Categories
Cambridge Columbia Cornell Curriculum Economics Programs Germany Harvard Oxford Teaching

United Kingdom and other countries. Methods of Economic Training. Cunningham Committee Report, 1894

 

The Cunningham Committee report on methods of economic training in the United Kingdom and other European and North American countries from 1894 provides a wonderful overview of the (Western) state of economics education.

Previous posts with information for U.S. economics courses taught in the 1890s can be found in the previous posts:

Chicago, Columbia, Harvard 1893-94

United States. Economics Courses in 23 universities, 1898-99

____________________________

Methods of Economic Training in this and other Countries.

Report of the Committee, consisting of Professor W. CUNNINGHAM (Chairman), Professor E. C. K. GONNER (Secretary), Professor F. Y. EDGEWORTH, Professor H. S. FOXWELL, Mr H. HIGGS, Mr. L. L. PRICE, and Professor J. SHIELD NICHOLSON.

APPENDIX

I.— On the Methods of Economic Training adopted in Foreign Countries, by E. C. K. Gonner, pp. 2 ff.

      1. Austria
      2. Hungary
      3. Germany
      4. Holland
      5. Belgium
      6. Italy
      7. Russia
      8. United States of America

II.— On Economic Studies in France, by H. Higgs, pp. 20 ff.

III.—On the Condition of Economic Studies in the United Kingdom, by E. C. K. Gonner, pp. 23 ff.

      1. England
      2. Scotland
      3. Ireland

IN furtherance of the above purpose three reports have been drawn up after due inquiry and laid before your Committee.

These reports, which are appended, bring out very clearly some features of difference between the position of such studies in this and in foreign countries, and, with other information before your Committee, seem to them to call for the following observations. Before proceeding to the consideration of certain particular points they would remark that the growth of economic studies, and in particular the development among them of the scientific study of the actual phenomena of life (both in the past and in the present), have important effects, so far as the organisation of the study and its suitability for professional curricula are concerned. It may be hoped, indeed, that when the empirical side is more adequately represented, the importance of the careful study of economics as a preparation for administrative life will be more fully recognised both by Government and the public.

(a) The Organisation of the Study of Economics. — While fully recognising the great energy with which individual teachers in this country have sought to develop the study of this subject, your Committee cannot but regard the condition of economic studies at the universities and colleges as unsatisfactory. As contrasted with Continental countries and also with the United States, the United Kingdom possesses no regular system. In one place economics is taught in one way, and in connection with some one subject, not infrequently by the teacher of that subject ; in another place in another way, and with another subject. Very often it is taught, or at any rate learnt, as little as possible. In most places this lack of organisation is due to the weariness of introducing elaborate schemes for the benefit of problematic students.. At Cambridge the pass examination which has recently been devised only attracts a few. With regard to the higher study of economics, Professor Marshall, among others, has written strongly of the comparatively small inducements offered by economics as compared with other subjects. He adds: “Those who do study it have generally a strong interest in it; from a pecuniary point of view they would generally find a better account in the study of something else.” Some considerations bearing on this point are offered below, but here it may be observed that the attempts to introduce more system into the teaching of economics, and to secure for it as a subject of study fuller public recognition, should, so far as possible, be made together.

In the opinion of your Committee economics should be introduced into the honour courses and examinations of the universities in such a manner as to allow students to engage in its thorough and systematic study without necessarily going outside the range of degree subjects.

(b) The Position of Economics with regard to Professional and other Curricula. — In most Continental countries economics occupies a place more or less prominent in the courses of training and in the examinations through which candidates for the legal profession or the civil service have to pass. In Austria, Hungary, and the three southern States of Germany this connection is very real, and the nature of the study involved very thorough. The same cannot be said with regard to the northern States of the latter empire, where the importance attached to this subject is so slight as to make its inclusion almost nominal. To some extent or in some form it is regarded as a subject obligatory on those preparing for those callings, or, to speak more accurately, for the legal calling and for certain branches of the civil service in Italy, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Switzerland. In Holland and Belgium, while a certain general knowledge only is required for a few posts or branches of the civil service, a very thorough study is incumbent on those qualifying for the higher branch of the legal profession. In both France and Russia it is an integral and necessary portion of the legal curriculum.

