuit of wealth rather than to an inquiry as to its philosophy in this new country. The absence of obviously pressing economic questions is also dwelt upon by both writers. All this is true. The two chief causes of research in economics are large financial questions, and wide-spread dissatisfaction among the masses with existing social arrangements, coupled with a determination to change these radically. Our late civil war brought us one of these two chief causes of economic study; events of the past ten years have brought us the other. Thus has a mighty impulse been given to the development of political economy. But there is another aspect of the situation — not unrelated to what has already been said about economic orthodoxy — which deserves mention. The chairs of political economy in the United States have in the past been filled, to large extent, by men who were not appointed, like professors of chemistry, as searchers after truth, but as advocates — chiefly of free trade or protection as the case might be. This has been sufficiently understood, and it has acted injuriously in several ways. It has kept the best men out of the academic career, and it has repressed aspirations looking in the direction of new scientific explorations. Finally, it has reduced the influence of political economists to a minimum. Business men have despised them, while their power to guide and direct the thought of the laboring classes has been less than nothing. It has been so generally felt that professors of political economy in America were mere advocates of existing institutions, that the masses have turned away from them in angry impatience, and have been prejudiced even against the important and unassailable doctrines which they did teach. Thus has the task been rendered more difficult for those truly scientific men who with the impartiality of all science, tell the plain truth to all classes and would thus benefit all alike  — for a lie is of no permanent benefit to any one! And what about the politicians? Well, every one knows they have given themselves little concern about political economy, and the political economists often censure them severely on this account. While the politicians doubtless deserve it, there is another side to the case, brought out by my good friend Professor Jesse Macy in those felicitous words: “A political science which does not at least honestly seek to give direction to actual politics is an unmitigated nuisance. Colleges and universities have in the past been treated with contempt by practical politicians simply because their work has been contemptible. Politicians are the last men in the world to treat with contempt a respectable and efficient political power and influence.”

The present time is one in which the evolution of society is proceeding with more than its usual rapidity, and it is evident that we need a positive constructive political economy, and this requirement the old political economy cannot meet. Let the reader consider for a moment the age in which its great masters, Quesnay, Turgot, and Adam Smith, lived. It was the latter half of the eighteenth century, when the progress of industry was retarded by a multitude of old institutions, good in their day, doubtless, but then antiquated. The cry of men who understood their time was, “Remove the barriers! clear the way for new social forms!” The work which the great economists advocated during that period was very properly negative and destructive. It ought not then to surprise us that when we go to our old text books of political economy to seek advice in reference to practical measures, the one chief lesson which we learn is “DON’T.” Manifestly, the call of our age is DO.

A new movement in economics was then inevitable, and it has already come. Its precise beginning cannot, perhaps, be ascertained, but the writings of the distinguished head of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, General Francis A. Walker, first made it a clearly recognized accomplished fact in America. Probably, his works have inspired more of the American economists under thirty-five-possibly under forty-than those of any other man. He sowed seed which is now springing up and bearing fruit in all parts of our land. The movement was furthered by the establishment of new chairs of political economy in American colleges and universities, which was due to the wonderful impulse given to the study by the undeniable existence of those two classes of economic phenomena to which reference has already been made; namely, large financial problems and pressing social questions. Before 1876 one might have counted on one’s fingers the institutions where any serious instruction in political economy was given, whereas provision is now made for its study in every one of the more prominent colleges of the country; and although it is still inadequate in most cases, this is a remarkable advance. There are now a few colleges with two or three instructors, even, and it is not foolish to hope that in a not remote future we shall have as completely developed departments of political economy as we now have of physics and chemistry in our best universities.

Another good sign is the growing faith, both within and without our institutions of learning, in truth. People value the searcher for truth more than formerly, the mere advocate less. It is a significant fact that the youngest of the great American universities, the Johns Hopkins, founded in 1876, took for its motto, “Veritas vos liberabit.” [“Truth will set you free”] Another equally significant fact is this: The Johns Hopkins University assumed a non-partisan attitude in natural science. Its biological laboratory was instituted solely for the search of truth, regardless of consequences. Darwinian and anti-Darwinian doctrines, as such, could not be considered. Some good people were prejudiced against the University at the start on this account, and looked with much trepidation upon its teachings; but in ten years this has for a large part disappeared, and no college has warmer, more devoted friends among the clergy. This means faith in truth and a conscious recognition of the fact that one truth can not clash with another. One other illustration of this all-important point must follow, if the reader will pardon a personal allusion. When the writer’s name was brought forward for the position of teacher of political economy in the Johns Hopkins University five years ago, the authorities of the institution, true to their motto, asked no questions about his opinions in regard to free trade and protection or anything else, although these were then as unknown as he himself. There was simply an endeavor to ascertain his qualifications for the position. This is an experience which is probably almost unique.

People are learning, both in political economy and natural science, that truth alone can make them free; that truth alone has in it the power of life; that truth — not error — is able to conserve the good, and that to fear it is unworthy of an enlightened people.

There has been the same remarkable progress in the development of an economic literature in America, which has been noted elsewhere. To confine ourselves to the past few months, such works may be mentioned as James on “The Relation of the Modern Municipality to the Gas Supply;” Shaw on “Co-operation in a Western City” — two remarkable publications of the American Economic Association — Hudson on “Railways and the Republic;” Hadley on “Railroad Transportation,” and Laughlin on “Bi-metallism in the United States.” These are all based on investigations in the rich field of American economic life. We have also bold endeavors to reconstruct fundamental principles in economics, like Patten’s “Premises of Political Economy,” and J. B. Clark’s “Philosophy of Wealth.” All these are works of international importance.

One year ago there was no economic periodical in the United States. To-day there are three, and all evidently rest on a permanent basis. They are the bi-monthly monographs of the American Economic Association, published in Baltimore; the Political Science Quarterly of Columbia College, and the Quarterly Journal of Economics, published under the auspices of Harvard University.

A change in the conception of political economy must not fail to be noticed in this place. Its scope has become enlarged, and it is not quite the same thing which it was once. It has become a distinctively ethical science, and necessarily includes purpose within its province. It is clearly recognized that the will of man is a chief factor in economic life, and that, within certain limits, we can have just such a social system as we choose — always, be it observed, however, within certain limits. Accordingly, ideals for the individual, for the State, for society, for the church, are placed before men, and they are urged to strive for them in every practicable way. It is on this account, also, that the new political economy lays so much stress on ethical education, for it is seen that errors as often proceed from the heart as from the head.

It must not be supposed that the new political economy has gained exclusive sway even in the colleges and universities of the United States — much less outside of them. Still it is making its way rapidly; it is accepted by the teachers in most of our colleges, and it is beginning to permeate the thought of our time, as may be seen in the utterances of press and pulpit.

The economists of the older school cannot, either, be denied their use. They are not mere drags on the car of progress, but with their criticism, sharp and ungracious though it sometimes be, they render the advance surer.

In conclusion, however, it is undeniable that the prime need of the hour is increased light in economics, a further development of the new political economy, and the qualities indispensable in the men who would carry on the work already so auspiciously begun are these: a good heart, a strong intellect, and dauntless courage.

Source:  North American Review, Vol. 144, No. 363 (February, 1887), pp. 113-119.

Image Source: Universities and their sons; history, influence and characteristics of American universities, with biographical sketches and  of alumni and recipients of honorary degrees, Vol. IV (1900), p. 505. Image was smoothed and colorised at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Socialism

Harvard. Exam questions for Social Reform, Socialism, Communism. Carver, 1907-1908

Harvard’s Thomas Nixon Carver, individualist to a fault, played less a devil’s advocate in his courses on social economic reform than he engaged with the theories behind the social movements of his time to disabuse his students’ of the economic schemes of reformers and revolutionaries that attracted them like moths to a flame. 

While  Bakunin, Marx and George are seen in the Rear-view Mirror of today, they were still objects seen in the side-view mirrors of Carver’s time — objects he probably believed to be closer than they appeared. In any case, objects to avoid for safety’s sake.

__________________________

Previously posted

Pre-Carver:
Carver’s courses

Post-Carver:

________________________

Course Enrollment
1907-08

Economics 14b 2hf. Professor Carver. — Methods of Social Reform. Socialism, Communism, the Single Tax, etc.

Total 20: 5 Graduates, 7 Seniors, 7 Juniors, 1 Sophomore.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1907-1908, p. 67.

________________________

ECONOMICS 14b
Mid-year Examination, 1907-08

  1. In what particulars does the socialist movement resemble a religious rather than a rationalistic movement?
  2. What are the leading doctrines of “Orthodox Socialism”?
  3. In what particulars are socialism and anarchism alike, and in what particulars are they unlike?
  4. State and comment upon Karl Marx’s theory as to the origin of capital and of interest.
  5. Compare the single tax movement and the socialist movement.
  6. Have you any clearly defined conclusion as to the proper, or logical, limits of state enterprise? If so, explain. If not, state the difficulty in the way of arriving at such a conclusion.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Examination Papers, 1873-1915. Box 8, Bound vol. Examination Papers 1908-09 (HUC 7000.25), p. 38.

Images: Mikhail Bakunin, Karl Marx, Henry George from the Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library.  New York Public Library Digital Collections.

 

 

Categories
Economists Race

How Black-Lives Mattered to Wesley Clair Mitchell’s Immediate Ancestors. Mid 19th Century

                  In preparing Wesley Clair Mitchell’s remarks on his empirical approach to economics, I became curious about his grand-aunt with whom he, as a precocious boy, delighted to dispute deep theological issues. Mitchell wrote (emphasis added):

Concerning the inclination you [John Maurice Clark] note to prefer concrete problems and methods to abstract ones, my hypothesis is that it got started, perhaps manifested itself would be more accurate, in childish theological discussions with my grand aunt. She was the best of Baptists, and knew exactly how the Lord had planned the world. God is love; he planned salvation; he ordained immersion; his immutable word left no doubt about the inevitable fate of those who did not walk in the path he had marked. Hell is no stain upon his honor, no inconsistency with love. — I adored the logic and thought my grand aunt flinched unworthily when she expressed hopes that some back-stairs method might be found of saving from everlasting flame the ninety and nine who are not properly baptized. But I also read the bible and began to cherish private opinions about the character of the potentate in Heaven. Also I observed that his followers on earth did not seem to get what was promised them here and now. I developed an impish delight in dressing up logical difficulties which my grand aunt could not dispose of. She always slipped back into the logical scheme, and blinked the facts in which I came to take a proprietary interest.

                  To find out more, I sought detail in the biography/autobiography written by Wesley Clair Mitchell’s wife, Lucy Sprague Mitchell, Two Lives — The Story of Wesley Clair Mitchell and Myself (New York, 1953). There I was able to harvest plenty of information about Wesley Clair Mitchell’s family and identify the grand-aunt in question, Beulah McClellan Seely, a.k.a. “Grandma Seely.” I even learned that Beulah had put her reminiscences into writing and had them privately printed as A Story of My Life (1901), 73 pages. As the link indicates, there even happens to be a digital copy of Beulah’s memoir (originally from the Oberlin College library) that one can download from the internet. So between Lucy Sprague Mitchell and Beulah McClellan Seely, we have Wesley Clair Mitchell’s maternal and paternal sides fairly well-covered. A few dates and places have been added or checked using information found at the ancestry.com website that I subscribe to.

                  What I found particularly interesting were two clear indicators of progressive racial views held by Wesley Clair Mitchell’s immediate ancestors:

  • Wesley Clair’s father volunteered to serve as surgeon to the 4th United States Colored Infantry  for the last three years of the war because he believed it was not right to have different medical care for soldiers of color defending the Union in the Civil War.
  • On his mother’s side we find activist abolitionists and direct participation in the Underground Railroad to smuggle escaped slaves to Canada.

But first a fun fact:

Naming and Nicknaming Mitchell

I always called my husband “Robin.” That needs a word of explanation. When he was born, his parents had his name “Wesley Clair” waiting for him — so his mother wrote me. “Wesley” was for his father, John Wesley Mitchell, but was never used for the boy, perhaps because it was used for his father. He was never called “Wesley” until he began to be known professionally and signed himself Wesley C. Mitchell. His family and early friends called him “Clair.” They still do — his two sisters and four brothers and all his California friends. It was a name chosen by his mother for her first son. In her first letter to me she explains her choice:

… I hope you will like Clair’s name. It meant to me purity and strength and infinite beauty and the very essence of God’s love — all of which we believe you will find embodied in the spirit we feel sure the eternal years will only render more dear to you.

But I didn’t like either of his names — “Wesley” had rather grim associations and “Clair” seemed oversweet. So, when we were in the California Sierra before we were married, and in public, according to the mores of the day, were still saying “Mr. Mitchell” and “Miss Sprague,” I gave him a private name — “Robin.”

Source: Lucy Sprague Mitchell, Two Lives — The Story of Wesley Clair Mitchell and Myself (New York, 1953), p. xx.

The Paternal Side of the Family

Father: John Wesley Mitchell (b. 30 Dec 1837 in Avon, Maine; d. 12 Jan 1915, New Orleans, Louisiana).He had four siblings.

Grandparents (paternal):

John Wesley Mitchell. Born 19 Jan 1798 in Durham, Maine; died 26 Mar 1889 in Strong, Maine)
Lydia Spaulding (b. 29 May 1799 in Fairfield, Maine; d. 16 Nov 1889 in Strong, Maine)

John Wesley Mitchell’s Civil War Service

[John Wesley Mitchell] went through the Medical School of Maine — affiliated with Bowdoin College — and received his M.D. in 1863 — Civil War days. He was then twenty-five years old. On a visit to his home soon after this, his mother extracted a promise from him that he would not volunteer for war service. But when he was in Boston, he learned of the desperate need of doctors, took the army examinations and, according to his children, passed with the highest grade on record. He entered service as surgeon of the 21st Massachusetts Infantry. But when he found that the Negro troops were not receiving the same medical care as the white, he resigned his commission and requested that he be transferred to the 4th United States Colored Infantry, where he served for the last three years of the war.

Source: Lucy Sprague Mitchell, Two Lives — The Story of Wesley Clair Mitchell and Myself (New York, 1953), p. 9.

                  John Wesley Mitchell was married to Lucy Medora (Dora) McClellan who received his proposal in 1867 at her adopted parents’ home in Chicago. Lucy Sprague Mitchell notes “…she was not as impulsive as he” and she was a mere 19 years old at the time anyway. John Wesley left Chicago to go to the New York Medical College and then practiced medicine in Chicago and later Des Moines. According to Lucy Sprague Mitchell, John Wesley was married and divorced twice before re-proposing to Medora. His first marriage was with a woman he married while practicing medicine in Des Moines. The second woman was a redhead who took care of Dr. Mitchell “during one of his many illnesses”. But according to Lucy Sprague, who is vague about her sources here, John Wesley’s second wife wanted to become a stage actress. . Despite my amateur gumshoe genealogical search of the ancestry.com resources, I am unable to confirm either of John Wesley Mitchell’s two strikes in the mating game that were reported by his daughter-in-law, Lucy Sprague Mitchell.

                  John Wesley said, ‘All right, but I won’t be married to you.’” And so they divorced. It was at a chance meeting with Medora’s brother-in-law that John Wesley learned Medora was not yet married, he decided to try his luck again, and in May 1872 they were married in Mrs. Beulah McClellan Seely’s home

John Wesley Mitchell’s Obituary

JOHN WESLEY MITCHELL, son of John and Lydia (Spalding) Mitchell, was born 30 Dec. 1837 at Avon, Me. He received his early education in his native town and began the study of medicine after attaining his majority. He attended two courses of lectures of which the second was at the Medical School of Maine where he received his degree in 1863. He at once entered the service of his country as assistant surgeon of the 21st Massachusetts Infantry, but resigned his commission to become in September of that year, surgeon of the 4th United States Colored Infantry. This position he held throughout the war, being mustered out of service in May 1866. He received in March 1865 the rank of colonel by brevet for meritorious service. While before Petersburg, Va., he received an injury to his thigh from the fall of his horse, an injury from which he never fully recovered and which was a source of no little suffering throughout his life. On leaving the army he took special post-graduate courses in the New York Medical College and then settled in the practice of his profession at Chicago, Ill. He soon removed to Rushville, Schuyler County, where he had an extensive practice, too great for his physical strength. He then took up his residence in Decatur, Ill., where he remained till 1900. The closing years of his life were spent at New Orleans, La. Here he died of arteriosclerosis, 12 Jan. 1915.

Dr. Mitchell possessed unlimited ambition and great determination, yet the effects of the injury alluded to above seemed ever to shatter his hopes. There was granted him, however, a gentleness and sweetness of spirit superior to untoward circumstances. In purity of life and in brotherly affection to all men, he followed closely in the footsteps of the Great Physician.

Dr. Mitchell married in 1872 Lucy Medora, daughter of James and Eunice McClellan of Chicago, Ill., who survives him with their seven children, Prof. Wesley Clair Mitchell of Columbia University, New York City, Leonard McClellan Mitchell, a merchant of Chicago, Roy Purrington Mitchell and Lucius Sherman Mitchell, both of New Orleans, Dr. James Francis Mitchell of Berkeley, Cal., Beulah Mitchell, wife of the Chicago artist Walter Marshall Clute, and Eunice Mitchell, wife of Prof. D. N. Lehmer of the University of California.

Source: Bowdoin College Bulletin, Obituary Number (June, 1915), pp. 333-334.

The Maternal Side of the Family

The following chart provides an overview of Wesley Clair Mitchell’s immediate ancestors on his mother’s side to give a visual impression of how his grand-aunt fit into the family picture.

Mother: Lucy Medora (Dora) McClellan (b. 5 Mar 1847 in Illinois; d. 7 Sep 1922 in Berkeley, California)

Lucy Medora McClellan was adopted at age five by her Aunt Beulah following the death of her mother Eunice Clark Sherman McClellan in 1850. Medora’s father James McClellan and Beulah McClellan were brother and sister, having at least 7 siblings.

Thus Wesley Clair Mitchell’s mother was raised by her adoptive parents, Francis Tuthill Seely (b. 13 Apr 1820 in Orange County, NY; d. 25 May 1891 in Decatur, Illinois) and Beulah McClellan Seely (b. 26 Dec 1824 in New York; d. 16 Nov 1906). They had been married Feb. 17, 1843 but were unable to have children of their own.

About Beulah McClellan Seely

“She was a tall, impressive figure, a ‘handsome dresser,’ and carried herself with an authoritative air.’” According to Wesley Clair Mitchell’s wife, Lucy Sprague.

Beulah Seeley in 1903

From Beulah’s reminiscences we learn that she and her husband first lived two months at his father’s home and then moved to a farm three miles from him. However, a cyclone came and blew their house down forcing them to move back to Father Seely’s house until the 1843 harvest was done. Next the young couple moved to her parents’ home to help care for her mother who had suffered a severe stroke. A fatal stroke followed that winter (1843-44). They lived the next five years in Bristol, a quarter of a mile from her father, and where her husband Francis Seely set up a shoemaking business.

….Several years later [ca 1849?] we became dissatisfied with our prospects in Bristol and moved to Chicago, where my brother James [Wesley Clark Mitchell’s grandfather] had just settled. He was interested in the first abolition paper published there, for which my husband did the presswork. These were the times when the “Underground Railway” was in full operation and our house was a station for fugitives. Dr. Seely, my husband’s father, near Bristol, was a prominent member of the organization and brought slaves to our house, where they could be smuggled onto the boats for Canada. This was soon after Lovejoy’s murder [1837] and excitement was great. I remember that in the case of one man who came to father Seely, a trial and sale were held and father bid the man off for a dollar and a half and sent him over the line.”

Source:Beula McClellan Seely, A Story of My Life (1901), 73 pages p. 37.

… my brother James lost his second wife, Eunice [d. 1850; note— James’ first wife was Eunice’s sister Edit who had died earlier], who left him with six children, the oldest ten years old, the youngest, Florence, only a few weeks. Soon after he gave Medora to me. She was not yet six years old and has always been the greatest comfort and blessing to me.

Source:  Ibid., pp. 40-41.

Image Source: 1907 portrait of Medora and John Wesley Mitchell and 1903 detail of Beulah Seeley are posted in the “Spencer/Forbes/Adkins/Lehmer” Family Tree at the ancestry.com genealogical website.

Categories
Business Cycles Columbia Economists Methodology

Columbia. Wesley Clair Mitchell Reflects on his Personal Research Style. 1928

This post provides a transcription of Wesley Clair Mitchell’s original reply to methodological questions posed to him by his younger Columbia colleague John Maurice Clark in 1928. Clark was so impressed with Mitchell’s reply that he had it published in 1931 and later then reprinted in 1952 (see links below). For autobiographical context I have included a brief statement by Mitchell, one of Decatur, Illinois’ favorite sons, that was written shortly after his methodological reflections.