The two studies are cognate, and according to the view of your Committee not only would the institution of an examination in economics at some stage of legal degrees and qualifications be advantageous professionally, but the work of those who had enjoyed a legal training would react favourably on the advance of the science. In addition, economics should receive a much more important place in the Civil Service Examinations.

_______________________

APPENDIX I.
On the Methods of Economic Training
adopted in Foreign Countries
.
By E. C. K. Gonner.

The comparative study of the continental and other foreign systems of Economic Education brings out in clear relief certain features of either difference or coincidence which relate respectively to the impulses or circumstances giving this particular study its importance, to the method of study, and, lastly, to its organisation and the degree of success attained in the various countries.

(1) Putting on one side the purely scientific impulse to learn for learning’s sake, which can, after all, affect comparatively few, the inducement to a large or considerable number of students to interest themselves in any particular study must consist in its recognition, either positive or tacit, as a necessary preliminary to some professions or to certain positions. This may, as has been suggested, be either direct and positive, or indirect and tacit; direct and positive, that is, in the case of economics when in either one or more branches they are made part of the examinations admitting to the legal profession and the higher civil service; indirect and tacit when public opinion demands economic knowledge as necessary in those holding prominent positions as citizens or anxious to direct and control their fellows, either by the pen as journalists, or by act or word as statesmen or politicians. The importance of both these motives is, of course, largely increased when they exist in close connection with the purely scientific impulse. By itself this is not sufficient. The exclusion of one study, as economics, from professional or technical curricula, unless counteracted by the existence of a very powerful popular sentiment in its favour, practically removes it from the reach of students who have to make themselves ready to earn their living. Of the two influences, described above, the former, or the actual and positive recognition is given, in some shape or other, in Austria and Hungary, the southern states of the German empire, France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Russia, and Holland. In America, and to some extent in Canada, popular sentiment and interest supply the needful impetus by making economics a tacit requisite for those exercising particular callings. In both Germany and Austria there are signs of the growth of economics in popular appreciation. In Austria, indeed, the circumstances are peculiarly fortunate. Economic instruction is recognised as a matter of serious importance, while, on the other hand, economic knowledge is one of the subjects of the State examinations for the legal and administrative service. In addition, its careful and scientific study is pursued by a fair number of advanced students. In this way Austria occupies a central position among the various nations which range themselves with America at one extreme, where there is no positive or direct obligation in favour of economic study, and at the other extreme, the Scandinavian and lesser Latin countries where all recognition that exists is positive, but where this positive recognition is largely nominal.

It has been urged that the ill-success of economic studies in these latter countries is largely an argument against their inclusion in obligatory curricula—a proposition which probably those who make it would hardly apply to the cases of other subjects. But from the evidence furnished by the countries before us this ill-success can be traced to other causes. It is due, firstly, to differences in the methods of study, and, secondly, to the differences in the thing made obligatory. In South Germany, Austria, and Hungary, economics is obligatory on certain classes of students, and the study of economics is making rapid and satisfactory progress, but then in South Germany, Austria, and Hungary, the method of study is one which commends itself to advanced students and educational critics, and the knowledge required in the examinations is thorough. In the lesser Latin countries, as Spain and Italy, the knowledge which the candidate is expected to show is elementary in itself, largely confined to elementary theory, and a marked unreality is imparted to the whole study, an unreality recognised alike by examiners, teachers, and students. On the other hand, the advantages which economics may receive from its public and positive recognition are borne witness to by those best acquainted with the condition of the study in Germany, where the usages of the north and south differ. Broadly speaking they consist in the removal of economics from the category of unnecessary to the category of necessary acquirements. Many of those who begin the study from compulsion continue it from choice. In America, indeed, the strength of popular sentiment and the ever present interest of politics together with the action of the universities, where nearly all studies, and not economics alone, are put on a voluntary footing, give it an adequate position; but failing the combination of conditions such as these, its absence, both from all professional curricula and from the earlier stages of education, cannot but be regarded as disastrous and unjust.