Fun Fact: Adolph C. Miller, who was one of Mitchell’s teachers at the University of Chicago and later his colleague at Berkeley, was married to Mary Sprague, older sister of Mitchell’s wife, Lucy Sprague.

Coming attraction: We will learn more about Wesley Clair Mitchell’s parents and the Baptist grand-aunt who raised his mother in a later post.

______________________

Decatur Herald (Decatur, Illinois)
7 July 1929, p. 44

Mitchell One of First To Prove Business Cycle

Every business man in the United States is familiar now with the theory of the business cycle. Comparatively few, even in Decatur, probably know that it was a former Decaturian, Dr Wesley C. Mitchell, who did the pioneer work in economic research establishing the theory of a business cycle.

“My father and mother were John Wesley Mitchell and L. Medora McClellan Mitchell.

“After living several years opposite the Stapps Chapel, we moved out to a ten-acre place on what later became Leafland avenue. There were seven children and we all went through Decatur schools. My High school class was 1893; but I dropped out in the fourth year in order to push more rapidly my preparation for taking college entrance examinations. In that way I entered the University of Chicago in the autumn of ’93. From that time forward I returned to Decatur only during vacations until the time when my parents moved to Louisiana about 1902.

Studied In Germany

“My undergraduate work was done at the University of Chicago. Graduating in 1896, I received a fellowship which permitted me to go on immediately with postgraduate work. The year ’97-98 I spent on a traveling fellowship in Germany and Austria. The next year I was back at Chicago receiving the degree of Doctor of Philosophy summa cum laude in ’99. My chief subjects were economics and philosophy.

“No more congenial opening turning up, I spent 1900 in the Census Office at Washington in a small Division of Analysis and Research presided over by Walter F. Willcox of Cornell. Next year I was appointed instructor at the University of Chicago and taught there in 1900-02. The end of this period I published my first book, “A History of the Greenbacks.”

“One of my teachers at Chicago, Professor A. C. Miller, now a member of the Federal Reserve board, was called to the University of California as head of the Department of Economics. He asked me to go with him. As a result I lived from 1902 to 1912 in Berkeley as an assistant, associate and finally full professor of economics. While there I published a second volume of my monetary studies called “Gold Prices and Wages in the United States”(1908), and also a book called “Business Cycles” (1913). I also spent one of these years lecturing at Harvard.

Helped to Launch School

“In 1912 I married Lucy Sprague a daughter of Otho S. A. Sprague of Chicago. We went to Europe for a year and then came to live in New York city where I became attached to Columbia University. During the war I was chief of the Price Section in the Division of Planning and Statistics in the War Industries board. After the war I helped organize the New School for Social Research in New York and later the National Bureau of Economic Research, with which I am still connected as one of the directors.

“In these later years my investigations have been carried on very largely in conjunction with the National Bureau’s programs. My latest book, “Business Cycles: The Problem and Its Setting,” was published in 1927, and I am now working upon the supplementary volume to be called “Business Cycles: The Rhythm of Business Activity.”

“It is many years since I have been in Decatur or had an opportunity to talk with any of my old friends, aside from Will Westerman who graduated from the Decatur High school a little before my time, and who is now one of my colleagues at Columbia, where he is a professor of ancient history.

“It will be a great pleasure to get the records of other old friends which your Centenary number will doubtless contain. Accept my congratulations upon this enterprise.

WESLEY C. MITCHELL

______________________

NBER Memorial Volume
for Wesley Clair Mitchell

Wesley Clair Mitchell: The Economic Scientist, National Bureau of Economic Research, New York, 1952.

______________________

Backstory:

Memorial Address
by John Maurice Clark.

“I had undertaken to analyze his methods of studying business cycles, for a volume of such analyses, edited by Stuart Rice; and as part of my preparations I had written to Mitchell, asking him some rather searching questions. In reply, he sent me an autobiographical sketch of his intellectual development, starting with his adolescent arguments over theology with his grandaunt. The letter was close to three thousand words long and so beautifully written as to be fit for publication without the change of a comma. Much against his desires, Mitchell was persuaded to allow this correspondence to be published, as part of the study which had occasioned it.* Its great value, naturally, lay in the fact that it had been written without a thought of publication, merely in a characteristically generous response to my request for inside information. More than anything else I know in print, it gives not only his typical mental attitudes, but the flavor of his genially pungent personality.”

Source: Wesley Clair Mitchell: The Economic Scientist, National Bureau of Economic Research (New York, 1952), p. 142.

*Appendix: “The Author’s Own Account of His Methodological Interests” to John Maurice Clark’s “Preface to Social Economics” in Methods in Social Science: A Case Book. Edited by Stuart A. Rice for the Social Science Research Council, Committee on Scientific Method in the Social Sciences. University of Chicago Press, 1931. Pages 673 ff.

______________________

Typed copy of Wesley Clair Mitchell’s Response to Questions
posed him by John Maurice Clark

[Handwritten note: “Revised Feb 11, 1929”]

Huckleberry Rocks, Greensboro, Vt.
August 9, 1928.

Dear Maurice:

                  I know no reason why you should hesitate to dissect a colleague for the instruction, or amusement, of mankind. Your interest in ideas rather than in personalities will be clear to any intelligent reader. Nor is the admiration I feel for you skill as an analyst likely to grow less warm if you take me apart to see how I work. Indeed, I should like to know myself!

                  Whether I can really help you is doubtful. The questions you put are questions I must answer from rather hazy recollections of what went on inside me thirty and forty and more years ago. Doubtless my present impressions of how I grew up are largely rationalizations. But perhaps you can make something out of the type of rationalizations in which I indulge.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

                  Concerning the inclination you note to prefer concrete problems and methods to abstract ones, my hypothesis is that it got started, perhaps manifested itself would be more accurate, in childish theological discussions with my grand aunt. She was the best of Baptists, and knew exactly how the Lord had planned the world. God is love; he planned salvation; he ordained immersion; his immutable word left no doubt about the inevitable fate of those who did not walk in the path he had marked. Hell is no stain upon his honor, no inconsistency with love. — I adored the logic and thought my grand aunt flinched unworthily when she expressed hopes that some back-stairs method might be found of saving from everlasting flame the ninety and nine who are not properly baptized. But I also read the bible and began to cherish private opinions about the character of the potentate in Heaven. Also I observed that his followers on earth did not seem to get what was promised them here and now. I developed an impish delight in dressing up logical difficulties which my grand aunt could not dispose of. She always slipped back into the logical scheme, and blinked the facts in which I came to take a proprietary interest.

                  I suppose there is nothing better as a teething-ring for a child who likes logic than the garden variety of Christian theology. I cut my eye-teeth on it with gusto and had not entirely lost interest in that exercise when I went to college.

                  There I began studying philosophy and economics about the same time. The similarity of the two disciplines struck me at once, I found no difficulty in grasping the differences between the great philosophical systems as they were presented by our text-books and our teachers. Economic theory was easier still. Indeed, I thought the successive systems of economics were rather crude affairs compared with the subtleties of the metaphysicians. Having run the gamut from Plato to T. H. Green (as undergraduates do) I felt the gamut from Quesnay to Marshall was a minor theme. The technical part of the theory was easy. Give me premises and I could spin speculations by the yard. Also I knew that my “deductions” were futile. It seemed to me that people who took seriously the sort of articles which were then appearing in the Q.J.E. might have a better time if they went in for metaphysics proper.

                  Meanwhile I was finding something really interesting in philosophy and in economics. John Dewey was giving courses under all sorts of titles and every one of them dealt with the same problem — how we think. I was fascinated by his view of the place which logic holds in human behavior. It explained the economic theorists. The thing to do was to find out how they came to attack certain problems; why they took certain premises as a matter of course; why they did not consider all the permutations and variants of those problems which were logically possible; why their contemporaries thought their conclusions were significant. And, if one wanted to try his own hand at constructive theorizing, Dewey’s notion pointed the way. It is a misconception to suppose that consumers guide their course by ratiocination — they don’t think except under stress. There is no way of deducing from certain principles what they will do, just because their behavior is not itself rational. One has to find out what they do. That is a matter of observation, which the economic theorists had taken all too lightly. Economic theory became a fascinating subject — the orthodox types particularly — when one began to take the mental operations of the theorists as the problem, instead of taking their theories seriously.

                  Of course Veblen fitted perfectly into this set of notions. What drew me to him was his artistic side. I had a weakness for paradoxes — Hell set up by the God of love. But Veblen was a master developing beautiful subtleties, while I was a tyro emphasizing the obvious. He did have such a good time with the theory of the leisure class and then with the preconceptions of economic theory! And the economists reacted with such bewildered soberness: There was a man who really could play with ideas! If one wanted to indulge in the game of spinning theories who could match his skill and humor? But if anything were needed to convince me that the standard procedure of orthodox economics could meet no scientific tests, it was that Veblen got nothing more certain by his dazzling performances with another set of premises. His working conceptions of human nature might be a vast improvement: he might have uncanny insights; but he could do no more than make certain conclusions plausible — like the rest. How important were the factors he dealt with and the factors he scamped was never established.

                  That was a sort of problem which was beginning to concern me. William Hill set me a course paper on “Wool Growing and the Tariff.” I read a lot of the tariff speeches and got a new sidelight on the uses to which economic theory is adapted, and the ease with which it is brushed aside on occasion. Also I wanted to find out what really had happened to wool growers as a result of protection. The obvious thing to do was to collect and analyze the statistical data. If at the end I had demonstrated no clear-cut conclusion, I at least knew how superficial were the notions of the gentlemen who merely debated the tariff issue, whether in Congress or in academic quarters. That was my first “Investigation” — I did it in the way which seemed obvious, following up the available materials as far as I could, and reporting what I found to be the “facts.” It’s not easy to see how any student assigned this topic could do much with it in any other way.

                  A brief introduction to English economic history by A. C. Miller, and unsystematic readings in anthropology instigated by Veblen reenforced  the impressions I was getting from other sources. Everything Dewey was saying about how we think, and when we think, made these fresh materials significant, and got fresh significance Itself. Men had always deluded themselves, it appeared, with strictly logical accounts of the world and their own origin; they had always fabricated theories for their spiritual comfort and practical guidance which ran far beyond the realm of fact without straining their powers of belief. My grand aunt’s theology; Plato and Quesnay; Kant, Ricardo and Karl Marx; Cairnes and Jevons, even Marshall were much of a piece. Each system was tolerably self-consistent — as if that were a test of “truth”! There were realms in which speculation on the basis of assumed premises achieved real wonders; but they were realms in which one began frankly by cutting loose from the phenomena we can observe. And the results were enormously useful. But that way of thinking seemed to get good results only with reference to the simplest of problems, such as numbers and spatial relations. Yet men practiced this type of thinking with reference to all types of problems which could not be treated readily on a matter-of-fact basis — creation, God, “just” prices in the middle ages, the Wealth of Nations in Adam Smith’s time, the distribution of incomes in Ricardo’s generation, the theory of equilibrium in my own day.