(2) The method of economic studies is of a certain importance with regard to the subject last discussed. Though it would be unfair to estimate the work, or to judge of the scope of schools of economic teaching from their extreme tendencies, these afford not unsatisfactory means of distinction. Speaking broadly, they may be placed in two groups—those in which the dominant influence is empirical; those in which it is theoretical or abstract. Very few economists, whether teachers or writers, are wholly empirical or wholly theoretical. Some bias, however, they nearly all have, and it is by that they may be ranked for the present purpose. Nor must it be supposed that the distinctions drawn in one country, with regard to these opposing lines of study, at all correspond with those existing in another. In Germany, for instance, the attitude of Professor Wagner is attacked by the members of the historical school— one branch of the empirical—but judged by the standards of France and England he would rank in the main as an empiricist. The theorists of Germany and Austria do little more than assert that theoretical study has its due place and is a necessary part of the equipment of an economist.

When discussing the assertion that compulsory economics, however enforced, tended to issue in perfunctory attendances and poor results so far as interest was concerned, it was urged that these consequences depended largely on the method and nature of study. This is remarkably llustrated by the fact that the countries where such evils are regretted or anticipated are those where the study of economics is mainly theoretic, or where economics is distinctly and openly subordinated to other subjects. Lessons of this latter kind are never thrown away upon students. But with regard to the former, it is not from the southern states of the German empire, or from Austria, that we hear these complaints. There economic study is obligatory, and the economic study involved is two thirds of it empirical in character. In the Latin countries the state of things is very different. The basis of study is, if I may say so, text-book theory, and the position of economics, so far as progress is concerned, is unsatisfactory in the extreme. This has been particularly dealt with in the paragraphs relating to Italy.

In two of the great nations the mode of study practised is largely empirical. In Germany, despite the contrast between different leaders of thought, the importance of this method is well illustrated by the position which the study of Practical or Applied Economics invariably occupies. In America, the study of economic history and of modern economic fact grows into greater prominence year by year.

(3) Turning to the question of success, the question arises at once as to the tests whereby such may be measured. Of these, many, varying from popularity to eclecticism, have been suggested, but possibly the one most suitable is the ability of a system to produce a high general level amongst a good number of students. Something more is required of a system than that it should bring together large audiences for elementary courses, while as for the production of a few very good students, a few will always press to the front through all difficulties, despite systems good or bad, or in the absence of any system at all. But a system that is to be deemed good must place within the reach of all industrious and apt students the means of a good general economic training, while stimulating him to prosecute original and independent work. Further, it should provide these advantages regularly and not intermittently. The way in which these two needs are met in practice can be stated briefly. General training is provided by a systematic series of courses which should include at least Theory of Economics, Applied Economics, and Finance. The seminar, or classes organised like the seminar, offer opportunities for guiding a student into the ways of original work.

Seminar instruction is given regularly in Germany, Austria, Hungary, in the better equipped universities of America, Switzerland, and to some extent in both Sweden and Holland. In Russia the professors may and sometimes do organise seminars or discussion classes. In Belgium classes are held in connection with some of the courses.

With regard to the systems of providing for a good ground knowledge of the leading branches of Economics, classification is rendered difficult by the different methods adopted in the various countries. Some are more, some less thorough. Among the former we may put without hesitation the countries already singled out for notice—Germany, America, Austria, and Hungary.

From the accounts given in detail below it is clear that in these countries the study of economics is advancing. The training is systematic. A fair proportion of students pass from the more general into the more special or advanced courses. The production of work, not necessarily of the first order, for with that we are not dealing, but of the second, or third, or fourth order, is great and still increases.

AUSTRIA.