                  There seemed to be one way of making real progress, slow, very slow, but tolerably sure. That was the way of natural science. I really knew nothing of science and had enormous respect for its achievements. Not the Darwinian type of speculation which was then so much in the ascendant — that was another piece of theology. But chemistry and physics. They had been built up not in grand systems like soap bubbles; but by the patient processes of observation and testing — always critical testing — of the relations between the working hypotheses and the processes observed. There was plenty of need for rigorous thinking, indeed of thinking more precise than Ricardo achieved; but the place for it was inside the investigation so to speak — the place that mathematics occuped in physics as an indispensable tool. The problems one could really do something with in economics were problems in which speculation could be controlled.

                  That’s the best account I can give off hand of my predilection for the concrete. Of course it seems to me rather a predilection for problems one can treat with some approach to scientific method. The abstract is to be made use of at every turn, as a handmaiden to help hew the wood and draw the water. I loved romance — particularly William Morris’ tales of lands that never were — and utopias, and economic systems, of which your father’s when I came to know it seemed the most beautiful; but these were objects of art, and I was a workman who wanted to become a scientific worker, who might enjoy the visions which we see in mountain mists but who trusted only what we see in the light of common day.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

                  Besides the spice of rationalizing which doubtless vitiates my recollections — uncontrolled recollections at that — this account worries me by the time it is taking yours as well as mine. I’ll try to answer the other questions concisely.

                  Business cycles turned up as a problem in the course of the studies which I began with Laughlin. My first book on the greenbacks dealt only with the years of rapid depreciation and spasmodic wartime reaction. I knew that I had not gotten to the bottom of the problems and wanted to go on, so I compiled that frightful second book as an apparatus for a more thorough analysis. By the time it was finished I had learned to see the problems in a larger way. Veblen’s paper on “Industrial and Pecuniary Employments” had a good deal to do with opening my eyes. Presently I found myself working on the system of prices and its place in modern economic life. Then I got hold of Simmel’s Theorie des Geldes — a fascinating book. But Simmel, no more than Veblen, knew the relative importance of the factors he was working with. My manuscript grew — it lies unpublished to this day. As it grew in size it became more speculative. I was working away from any solid foundation — having a good time, but sliding gayly over abysses I had not explored. One of the most formidable was the recurring readjustments of prices, which economists treated apart from their general theories of value, under the caption “Crises.” I had to look into the problem. It proved to be susceptible of attack by methods which I thought reliable. The result was the big California monograph. I thought of it as an introduction to economic theory.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

                  This conception is responsible for the chapter on “Modern Economic Organization.” I don’t remember precisely at what stage the need of such a discussion dawned upon me. But I have to do everything a dozen times. Doubtless I wrote parts of that chapter fairly early and other parts late as I found omissions in the light of the chapters on “The Rhythm of Business Activity.” Of course, I put nothing in which did not seem to me strictly pertinent to the understanding of the processes with which the volume dealt. That I did not cover the field very intelligently, even from my own viewpoint, appears from a comparison of the books published in 1913 and 1927. Doubtless before I am done with my current volume, I shall be passing a similar verdict upon the chapter as I left it last year.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

                  As to the relation between my analytic description and “causal” theory I have no clear ideas — though I might develop some at need. To me it seems that I try to follow through the interlacing processes involved in business expansion and contraction by the aid of everything I know, checking my speculations just as far as I can by the data of observation. Among the things I “know” are the way in which economic activity is organized in business enterprises, and the way these enterprises are conducted for money profits. But that is not a simple matter which enables me to deduce certain results — or rather, to deduce results with certainty. There is much in the workings of business technique which I should never think of if I were not always turning back to observation. And I should not trust even my reasoning about what business men will do if I could not check it up. Some unverifiable suggestions do emerge; but I hope it is always clear that they are unverified. Very likely what I try to do is merely carrying out the requirements of John Stuart Mill’s “complete method.” But there is a great deal more passing back and forth between hypotheses and observation, each modifying and enriching the other, than I seem to remember in Mill’s version. Perhaps I do him injustice as a logician through default of memory; but I don’t think I do classical economics injustice when I say that it erred sadly in trying to think out a deductive scheme and then talked of verifying that. Until a science has gotten to the stage of elaborating the details of an established body of theory — say finding a planet from the aberrations of orbits, or filling a gap in the table of elements — it is rash to suppose one can get an hypothesis which stands much chance of holding good except from a process of attempted verification, modification, fresh observation, and so on. (Of course, there is a good deal of commerce between most economic theorizing and personal observation of an irregular sort  — that is what has given our theories their considerable measure of significance. But I must not go off into that issue.)

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

                  Finally, about the table of decils. One cannot be sure that a given point on the decil curves represents the relative price of just one commodity or the relative wage of just one industry. For it often happens, particularly near the center of the range covered, that several commodities and industries have identical relatives in a certain year and these identical relatives may happen to be decil points. But I think the criticisms you make of my interpretations of the movements of the decils are valid. Frederick C. Mills makes similar strictures in his Behavior of Prices, pp. 279 following, particularly p. 283 note. The fact is that when writing the first book about business cycles I seem to have had no clear ideas about secular trends. The term does not occur in the index. Seasonal variations appear to be mentioned only in connection with interest rates. Of course certain rough notions along these lines may be inferred; but not such definite ideas as would safeguard me against the errors you point out. What makes matters worse for me, I was behind the times in this respect. J.P. Norton’s Statistical Studies in the New York Money Market had come out in 1902, I ought to have known and made use of his work.

                  That is only one of several serious blemishes upon the statistical work in my 1913 volume. After Hourwich left Chicago, and that was before I got deep into economics, no courses were given on statistics in my time. I was blissfully ignorant of everything except the simplest devices. To this day I have remained an awkward amateur, always ready to invent some crude scheme for looking into anything I want to know about, and quite likely to be betrayed by my own apparatus. I shall die in the same sad state.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

                  I did not intend to inflict such a screed upon you when I started. Now that I have read it over, I fell compunctions about sending it. Also some hesitations. I don’t like the intellectual arrogances which I developed as a boy, which stuck by me in college, and which I shall never get rid of wholly. My only defense is that I was made on a certain pattern and had to do the best I could — like everybody else. Doubtless I am at bottom as simple a theologian as my grand aunt. The difference is that I have made my view of the world out of the materials which were available in the 1880’s and ’90’s, whereas she built, with less competent help than I had, out of the material available in the farming communities of the 1840’s and ’50’s. Perhaps you have been able to develop an outlook on the world which gives you a juster view than I had of the generations which preceded me and of the generation to which I belong. If I did not think so, I should not be sending you a statement so readily misunderstood.

Ever yours,
Wesley C. Mitchell.
(Copy by J.M.C. )

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Special Manuscript Collections. Mitchell, W.C. Collection. Box C8, Ch-Ec. Folder “Clark, John Maurice v.p., 8 Apr 1926 & 21 Apr 1927 to Wesley C. Mitchell 2 a.l.s. (with related material)”.

Image: Wesley Clair Mitchell.  Detail from a departmental photo dated “early 1930’s” in Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Photos”. Colorized at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Categories
Economics Programs Economists Harvard

Harvard. Economics PhD Alumnus Howard Sylvester Ellis, 1929

A graduate student’s application for candidacy for an economics Ph.D. provided information to the Dean of Harvard’s Division of History, Government, and Economics to establish the eligibility for taking the General Examination and it also then provided a check-list for the satisfaction of degree requirements — French and German language competency, acceptance of the Ph.D. thesis, and success in both the General and Special Examinations.

In addition to the application itself, this post includes the file correspondence and the Harvard course transcript for the future president of the American Economic Association (1949) and economics professor at Berkeley, Howard Sylvester Ellis (1898-1992). His most important contribution was perhaps the volume he edited and first published in 1948, A Survey of Contemporary Economics (11th printing in March 1966. The chronology of Ellis’ career has been included as well, following his Harvard graduate school record.

_______________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DIVISION OF HISTORY, GOVERNMENT, AND ECONOMICS

Application for Candidacy for the Degree of Ph.D.

[Note: Boldface used to indicate printed text of the application; italics used to indicate the handwritten entries]

I. Full Name, with date and place of birth.

Howard Sylvester Ellis. Denver, Colo. July 2, 1898.

II. Academic Career: (Mention, with dates inclusive, colleges or other higher institutions of learning attended; and teaching positions held.)

State University of Iowa, 1916-20.
Chicago, Summer 1920.
University of Michigan, 1920-1922. Half-time graduate work & Instructor of Economics.
Harvard University, 1922-3 [Thayer Fellow], Assistant in Economics 1923–.

III. Degrees already attained. (Mention institutions and dates.)

B.A. State University of Iowa, 1920 (June).
M.A. University of Michigan 1922 (March).

IV. General Preparation. (Indicate briefly the range and character of your under-graduate studies in History, Economics, Government, and in such other fields as Ancient and Modern Languages, Philosophy, etc. In case you are a candidate for the degree in History, state the number of years you have studied preparatory and college Latin.)

History: Medieval, 1 yr; Greek & Roman, 1 yr; United States, 1 yr; Modern European, 1 yr.; Social Reform, 1 semester.
Economics: Principles, 1 yr.; Accounting, Banking, Business Administration, Hist. of Theory –summer session. See also under “Remarks”.
Sociology: Principles, 1 yr.; Anthropology, 1 yr.
Latin: 4 yrs. prep., 1 coll.; German: 4 yrs coll.; French: 2 yrs coll; Italian: 1 summer coll.

V. Department of Study. (Do you propose to offer yourself for the Ph.D., “History,” in “Economics,” or in “Political Science”?)

Economics.

VI. Choice of Subjects for the General Examination. (State briefly the nature of your preparation in each subject, as by Harvard courses, courses taken elsewhere, private reading, teaching the subject, etc., etc.)

  1. Economic Theory and Its History. Course 11, Prof. Taussig; Seminary in Theory & History, Prof. Taylor at Michigan & his “Course 7”; courses with Prof. Knight at Iowa; Course 14, Prof. Bullock; teaching principles at Michigan & Harvard.
  2. Industrial History: Courses 2a & b, Professor Usher & supplementary reading. Undergraduate concentration in history’.
  3. Railroads. Course at Michigan, Prof. Sharfman. & Readings contemplated.
  4. Public finance. Course 31, Prof. Bullock.
  5. Political Theory. Course Gov’t 6, Prof. McIlwain.
  6. Economic Theory & Its History.
    (Historical subject now contemplated as subject for thesis and special examination)

VII. Special Subject for the special examination.

Historical subject in economic theory. Money and Banking with special reference to recent theory (note by H.H.B. 2/12/29).

VIII. Thesis Subject. (State the subject and mention the instructor who knows most about your work upon it.)

Recent German Monetary Theory.

IX. Examinations. (Indicate any preferences as to the time of the general and special examinations.)

Spring 1924. General Examination

X. Remarks

Preparation in fields indicated beside undergraduate courses.

Economics: Seminary in History of Theory & Theory, 2 yrs;
Advanced Theory, 1 set (F.M. Taylor); 1 yr (F.W. Taussig)
Railroads, 1 semester; Corporations, 1 semester;
Public finance, 1 yr (Bullock); Statistics, 1 yr;
Economic or Industrial History, 1 yr.;
Other courses currently.

Philosophy: History of Philosophy, 1 yr.; Metaphysics, 1 semester; Kant, seminary, 1 semester.

Special [Examination] Professors Taussig, Williams, Mason

Signature of a member of the Division certifying approval of the above outline of subjects.

[signed] T. N. Carver

*   *   *   [Last page of application] *   *   *

[Not to be filled out by the applicant]

Name: Howard Sylvester Ellis

Approved: January 11, 1924

Ability to use French certified by C. J. Bullock, Apr. 11, 1923.

Ability to use German certified by C. J. Bullock, Apr. 11, 1923.

Date of general examination May 26, 1924. Passed. [F.W.T.]

Thesis received April 1, 1929

Read by Professors Hawtrey, Taussig, Williams

Approved May, 1929

Date of special examination June 10, 1929 [F.W.T.]

Recommended for the Doctorate [left blank]

Degree conferred  [left blank]

Remarks.  [left blank]

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Certification of reading knowledge
of French and German for Ph.D.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Cambridge, Massachusetts
April 11, 1923

Dear Dean Haskins:

This is to certify that I have examined Mr. H. S. Ellis and find that he has such a knowledge of French and German as we require of candidates for the Ph.D. degree.

Very sincerely yours
[signed]
C. J. Bullock

Dean C. H. Haskins

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

General Examination, date and
change of an examiner
[carbon copy]

22 May, 1924

My dear Professor Taussig:

This is to remind you that are chairman of the committee for the general examination of H. S. Ellis for the Ph.D. in Economics, to be held on Monday, 26 May, at 4 p.m., in Widener U. I enclose Mr. Ellis’s papers herewith. Professor Dewing is going to substitute for Professor Cunningham on the committee.

Very truly yours,
[unsigned copy]
Secretary of the Division

Professor F. W. Taussig

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

General Examination, date and
change of an examiner
[carbon copy]

22 May, 1924

My dear Mr. Ellis:

This is to remind you that your general examination for the Ph.D. in Economics is to be held on Monday, 26 May, at 4 p.m., in Widener U. Professor Dewing is going to substitute for Professor Cunningham on the committee.

Very truly yours,
[unsigned copy]
Secretary of the Division

Mr. H. S. Ellis

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Passed General Examination

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Cambridge, Massachusetts
May 28, 1924

My dear Haskins:

As chairman of the committee appointed to conduct the general examination of H. S. Ellis for the Ph.D. degree in Economics, I have to report that Mr. Ellis passed the examination to the satisfaction of the committee. While his showing at the examination was not without defects, his record on the whole made the case clear.

Very truly yours,
[signed]
F. W. Taussig

Dean C. H. Haskins

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Scheduling Special Examination,
Changing special field
to Money & Banking

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

H. H. Burbank

34 Holyoke Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts
February 12, 1929

Dear Miss Campbell:

I am confirming our telephone conversation of a few moments ago. The special field of Howard Ellis will be Money and Banking with special reference to recent theory.

Ellis wishes as late a date as possible and you have suggested as near June 10 as can be arranged. I will write Ellis and ask him to correspond with you.

Very sincerely,
[signed]
H. H. Burbank

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Thesis summary

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
ANN ARBOR
Department of Economics

1327 Wilmot St.
April 18, 1929

Miss Glady E. Campbell,
Secretary of the Division of History, Government and Economics,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

Dear Miss Campbell:

Kindly find enclose a summary of my dissertation, and accept my thanks for calling the matter to my attention.

Very sincerely yours,
[signed]
Howard S. Ellis

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Passed Special Examination

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Cambridge, Massachusetts
June 11, 1929

My dear Carver,

As chairman of the committee appointed to conduct the special examination Mr. Howard S. Ellis in economics I have to report that Mr. Ellis passed the examination.

Very sincerely yours,
[signed]
F. W. Taussig

Professor T. N. Carver
774 Widener Library
Cambridge, Massachusetts

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
(INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE SHEET)

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Record of H. S. Ellis
in the
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.

 Grades
1922-23 Course

Half-Course

Economics 2a1

A

Economics 2b2

A

Economics 11

A

Economics 31

A minus

Economics 41

B plus

1923-24 (midyear grades) Course

Half-Course

Economics 14

A minus

Government 6

A

[Note: a supplementary transcript of the record of H.S. Ellis dated May 18, 1929 reports a grade of “excused” for Economics 14 and Government 6 for the 1923-24 year]

Source: Harvard University Archives. Division of History, Government & Economics, Ph.D. Degrees Conferred 1929-30. (UA V 453.270), Box 09.

__________________________

Course Names and Instructors

1922-23

Economics 2a 1hf. European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century. Assistant Professor Usher.

Economics 2b 2hf. Economic History of the United States. Assistant Professor Usher.

Economics 11. Economic Theory. Professor Taussig.

Economics 31. Public Finance. Professor Bullock.

Economics 41. Statistical Theory and Analysis. Professors Young and Day.

1923-24

Economics 14. History and Literature of Economics to the year 1848. Professor Bullock.

Government 6. History of Political Theory. Professor McIlwain.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College for 1922-23, 1923-24.

__________________________

Howard Sylvester Ellis
Timeline of his life and career

1898. Born July 2 in Denver Colorado.

1916-20. State University of Iowa.

1920. A.B. State University of Iowa.

1920. Summer term, University of Chicago.

1920-1922. Half-time graduate work half-time instructor of Economics, University of Michigan.

1922. A.M. University of Michigan.

1922-23. Thayer Fellow, Harvard.

1923. Ricardo Prize awarded for the best essay written in a special examination held in economics. (Harvard Crimson, 9 June 1923)

1924. February. A.M. in economics, Harvard.

1923-24. Teaching section leader in Economics A (Principles of Economics), Harvard.

1924-25. Non-resident, Frederick Sheldon Travelling Fellowship, Harvard. Studied at the University of Heidelberg.

1925-38. Taught at the University of Michigan.

1929. Ph.D. in economics, Harvard. (Report of the President of Harvard College, 1928-29, p. 103)

1930. Awarded the David A. Wells prize in Economics for best Ph.D. thesis in three years. (Harvard Crimson, 2 June 1930)

1938-65. Flood Professor of Economics. University of California, Berkeley.

1943-45. Assistant director of Research and Statistics at the Federal Reserve Board in Washington.

1944-45. Visiting professor at Columbia.

1948. Edited A Survey of Contemporary Economics for the American Economic Association. (12 printings)

1949. President of the American Economic Association.

1951. Visiting professor at the University of Tokyo sponsored by a Rockefeller Foundation grant.

1953-55. President of the International Economic Association.

1955. (with Norman Buchanan). Approaches to Economic Development published.

1958-59. Visiting professor at Bombay.

1969. Visiting professor at Claremont, California

1972. Visiting professor at Wisconsin-Milwaukee

1992. Died April 14 in Capitola, California. (University of California. In Memorium); also the biography at the History of Economic Thought website)

Image Source: Portrait of Howard S. Ellis (ca. 1925) in Marjorie C. Brazer “The Economics Department of the University of Michigan: A Centennial Retrospective” in Economics and the World around It, edited by Saul H. Hymans (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1980). Colorized at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Categories
Curriculum Economics Programs International Economics LSE Money and Banking Suggested Reading Syllabus

LSE. Courses in Banking and Currency. Descriptions and Readings. Gregory and Tappan, 1924-25

From time to time during my wanderings through internet archives I stumble upon material that is ideal content for Economics in the Rear-view Mirror and that is worth the effort of digitization. Some old published Calendars of the London School of  Economics and Political Science can be accessed online and they provide much in the way of thick course descriptions and suggested readings.

This post is limited to the course offerings under the heading “Banking and Currency” that covers both domestic and international aspects of banking and money markets. In the academic year 1924-25 this field was covered by then Reader in Commerce, T. E. Gregory, and Assistant in Economics, Marjorie Tappan.

Almost all the readings listed for the courses have been successfully linked to on-line copies.

Other fields will be added in the near future, so do check back with Economics in the Rear-view Mirror!

___________________________

London School of Economics
and Political Science
Calendar for Thirtieth Session 1924-25

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Who, what, and when

The Banking and Currency Instructors:

T. E. Gregory, D.Sc. (Econ.) London; Sir Ernest Cassel Reader in Commerce in the University of London.

Marjorie Tappan, B.A. Assistant in Economics.

The Degrees:

Bachelor of Science in Economics (B.Sc.Econ.)
Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com.)
Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.)
Bachelor of Arts (B.A.)
Higher Degrees, such as M.A., Ph.D., M.Sc. (Econ.), LL. M., LL.D., D.Sc. (Econ.), or D. Lit.

The Terms:

Michaelmas term (October 6 to December 12, 1924), Lent term (January 12 to March 20, 1925) and Summer term (April 27 to June 26, 1925) Terms
M.T., L.T. and S.T., respectively

___________________________

BANKING AND CURRENCY.

       The letter Y indicates that the course is a preparation for an Intermediate Examination, Z for a Final Pass Examination, and A for a Final Honours Examination. 

       The sign ¶ indicates a course beginning at 5.30 p.m. or later.

10. — Y. —Elements of Currency, Banking and International Exchange, a course of fourteen lectures by Miss Tappan, on Tuesdays, at 11 a.m., in the Lent and Summer Terms, beginning L.T. 17th February, S.T. 28th April.