The position of Economics in Austria is largely determined by its relation to legal studies, by the place, that is, which its various branches hold in the examinations qualifying for the legal profession and for the juridical and higher administrative services. According to the system till recently in force, but now somewhat modified, candidates intending to enter these had to attend certain courses at the universities, and to pass certain examinations varying according to the positions sought. Those entering the legal profession had to pass the first State examination in addition to the three political rigorosa of the university, success in which latter conferred the degree of Doctor. Other candidates only needed to pass the three State examinations. These latter were as follows:— The first (Rechtshistorische Staatsprüfung) was held at the end of the second year of study, and comprised the following subjects: Roman Law, Canon Law, and German Law in its historical aspect. The second (Judizielle Staatsprüfung) was held towards the end of the eighth semester, in the following subjects: Austrian Law, civil, commercial, and penal; Austrian civil and criminal Procedure. At the end of the four years came the third and final examination (Staatswissenschaftliche Staatsprüfung), which alone is of importance so far as the legal recognition of Economics is concerned. The subjects examined in were Austrian Law, International Law, Economics (including Economics, the Science of Administration, Finance and Statistics). The political rigorosa, while they correspond in outline to the State examinations, have some few points of difference both with regard to method and subjects. They, too, are three in number, and may be described as the Austrian rigorosum, corresponding to the second State examination, the Romanist, corresponding to the first State, and the Staatswissenschaftlich, which closely resembles the third State examination, though not including Statistics or Administration. There is no regulation as to the order in which they are to be passed, but that indicated above is customary. Their greater severity may be judged from both the additional length of preparation prescribed and the manner in which they are conducted. The earliest date at which a candidate may pass his first rigorosum is at the end of the fourth in place of the second year. The second and third may follow at respective intervals of two months. The Staatsprüfung is an examination taken by groups of four students, each group being under examination for two hours; but in the rigorosa each candidate is under examination for two hours, spending half-an-hour with each examiner. Both State and university examina tions are oral, and the latter are said to impose a severe strain on both examiner and candidate. In the latter the examiners are the university professors, while in the State examinations these are variously composed of professors, functionaries of the State, and barristers of good standing.

By the law of April 28, 1893, which came into effect in October, the system sketched above underwent certain alterations. A complete separation will be effected between the university examinations or rigorosa, and those qualifying for the legal profession and State services, the former no longer serving as a possible substitute for the second and third of the latter. In addition, some slight change has been introduced into the curriculum and examinations imposed upon students designing to enter these. They will have to attend courses and to be examined in— (a) The Science of Administration (Verwaltungslehre), and with special reference to Austrian Law; (b) Economics, theoretical and practical; (c) Public Finance, and especially Austrian Finance. In addition they must attend lectures (without subsequent examination) on Comparative and Austrian Statistics. These alterations will leave the number of students in the more elementary subjects unaffected, and so far from operating in discouragement of economic and political studies, will, it is hoped, lead to their more thorough prosecution, by raising the degree to a more scholarly position.

The marked recognition of Economics by the State, and the large number of students whose prospects are involved in its successful study, naturally affect the teaching organisation provided by the universities and other bodies.

This is fairly uniform throughout Austria, as apart from Hungary, though the extent to which the subject is pursued, and the variety of its forms, depend mainly on the enthusiasm of particular teachers and the greater opportunities offered by particular universities or other institutions. At the universities the ground plan of work may be described as identical, Economics being taught in the faculty of law. There are certain courses which must be delivered, and at which attendance is obligatory for certain classes of students. These are on National Economy, Finance, Statistics, and the Science of Administration (Verwaltungslehre), which includes instruction in practical economics, public health, army, matters of policy, justice, &c. But in addition to these the teachers, whether professors or privat-docents may, and often do, deliver special courses dealing with more particular subjects. These are not necessarily or usually the same from year to year; and may be described as instruction of an unusually high order, inasmuch as each teacher is accustomed to select for treatment such branch of science in which his own activities and studies lie. The large2 voluntary attendance at such lectures is a testimony to the regard in which economic studies are held among a large body of students.

1Vienna—Prag (German), Prag (Bohemian), Graz, Innsbruck, Krakau (Polish), Lemburg (Polish).
2At Vienna the attendants at special courses varies from 50 to 100.

Seminar instruction is customary, as in Germany. At Vienna there are two seminars, one for Economics, one for Statistics and Political Science (Staatswissenschaft), while in addition there is an Institute of Political Science, attached to all of which are libraries and places for the members to carry on their work in close contact with their professor or his deputy. The members consist in part of young doctors of the university who have recently graduated, in part of those preparing for the examinations of the university, and include, as a rule, several foreigners who have come to Vienna to pursue their studies. The arrangements at the other universities are similar, though in some they lack the completeness displayed at Vienna.

Students who, having passed their examinations with credit, or other wise performed their work to the satisfaction of their teachers, wish to carry on their studies in other countries are eligible for Reisestipendia (travelling scholarships). These are rewarded to encourage study in foreign universities, or to enable their holders to carry out investigations which necessitate a journey. Unfortunately they are but few in number, and as they are open to students of all faculties, few economists can hope to obtain them. Among the more recent holders in Vienna are Professors Böhm-Bawerk, Robert Meyer, Von Phillipovich, and Dr. Stephen Bauer, the two latter of whom published reports on matters studied abroad.

In this way a method of economic instruction has been developed in the Austrian universities which not only provides a large number with a carefully systematised series of courses, but offers to those disposed to more thorough or more special study ample opportunity. The more eager and energetic pass through the courses compulsory for the law degree, in themselves a fitting preliminary to more detailed work, to attendance at the special courses and membership of the seminar; from these they may, if fortunate, advance into the position of travelling or research scholars of their university. Though most of the students at the Economic Lectures are jurists, the attendance frequently includes members qualifying in other faculties, or even more general ‘hearers.’ At Krakau, students of the philosophical faculty form some 20 to 25 per cent of the total. All these students are entirely free so far as their choice of Economic courses is concerned. It is not possible to give the exact numbers of the students to be described respectively as elementary and advanced. The particulars, however, furnished by the various universities permit a rough general estimate. Not fewer than one thousand students undergo the more general courses, thus attaining to a fair systematic acquaintance with the main branches of economic study, while out of that number more than two hundred take special courses and enter the various seminars. This account rather under than over estimates the extent to which economic studies extend. As to the character of the advanced work there is no doubt. As has been pointed out, it is of a high order. But some question has been raised as to the value of the knowledge likely to be attained by the more general student. The variety of subjects required in the examinations either of the university (political rigorosa) or of the State, and the number of courses obligatory on the students, do not allow of an early specialisation.1 But a glance at the nature of the examination, and at the syllabus of the various courses, forbids the inference that the instruction given is of a purely rudimentary nature.

1This, as Professor von Milewski contends, interferes with the scientific character of the various studies required for the degree. As each has to take up several subjects, and to pass examinations in these, he cannot give very special attention to Economics or any other branch of social science in which he may happen to be interested.

Much, it is true, depends upon the personal enthusiasm and force of the teacher, for, despite the obligation of attendance, a dull and unininteresting lecture will rarely obtain the audiences registered to him, many students preferring to buy copies of the course hectographed from the notes of their predecessors in the lecture room, and only troubling themselves to appear at the beginning and end of the semester.

In the University of Krakau, Economics are obligatory, both in study and examination, for the students of agriculture who attend special lectures, apart, that is, from the law students. Instruction in Economics (Political Economy, Finance, and Statistics) is given also at all the Technical High Schools (Technischen Hochschulen) in Austria,1 while attendance at the courses (though without examination) is obligatory at the schools of agriculture, where similar conditions prevail. At the Commercial Academies (Handelsakademien of Vienna and Prague) a course of lectures is given with particular reference to the Economic branches which throw most light on commercial facts and features, and on the relations existing between the various classes engaged in industry and trade. To obtain the diploma of these institutions the lectures are followed by an examination. Courses are provided for the consular service at the Oriental Akademie in Vienna, and for the service of the administration of the army.2 There is also a Fortbildungschule for officials of the railway, where political economy is taught and examined in. Members of these courses are considered specially fitted for the attainment of the higher posts in their service.