[For B.Sc. (Econ.) Intermediate, B.Com. Intermediate (S.T. only) and B.A. Final Honours in Geography.]

Fee: —£1 15s.

¶ For evening students the same course of lectures will be given on Mondays, at 6 p.m., beginning 16th February.

Fee: — £1 3s. 4d.

Syllabus.

       PART I. — The principles governing the existence and distribution of international trade. Statistical problems in the measurement of international trade. The organization and operation of international markets. The balancing of international indebtedness. The Foreign Exchanges.

       PART II. — The functions of currency and the service of (a) money and (b) credit in their performance. The standard in a currency system and its relation to commodity prices. The elements of (1) The British Monetary System; (2) The British Banking System (a) pre-war; (b) at the present time. The influence of the Bank of England in the money and investment markets.

       BOOKS RECOMMENDED — PART I. — Marshall, Money, Credit and Commerce, Book III.; F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, Vol. I., Book IV.; Bastable, Theory of International Trade; Pigou, Protective and Preferential Import Duties; Higginson, Tariffs at Work; Hobson, C. K., The Export of Capital; Gregory, Foreign Exchange — before, during and after the War; Clare, A.B.C. of the Foreign Exchanges. The Official Statistics of British Trade.

                  PART II. — F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, Vol. I., Book III., Book IV., Ch. 32, 33; Hawtrey, Currency and Credit and Monetary Reconstruction, Chaps. I.-IV. and VI.; Kirkaldy, British Finance, 1914-1921; Cannan, Money and Economica, Jan., 1921, and Economic Journal, Dec., 1921; Robertson, Money; Layton, Introduction to the Study of Prices; Bagehot, Lombard Street, 1920 edition; Clare, A Money Market Primer; Duguid, The Stock Exchange.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

11. — Z and A. — Principles of Currency and Banking, a course of twenty lectures by Miss Tappan, on Wednesdays, at 12 noon, in Michaelmas and Lent Terms, beginning M.T. 8th October, L.T. 14th January.

[For B.Sc. (Econ.) Final and B.Com. Final Part I.]

Fee:— For the Course, £2 10s.; Terminal, £1 10s.

For evening students the same course will be given on Tuesdays, at 7 p.m., beginning 7th October.

Fee:— For the Course, £1 13s. 4d.; Terminal, £1.

Syllabus.

       M.T. Metallic Currency. — The nature of money: recent discussions of the nature and adequate definition of money. The classification of monetary systems. The value of money: recent discussions of the problem. The return to sound money: deflation and devaluation. The social effects of rising and falling prices. Periodicity and anticipation in relation to monetary value.

       L.T. Banking and the Money Market. — The functions and economic significance of banking. The general structure and methods of banking. The cheque system and the nature of deposits. Banking in relation to the price level. The functions of Central Banks. The regulation of Note-issues, and the Bank Acts. Comparison with foreign systems. Recent developments in banking.

       BOOKS RECOMMENDED: — Cannan, Money in Relation to Rising and Falling Prices; Cannan, Bank Deposits (Economica No. 1.) and The Application of the Apparatus of Supply and Demand to Units of Currency (Ec. Journal, Dec. 1921); Hawtrey, Currency and Credit and Monetary Reconstruction; J. Bonar, Knapp’s Theory of Money (Ec. Journal, March, 1922); Cassel, Money and Foreign Exchange since 1914; Irving Fisher, The Purchasing Power of Money; L. von Mises, Theorie des Geldes und der Umlaufsmittel; Laughlin, The Principles of Money; Layton, Introduction to the Study of Prices; Foxwell, Papers on Current Finance; Lavington, The English Capital Market; Döring, Die Geld Theorien seit Knapp; Keynes, Monetary Reform.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

12. — Z and — The Stock Exchange Speculative Markets, and Dealing, a course of six lectures by Dr. Gregory, on Tuesdays, at 11 a.m., in Summer Term, beginning 28th April.

[For B.Com., Group A, and B.Sc. (Econ.), Final — special subject.]

Fee:— 12s.

¶ For evening students the same course will be given on Tuesdays, at 7 p.m., beginning 28th April.

Fee:— 8.

Syllabus.

Markets, Valuation, and the Function of the Dealer. The Machinery of the Speculative Market. How far it requires organisation and regulation. The Stock Exchange as an example of the speculative market, and an indispensable adjunct of the banking system. Constitution of the London Stock Exchange. Methods of Dealing. The Settlement. Comparison with Foreign Markets. Promotion and Issue. The general causes affecting the value of securities.

       BOOKS RECOMMENDED. — Emery, Speculation on the Stock and Produce Exchanges of the U.S.A.; Emery, Ten Years’ Regulation of the Stock Exchange in Germany (Yale Review, May, 1908); Van Antwerp, New York Stock Exchange from Within; Lavington, The English Capital Market; Schwabe, Effect of War on Stock Exchange Transactions, 1915; Sayous, Les Bourses Allemandes de Valeurs et de Commerce; J. G. Smith, Organised Produce Markets; Reports on Cotton Exchange Methods, U.S. Commr. of Corporations 1908-14; various articles by Messrs. Emery, Stevens, Flux, Hooker, Chapman, Lexis, &c.; Burn, Stock Exchange Investments; Mead, Corporation Finance; Young, Plain Guide to Investment and Finance — 3rd Edition, 1919; Greenwood, Foreign Stock Exchange Practice and Company Laws; Reports of the U.S. [National] Monetary Commission.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

13. — A. — The History of Currency and Banking, with special reference to England, a course sixteen lectures, by Dr. Gregory, on Thursdays, at 5 p.m., in Lent and Summer Terms, beginning L.T. 15th January, S.T. 30th April.

[For B.Sc. (Econ.), Final—special subject.]

Fee for the course: £2; L.T., £1 10s.; S.T., 15s.

Syllabus.

The monetary system in the Middle Ages. History of the English silver pound. The silver famine and the effects of the supplies from the American mines. The controversy on the export of bullion and the Act of 1663. The early goldsmith bankers and the rise of banking in England. The foundation and early history of the Banks of England, Scotland and Ireland. The recoinage of 1696. The guinea and its ratings. Sir Isaac Newton’s reports on the currency. The recoinage of 1774. The restrictions on the tender of silver, Lord Liverpool’s Report of 1805, and the adoption of the gold standard.     The different developments of banking in England, Scotland and Ireland during the eighteenth century. The commercial expansion after 1763. The restriction of cash payments. The Bullion Committee. Lord Stanhope’s Act. The resumption of cash payments, and the various currency proposals made in connection with it by Ricardo, Baring and Huskisson.

       The modifications of the privileges of the Bank of England, and the rise of the English joint stock banks. The Bank Acts of 1844 and 1845. Recent developments in Banking.

       Throughout the course the attention of students will be specially directed to the study of important documents and to the sources of historical information generally.

BOOKS RECOMMENDED. — Ruding, Annals of the Coinage (for reference); Dana Horton, The Silver Pound; Chalmers, Colonial Currencies (for reference); Lord Liverpool, Treatise on the Coins of the Realm; Andréadès, History of the Bank of England; Powell, The Evolution of the Money Market, 1385-1915; Bisschop, The London Money Market, 1640-1826; Ricardo, Currency Tracts in McCulloch’s edn. of the Works, also partly reprinted as Ricardo’s Economic Essays (Bell & Sons, 1923); Graham, The One-pound Note in the History of Banking in Great Britain; Cannan, The Paper Pound: 1797-1821; Tooke and Newmarch, History of Prices (for reference); Bankers’ Magazine (for reference); Various Parliamentary and other Reports: especially the Reports of 1810 and 1819; Royal Mint: Statutes, etc., relating to the Coinage of the British Empire; Reports of the U.S.[National] Monetary Commission (for reference).

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

14. — Z and A. — The Foreign Exchanges and International Banking, a course of five lectures by Dr. Gregory, on Thursdays, at 12 noon, in Summer Term, beginning 30th April.

[For B.Com., Group A, and B.Sc. (Econ.), Final—special subject.]

Fee:— 10s.

¶ For evening students the same course will be given on Thursdays, at 7 p.m., beginning 30th April.

Fee:— 6s. 8d.

Syllabus.

The concept of Foreign Exchange. Types of Bills of Exchange. Quotations and Markets. Bankers’ credits in relation to the Exchanges. The Discount Market and its relation to Finance Bills. Arbitrage. Forward purchases and sales of Bills. The regulation of Exchange rates by discount rate variations. The fundamental causes of Exchange movements, the purchasing power parity. The development of the theory of the Exchanges. The organisation of International Banking. Exchange in relation to trade. “Exchange dumping.”

BOOKS RECOMMENDED. — Whitaker, Foreign Exchange; O. Haupt, Arbitrages et Parités; Spalding, Foreign Exchange and Foreign Bills; Escher, Foreign Exchange Explained, Kemmerer, Modern Currency Reforms; Manual of Emergency Legislation (Financial Edition); Gregory, Foreign Exchange Before, During and After the War; Cassel, The World’s Monetary Problems (Constable & Co.); Cassel, Money and Exchange since 1914; J. M. Keynes, in the Manchester Guardian Reconstruction Numbers.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

15. — Z and A. — Banking and Finance in the Principal Countries, a course of forty lectures by Miss Tappan (T.) and Dr. Gregory (L.T.), on Tuesdays, at 12 noon, and Wednesdays, at 11 a.m., beginning M.T. 7th October, L.T. 13th January.

[For B.Com., Group A, and B.Sc. (Econ.), Final — special subject.]

Fee: — Sessional, £5; Terminal, £3.

¶ For evening students the same course of lectures will be given on Tuesdays, at 8 p.m., and Wednesdays, at 7 p.m., beginning 7th October.

Fee: — Sessional, £3 6s. 8d.; Terminal, £2.

(a) The U.S.A., South America and the Near East, twenty lectures by Miss Tappan, in the Michaelmas Term.

(b) Europe, twenty lectures by Dr. Gregory, in the Lent Term.

Syllabus.

This course will describe the main features in the evolution of the Currency and Banking Organisation of the countries concerned; the present position and the main problems of current interest.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

16.¶ — Z and A. — Banking in the British Dominions, a course of nine lectures by Dr. Gregory, on Thursdays, at 7 p.m., in the Lent Term, beginning 15th January.

[For B.Com., Group A, and B.Sc. (Econ.), Final—special subject.]

Fee: — 18s.

Syllabus.

The legal position and present economic organisation of Banking and Currency in Canada, South Africa, Australasia and India.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

17. — A. — Recent Monetary History and Monetary Controversies: an Introduction to the Monetary History of the Modern World, a course of six lectures by Dr. Gregory, on Wednesdays, at 5 p.m., in the Summer Term, beginning 29th April.

[For B.Com., Group A, and B.Sc. (Econ.), Final.]

Fee: —12s.

Syllabus.

The triumph of the gold standard in the last third of the 19th century. The re-opening of controversy; bimetallism, the gold exchange standard. The theoretical implications of the gold exchange standard. The revival of monetary mysticism. Knapp and his followers. The rise of prices and the suggested stabilisation of the value of money. Fisher’s Compensated Dollar. The spread of banking and the evolution of banking theory: was there a philosophy of Central Banking at all? The War and the ruin of the gold standard. Cassel’s theory of the Foreign Exchanges. The Monetary theories of the Brussels and Genoa Conferences Stabilisation and the Discount Rate.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

18.¶ — Banking Class, for students taking B.Com., Group A. or taking Banking as their special subject for the Final B.Sc, (Econ.), by Miss Tappan, in the Michaelmas Term on Tuesdays. at 3 p.m., beginning 14th October (day students); and Mondays, at 8 p.m., beginning 13th October (evening students). This class will be held by Dr. Gregory in the Lent and Summer Terms; on Tuesdays at 3 p.m., beginning 20th January (day students), and Thursdays at 6 p.m. beginning 22nd January (evening students).

N.B. — Reference should also be made to the following courses:—

No. 1. Accounts I.
No. 2. Accounts II.
No. 132. Mercantile Law (I.).
No. 135. Law of Banking.

Source: London School of Economics and Political Science, Calendar for Thirtieth Session 1924-25, pp. 72-75.

Image Source: Wikimedia commons. Portraits (from the 1930s?) of Theodore Emmanuel Gregory and Marjorie Tappan Hollond. Both images smoothed and colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Categories
Harvard Third Party Funding

Harvard. A Plea for Research Support for the Economics Department. Bullock, 1915

The following plea for more funding of economic research outside of official government agencies in general, but at universities like Harvard in particular, was written by public finance professor Charles Jesse Bullock and published in the Harvard alumni magazine in 1915. It left a deep enough impression to get mentioned at a meeting of the economics department’s visiting committee with faculty nearly thirty years later. 

I was somewhat surprised that after the long wind-up about the importance of large-scale research in the social sciences (especially in economics) for nothing less than “the future of civilization,” the essay ends up being little more than a pitch for a couple of paid research assistantships for the department. Still Bullock’s obiter dictum to the effect that they who pay the piper can choose the tune will be familiar to those living in our present age of partisan think-tanks and policy research institutions.

__________________________

THE NEED OF ENDOWMENT FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH.

By Charles J. Bullock

The Harvard Graduates’ Magazine, vol. 23, June 1915, pp. 601-610

                  This is a time of economic unrest, and therefore of economic inquiry. Existing conditions are the object of incessant criticism, the fundamentals of the present order are often called in question, and nothing seems exempt from discussion, criticism, assault. Whereas a generation ago a mere handful of books and a few magazine articles represented the annual output of the United States in economics and sociology, today the output rises to approximately 1000 volumes, which is nearly one twelfth of the total book crop of the year; while the magazines and newspapers flood the market with their articles by the thousands and tens of thousands, to the despair of the cataloguer and expert indexer.

                  Recent conditions may have been unusual; perhaps another decade will see a change in popular interest. But it is not to be doubted that economic problems will continue to absorb their share of attention, and that economic inquiry will continue on a larger scale than was ever known before the 20th century. Equally clear is it that the importance of such inquiry cannot be gainsaid. If the 19th century was the century of the natural sciences, it cannot be doubted that the 20th, whatever else it may be, will be a century of social and economic inquiry. Modern life will doubtless grow more complex rather than less, more delicate and difficult economic adjustments will doubtless be necessary, projects for the reform and perfection of mankind will not become less numerous, and there will be great need of scientific investigation in economics and the other social sciences. Upon the success or failure of such inquiry, indeed, may depend in no small measure the future of western civilization.

                  To meet the need of the times, our existing equipment for scientific economic research is inadequate. For serious investigation in this field two agencies, and only two, are now available. On the one hand, we have the individual investigator working with such private means as are at his command, and in such leisure as he can snatch from his regular vocation. On the other hand, we have governmental agencies like statistical bureaus, commissions of inquiry, and certain administrative departments having to do with such matters as taxation, railroads, corporations, labor, commerce, agriculture, and the like. These yearly become more numerous, and perhaps more influential; and they supply materials of the greatest value to the private investigator. Undoubtedly, the economist of today commands a far larger mass of data than his predecessors.

                  But the greater part of this material is in very raw state, some of it is untrustworthy, and most of it requires careful verification, analysis and interpretation before it is fit for scientific use. Therefore the resources of the individual investigator are as inadequate as ever; indeed, not the least of his troubles is the enormous mass of material, — valuable, doubtful, or worthless, — which must receive patient and critical examination at his hands. On the whole, he is hardly better off than the economist of the last generation, and there can be no doubt that the progress of scientific economic investigation is greatly hampered at every turn by the lack of such provision as has been made in generous measure for the study of the physical and natural sciences.

                  In the latter field it was long ago learned that the resources of the individual investigator, even when he coöperated with his fellow scientists, were inadequate for the work at hand; and it is today a matter of comparative ease to secure generous endowments for scientific research in physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and medicine. But for economic science similar endowments are almost entirely lacking, and seem hardly to be regarded as necessary. For the most part the economist is expected to make bricks without straw, or at least with such few wisps as he can supply from his private resources, which are seldom large; and yet economic research, when conducted properly, is as expensive as research in any other field, and more expensive than in most others. The collection of the primary materials is often wholly beyond the ability of an individual investigator under present conditions, and must be entrusted to governmental agencies, which alone can gather comprehensive data concerning population, resources, production, commerce, labor, finance, and many other subjects. But such data frequently need to be supplemented by private inquiry, and they always need most searching and painstaking criticism; so that governmental agencies leave much to be done even in the collection of trustworthy primary materials. Then after the data are at hand must begin the process of analysis and interpretation, which is difficult and time consuming. Here, as in all other fruitful scientific inquiry, economic investigation is always reaching into new domains; and in any given domain must probe more and more deeply, and make its analyses increasingly minute. In all these respects the task of the economist is as difficult and exacting as that of his colleagues in any other branch of science. His province is vast, and a field for endless labor opens before him.

                  In some particulars, indeed, the task of the economist is even more difficult than that of the student of physical or natural science. The elements in any economic problem, the materials with which the science deals, are exceedingly mutable, and frequently change even while the economist is analyzing and classifying them. Work done by the mathematician, if well done, abides forever. The chemist or physicist may make his determinations so accurate that they will remain the closest approximations to the truth; and the biologist, even though he knows that species are not immutable, can safely assume that his beasts and plants are not going to change before his investigation is completed. But the economist’s phenomena are in the highest degree mutable. Some things, indeed, may not change. The law of diminishing returns is not likely to be modified in the near future even by act of Congress; nor does human nature, however modifiable by environment, change over night or even reconstitute itself within a year. But such things as laws and institutions, methods of production, available natural resources, the numbers and distribution of population, are in constant state of flux; and many an economist who lightheartedly begins a study of current problems presently finds himself writing a treatise on ancient history. Indeed, the economist’s task is never done. His materials must ever be collected anew, and his work must ever be repeated; the economic order changes, and the living specimens of today become in a few years the fossil remains of a bygone age. It will be noticed that I am speaking not of changes in theories about given economic phenomena, but of mutations of the phenomena themselves. In every field of science theories change, but in no field do the phenomena themselves change so generally and rapidly as in the social sciences.

                  A further difficulty is that the materials with which the economist deals are peculiarly liable to perversion, distortion, and even deliberate falsification. This fact enormously increases the investigator’s difficulties, and greatly adds to his labor. For this reason alone, the resources of the private investigator would surely be inadequate; and when to this is added the mass and complexity of the materials and their extraordinary mutability, the need of greater facilities than the individual economist can command is too apparent to require further comment.

                  One conceivable solution of the difficulty is to turn all large undertakings over to the State. Already the United States government is spending large sums for research, and the total cost of such work must amount to several million dollars annually. The Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Bureau of Labor, the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Corporations, and the Interstate Commerce Commission have done, and are doing, work of the greatest importance to the economist, much of which, especially in the field of statistics, would be absolutely beyond the capacity of any individual investigator or private organization. In a similar manner various states and an occasional city are carrying on work of great importance, usefully supplementing the scientific work of the Federal government. Why not, then, depend upon these public agencies for such economic research as lies beyond the power of the individual investigator?

                  I have not the least desire to disparage governmental research; on the contrary, as indicated in the previous paragraph, I believe it to be highly useful, and in some fields indispensable. I believe also that the last 10 or 15 years have seen a distinct improvement in the quality of the work done in the United States, although such improvement has not everywhere kept pace with the increase of output. But after giving the most generous recognition to what the State is doing for the promotion of economic research, we must recognize that it would be highly unfortunate, and even dangerous, to permit the State to monopolize all economic inquiries that lie beyond the power of the individual investigator.

                  For, in the first place, even scientific research, when turned over to a governmental agency, is brought directly within the domain of politics. I do not mean, of course, that all of our departments or bureaus carrying on scientific work are headed by practical politicians and manned by political workers. This sort of thing, as we all know, is becoming less common; and there are not a few cases in which it is possible to say that politics, in this sense of the word, has been largely, and for considerable periods even wholly, excluded. To be sure, even a president of Mr. Wilson’s antecedents has been guilty of placing in charge of an important bureau, the only work of which is of a scientific character, a man whose principal qualification evidently was that he had been chairman of the party committee of a certain state. But such occurrences are becoming less frequent, and we may fairly anticipate continued improvement in the matter of treating scientific positions as mere political spoils.

                  But even with the grosser forms of political influence eliminated, it is true, and must remain true, that political considerations or purposes can never be wholly eliminated from governmental research. Even such an apparently non-political bureau as the Geological Survey may become the storm centre of the conservation movement if official determination has to be made of the apparently simple question of the effect of forest destruction upon soil erosion, and the Weather Bureau may become surcharged with political lightning if a loquacious chief expresses uncalled for opinions concerning the influence of forests upon rainfall and the flow of rivers. Even chemical and physiological inquiries take on a political tinge if they relate to the use of benzoate of soda, the wholesomeness of oleomargarine, and the products of the Chicago stock-yards. In fact, a clever politician can extract a surprising amount of political capital from such scientific inquiries as these, and a scientific investigator may risk his official head if his inquiries lead to an unwelcome conclusion. Some years ago a physiological chemist who was so unfortunate as to determine that good oleomargarine is a perfectly healthful article of food was told that his institution need expect no further support from the State if its professors were to antagonize the farmers in this manner. Equally hard might be the lot of any other investigator whose scientific determinations in this, or any allied field, should prove unpalatable to the conservationist, the pure-food crusader, the farmer, the social reformer, or the big corporation that produced the articles subjected to scientific analysis.