1Of these there are six:-Vienna, Brünn, Graz, Prag (German), Prag (Bohemian), Lemburg (Polish). After examination diplomas are granted, which are necessary for those becoming teachers in agricultural schools, and are, it is said, a strong recommendation in the eyes of landlords when engaging their officials, agents, &c.
2An Intendanz-Class for officers willing to serve as Intendanten for the provision of the army.

A knowledge of Economics, duly and doubly certified by registered lecture courses and by examination, is a necessary preliminary to certain careers. Attendance at the university lectures and the attainment of the juridical degree are the qualification for the higher branches of the legal profession (advocate, &c.), and like attendance and degree, or, in the place of the latter, the diploma of public service, are required for all branches of the legal profession and for the whole civil service. Entrance into the consular and diplomatic services may also be obtained through the courses of the Oriental Academy. Further, as has been pointed out above, a certain acquaintance, or supposed acquaintance, with economic studies is considered necessary in some other vocations.

At the present time very considerable importance is attached to economic studies in Austria. Their scientific character is a general matter of care, and an extension of the sphere in which they are obligatory, or at least advisable on the part of those who seek success in their particular calling or profession, is earnestly advocated by some. In the first direction the reforms in the juridical studies at the universities will operate. As Dr. Mataja writes:— ‘Economics will have greater and not less weight.’ On the other hand, and in the other direction, different suggestions have been made. Some advocate the extension of compulsory study to engineers who will become officials and directors in factories, to the employés of the fiscal service, to those attending the more elementary technical schools. Others would like to see schools of political and social science (including Economics) founded in the great industrial centres. Whether these suggestions be carried out or not, they serve to illustrate the feeling which exists, at least on the part of some, with regard to the value of Economics both as a special and as a branch of general study.

HUNGARY.

Economics holds a position somewhat similar to that in Austria. It is obligatory on all students in the faculty of law and political science at the two universities,1 and in the Rechtsakademien (legal faculties, as at Kassa), who must take courses in Economics and Finance before the end of their second year, when they have to pass an examination, among the subjects of which these are included. After the second year their studies bifurcate, according to the degree which they seek (Dr. Juris, or Dr. Cameralium). In order to obtain the former, they must pass an examination in financial law. But if they wish to take the latter degree (Dr. Cameralium), they must pass two rigorosa, among the subjects of which are Economics (theoretical and practical), Finance, Finance Law, and Statistics. The knowledge required in this case is exceedingly thorough, and the degree is of high value in the public service. There are also state examinations which serve as qualifications, though to a lesser extent, for the legal and administrative services. Though easier, they correspond closely with the above. In the universities the system of economic study in its general features resembles that in vogue in Austria, the chief courses being those on Economics and Finance; but both at Budapest and Klausenburg, as, for instance, at Strassburg to take a parallel, these studies belong not to a sole legal faculty, but to a legal and political faculty (Rechts- und Staatswissenschaftliche Fakultät). In addition to successful examinations the candidates have to present a thesis. The possession of the degree of Dr. Cameralium implies a very sound economic training, and it was till lately the chief means of entering the higher civil service both of the kingdom and of the states. Considerable attention is paid to Economics, the seminars being well frequented, and the interest and activity of students great. This is particularly true of Budapest, where the lectures are varied and delivered by a numerous and able staff.

1Budapest, Klausenburg (Kalorsvar).

GERMANY.

The differences in the history and regulations of the various states composing the German empire have led, not unnaturally, to considerable differences in the positions which economic studies occupy. On the one hand, they are affected by the diversity of usage existing as to their connection with the course of study required for the legal profession and the civil service. On the other hand, the particular faculty in which they are included has been determined by reasons possessing little but historical validity.