                  What happens to such peaceful and apparently non-political sciences as chemistry and physiology when they come into contact with politics, is much more certain to happen to a science like economics, which from the very nature of the case must deal with questions that are political in character. Even if we grant that it is possible to eliminate absolutely the spoils system, it would still remain true that economic research under Republican auspices would necessarily be a somewhat different thing from economic research under Democratic guidance, or under the control of a Progressive, Socialist, or Prohibition administration. Messrs. Redfield and Davies, for instance, inevitably give a different tone to economic inquiries under their charge from that imparted by Messrs. Cortelyou and Smith. This is not by remotest implication a reflection upon the honesty or fairness of any of these gentlemen, but it is merely a statement of a condition that inevitably results from the personal equation and the political creed. Nor is it a reflection upon governmental research as such, for such work may be highly useful in spite of the allowance that has to be made for the personal or political equation. I maintain simply that we must not blink the patent fact that governmental research can never wholly lose a political character. Such research may be highly useful, and, in fact, is becoming increasingly necessary; but we should not on that ground indulge in any illusions concerning it. “Official statistics,” the “impartial findings” of a Federal commission, the “final and authoritative” determinations of a government bureau, are indeed entitled to respectful reception and careful consideration; but they do not give us necessarily the last word upon any subject.

                  I have spoken so far only of the inevitable defects that arise from personal or political bias, such as is bound to exist among the best of men, and is least harmful when frankly admitted. But beyond this, there is the possibility of deliberate perversion of governmental investigation for partisan purposes. Some branches of Census work have suffered seriously from this cause, particularly the statistics that used to be published concerning the average wages paid in manufacturing industries. The most notorious case occurred in 1892, when, by manipulating the divisor used in computing average wages, the Census was able to announce that the average remuneration had risen from $347 in 1880 to $445 in 1890. On the eve of the presidential election the Census issued a series of bulletins relating to wages paid in the leading cities of the country, and exploiting in the most conspicuous manner possible the increase alleged to have occurred during the decade ending in 1890. These bulletins purported to show that wages had increased nearly 53% in New York, 35% in Chicago, 45% in Boston, 52% in Philadelphia, 73% in Atlanta, 77% in Richmond, 77% in Syracuse, and so on through the list. It seemed as if the campaign committee had mobilized its forces at the Census Office, and was directing a hail of deadly statistical shrapnel at the enemy’s trenches. This may have been good politics, but it certainly was not good science; and even from the political point of view, it led to awkward consequences. The average wages for 1890 were placed at such a high figure that it was a foregone conclusion that, without deliberate falsification of the data, the statistics of 1900 could not exhibit a further increase. As a matter of fact, they showed a decrease, computed by the old method, from $445 to $438, which was perhaps a fortunate result in that it demonstrated the dangers of political wage statistics. It is gratifying to be able to add that there has been no time since the Census was made a permanent bureau when such a performance as that of 1892 would have been conceivable.

                  Another celebrated feat of official statistics was the so-called Aldrich Report of 1893, which purported to give, among other things, statistics showing the general course of wages in the United States from 1840 to 1891. These statistics were immediately accepted as “official,” and incorporated in the economic literature of this and other countries; but it later developed that they had been gathered and handled by methods that would not bear the slightest careful criticism, and that some of the things done by the makers of the Report were so preposterous as to bring in question the investigators’ honesty of purpose. In one establishment, a brewery, the investigators found a brewer whose wages had increased from $6.39 a day in 1860 to $23.96 in 1891, or something like 285%; and they adopted a method of averaging which made the wages of this typical proletarian count for as much in determining the general result as those of 133 common laborers found in another industry whose wages had increased only 29% during the period of 31 years.

                  These examples show what official investigators can do even with such comparatively simple and definite things as statistics. When it comes to inquiries into complicated industrial conditions and the investigation of large questions of public policy, the opportunity for deliberate bias is greatly increased. Some 14 years ago, we had a Federal Industrial Commission which investigated almost every conceivable subject except white slavery and the recall of judges, but was particularly concerned with the trust problem and the protective tariff. The final report of the commission, in some 19 formidable volumes, has been widely used by both American and European investigators as a repository of economic information. Yet it was perfectly evident to the discerning at the time, and today would probably not be questioned by anybody, that, so far as the trusts and the tariff were concerned, the work of the commission was fundamentally partisan and political, and that its report contains fully as much misinformation as information. Certainly an economist with a professional reputation to maintain would today be chary of citing the findings of this commission as high authority upon either the trust or the tariff problem.

                  At the present writing, we have with us another industrial commission appointed a year or two ago as a result of the recent social unrest. In the closing months of his administration, President Taft named a commission, but his nominations aroused violent protest on account of the alleged conservative views of the nominees; and they were not confirmed by the Senate. President Wilson a few months later named another commission, against which the charge of conservatism can hardly lie; and this body is now making an official investigation of social conditions. On the eve of an important investigation the chairman, in a public address, denounces roundly the institutions he is about to investigate. Some months before the commission’s inquiries are concluded he announces that the country can never prosper “as long as the banks handle the wealth of the nation purely to make it pay the largest dividends,” and makes the “definite” suggestion that “autocracy in business” must go. When such performances arouse discussion and criticism, the grand inquisitor then announces that his “position is not a judicial one,” and that “judicial poise” is “a great bar to human progress.” Yet two or three years from now we shall be asked to accept the findings of this commission as “official.”

                  Cases are not wanting where investigations that yielded inconvenient results have been wholly suppressed. This happened, for instance, with an investigation of the sugar beet industry in the United States, which was made for one of the departments of the Federal government only a few years ago. And other similar, but less well authenticated, cases will doubtless occur to persons familiar with Washington affairs. Actual suppression, however, is probably a comparatively rare thing. What usually happens is that the administration in charge of national or state affairs is committed to certain policies, and that the expert investigators of such an administration are unlikely to reach inconvenient results. This is true not only of the political policies of national or state administrations, but also of the general policies of public departments in matters that are not immediately of political moment. A scientific student who turns to the reports of any public department, whether it has to do with taxation, banking, railroad administration, labor, or any other economic interest, must always be careful to make due allowance for the settled policies of the department. This is not a reflection upon the integrity of administrative departments, but is a necessary allowance for the personal equation which enters into all human affairs, public and private.

                  A final difficulty with the scientific work of governments is that it is generally confined to what are considered practical ends, by which is usually meant undertakings that give promise of immediate practical results. This is seen in appropriations for state universities which readily obtain money for agricultural, engineering, and other practical subjects, but have difficulty in securing meagre allowances for pure science, philosophy, and the humanities. It is evidenced also by the large appropriations the Federal Government makes for agricultural research, labor, and similar practical interests. In time, conditions may change, but for the present there is slight prospect of securing public support for research outside of economic questions of immediate practical concern.

                  Useful and even indispensable as it may be, therefore, governmental research in the field of economics needs to be supplemented by adequate private agencies. We need to place beside the Census Office, the Bureau of Labor, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Bureau of Corporations, and the other excellent boards and bureaus, both state and national, now engaged in economic research, a number of private agencies that shall be free from political stress and disturbance, relieved from the necessity of confining themselves to investigations of immediate practical value, and amply equipped for the most thorough, painstaking, and accurate research in both pure and applied economics. Since scientific work of such a character cannot possibly be remunerative in the pecuniary sense, it is evident that such agencies can be provided only by endowments.

                  It also seems clear that a university devoted to scientific studies and dedicated to the pursuit of truth is a most fit institution to receive such endowments. Here the investigator will not be obliged to confine himself to inquiries that promise immediate practical results. Here he may be free from political or other pressure, and may benefit from association with scientists engaged in other fields of work, especially the older and more exact sciences.

                  The work that might be accomplished by such endowments can hardly be overestimated. Never yet in the history of the science has the economist been given the resources and equipment really necessary for his work. To fashion bricks without straw were a light and attractive task compared with his. If Harvard University could receive during the next few years an endowment adequate to make even a respectable beginning of organized research, it might within a generation do more than any private agency has ever done to advance the frontiers of economic science.

                  Such a tremendous vista of useful investigations would open before a department properly equipped for economic research that a very large endowment is thoroughly justified and even urgently needed. This may not be the time for undertaking large enterprises that call for money, but it is possible to begin the work in a modest way by the endowment of one or more research assistantships, which would permit the Department to prospect the field. Such endowment would enable the University to provide a professor with competent assistants like those provided for investigators in other fields. The sum of $30,000 would endow such assistantships and provide for the incidental expenses that always arise in connection with scientific work. They would certainly justify themselves by their results, and further endowments would then be easier to secure.

                  Another excellent plan would be the provision of funds for the investigation of particular subjects. There is great need, for instance, of searching investigation of the recent increase of public expenditures in the United States, an undertaking that would certainly prove fruitful in both theoretical and practical results. Even greater is the need of a searching investigation of the present world-wide increase of prices, which, like similar price movements of former times, is producing economic disturbances of vital practical moment and the greatest theoretical interest. Then there are the troublesome problems of the day, — socialism, single tax, labor legislation, the extension of public industries, public regulation of private industry, the tariff problem, the problem of large-scale production, and all the others, — that occasion so much discussion at the present time. We hear much about what other countries have done in this direction or that, but we have comparatively little first-hand investigation, impartial and absolutely scientific, of the actual results of such experiments. At every hand topics of fascinating scientific interest and great practical importance abound. Competent workers are not numerous, and their resources are painfully inadequate.

                  In a new undertaking of this character, the first step is usually the hardest. The endowment of economic research at Harvard University is a thing that can be finally and conclusively justified only by its results, and such results in turn are impossible without an endowment. The Department of Economics, however, believes that a strong case can be made out in favor of an experiment in this direction. It is now in quest of endowments for research assistantships and funds to defray the expense of particular investigations. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this matter to the attention of the Harvard Graduates‘ Magazine.

Image Source: Portrait of Charles J. Bullock from the Harvard Class Album 1915. Colorized with image enhancement by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.