  1. Prussia.—At the Prussian universities Economics belongs to the faculty of philosophy, and, speaking generally, to that section of this faculty known as the Sciences of the State. A student takes his degree in Economics entirely apart from law, the position of which as a separate faculty unfortunately precludes a student who presents a thesis in one of these two subjects from selecting the other as one of the two collateral subjects which he is bound by regulation to offer himself for examination in. Further, it must be noticed that the degree of doctor in this country, and, indeed, in Germany generally, is not a qualification, as was till recently the case in Austria and still is in certain of the Latin countries. Some assistance it may be in a judicial career, but even then the degree of Doctor Juris has naturally much more value than that of Doctor of Philosophy in the State Sciences.

Nor does Economics occupy an important place in the State examinations which qualify for the legal and administrative services. To enter these a candidate must pass examinations, the first of which is common to both services (referendar Examen). This consists of two parts, the first written and dealing with law, the second oral, which includes, among other matters, the elements of Economics. So subordinate is this subject that, in the opinion of many critics, it hardly counts in the decision as to the eligibility of candidates. The course of examination then bifurcates, some taking that for Justiz-Assessor, others for that of Regierungs Assessor, for neither of which is Economics required. At the latter of these (Reg. Assessor) some knowledge of Economics in its applied branches is said to be highly desirable, but inasmuch as the examination takes place some five years after the conclusion of the university course, the demands it makes are chiefly met by knowledge supplied from books. With regard to the constitution of the examining boards it should be noticed that, even at the referendar Examen, it is not in accordance with common practice to include professors of Economics.

  1. Saxony. —The system recently adopted in Saxony is, in so far as the subordination of Economics is concerned, nearly identical with that of Prussia. In one point it is more favourable to the interests of this subject, the professoriate being invariably represented on the board of examiners.
  2. Reichsland.—In the Reichsland Economics is of no more importance than it is in Prussia.
  3. Saxe Weimar.—In Saxe Weimar, too, it is of but nominal importance in the juridical examinations. There, too, the board of examiners is constituted irrespective of economic requirements, and, as has been caustically said, it is rare to find the examiners academically qualified in the subjects in which they are supposed to examine. The position, in the main, is very similar to that prevailing in Prussia.
  4. Bavaria.— In the chief southern and south-western states Economics holds a more important position in the legal and civil service curricula. Thus, in Bavaria, all students of law, administration, and forest (Landwirth) have to pass an examination in which it forms one of the subjects. The time of the examination is at the conclusion of the four years devoted to legal or other studies respectively, and the presence of the Professor of National Economy among the professorial examiners necessitates due attendance at lectures and thorough study. The second examination for the civil service is technical in character, and only requires economic knowledge in its connection with practical developments and issues.
  5. rtemburg.—In Würtemburg, though Economics forms no part of the strictly legal examinations, in the other State examinations for administrative students it is of very great importance. For these there are two examinations, the first of which, more general in character than the other, takes place at Tübingen, and involves a very considerable acquaintance with Economics.
  6. Baden.—Every legal student, as well as every candidate seeking entrance into the higher employments in the State departments of revenue and administration, must, in his time, attend lectures on, and pass examinations in, the economic and financial sciences.

The varying positions which Economics holds in the examinations qualifying for State and legal employment in the different German states affect a large number of university students who have to pass these examinations, but do not of necessity take a degree. To them the connection of Economics with one faculty or the other in the university cannot be a matter of much importance, but with others the case is different. Students reading for the degree are, as has been already said, restricted now on one side, now on another, as to their choice of collateral subjects for examination. Sometimes they can offer Economics in connection with law, sometimes they cannot. In addition, the influence which kindred studies taught in one faculty may bring to bear on the methods of instruction may, in some instances, prove of not inconsiderable importance even in the case of the students studying for the doctorate. Professor Brentano, however, whose personal experience extends from Leipzig to Strassburg, from Vienna to Breslau and Munich, contends that the varieties of combination matter less than might seem probable. The facultative position of Economics varies considerably. In Prussia and Saxony they find place among the many heterogeneous subjects grouped together in the faculty of philosophy, though in certain places, as at Berlin, they fall into a distinct subdivision. At Berlin they belong to the Staats- Cameral-und Gewerbewissenschaften. At Strassburg (Reichsland) they combine with law to form a Rechts- und Staatswissenschaftliche Facultät. At Tübingen (Würtemburg) a Staatswissenschaftliche Facultät exists independent of the law, a practice identical with that current at Munich (Bavaria). At some universities, as for instance at Jena, economic lectures are largely attended by the students of Landwirthschaft.

A comparison of the studies preliminary to the doctorate in Germany with those in Austria reveals two chief points of difference. At German universities there is little prescription of the course of study, or, indeed, of the methods to be adopted by the student, who within certain wide limits has a perfectly free choice of subjects. But this comparative freedom from restraint is closely connected with the great importance attached to the thesis, a custom which, its critics urge, leads to premature specialisation. In both countries candidates for the civil and legal services are much more closely restricted to definite courses.

In their practical working the systems of the different universities bear a close resemblance, at any rate in their earlier stages. There are three main courses, delivered annually, on pure Economics, Applied Economics, and Finance, all of which, even the first, involve a careful study of economic fact as distinct from hypothesised theory. The extent to which the method adopted in the first course is empirical depends, of course, on the position of the teacher as an adherent of one or other of the opposing schools of economic thought; but, speaking generally, even the least empirical among them would be deemed empirical by those accustomed to English methods. But, in addition to these three annual courses, lectures are delivered on special subjects. At Freiburg (in Baden), in the summer semester of 1891, these were:

    • History of National Economy and Socialism.
    • Agrarian and Industrial Policy, including the Labour Question.
    • History of Statistics.

The list of special lectures at Berlin, to take the most completely equipped of the universities, shows more clearly the wide range of subjects dealt with under the term Economics. In the summer term, 1892, besides the ordinary annual courses, there were courses of lectures on the following subjects:

    • Theory of Statistics.
    • History of Statistics.
    • Statistics of the German Empire.
    • The Economic and Social History of Germany from the end of the Middle Ages to the Peace of Westphalia.
    • History and Modes of Industrial Undertakings.
    • Money and Banking.
    • Early Commercial and Colonial Policy (till 1800).
    • Industrial and Commercial Policy.
    • The Social Question.
    • Forms of Public Credit.

In addition to lectures, necessarily more or less formal, opportunities are afforded for systematic instruction in classes and in the seminar. The latter institution varies considerably, according to the character of the students frequenting particular universities, for its efficiency, and accord ing to the position of the professor undertaking it, for the direction of its studies. Each teacher collects around himself a group of students who follow his method, adopt his attitude, and frequently devote themselves to those branches of economic research which have occupied his attention. Thus, at Strassburg, Professor Knapp’s seminar deals chiefly with agrarian questions; at Berlin, Professor Wagner’s influence is seen in the predominance of finance and financial topics among the subjects discussed. At Munich, to pass to the question of organisation and method, the two professors join in holding a seminar in which “there are about twenty-four young men taking part. Each of them has to undertake some work: the younger ones get a book to read, and have to report on it; the more advanced have to treat a subject after reading several books on the subject; the most advanced have to make a work themselves, the professors aiding them in furnishing material and giving assistance.’ At some universities there are two seminars, at others one. It is a matter for regret that, with all these opportunities, a comparatively small number of students are ranked as advanced. The explanations offered are many, but probably a very adverse effect on the study is produced by the paucity of the positions to which a thorough economic study can serve as an introduction. Teaching posts are few, and the requirements in the State examinations for the legal and administrative services are, if not as in many cases nominal, strictly limited to an elementary knowledge.

In some of the technical schools, and in all the schools of commerce, instruction in some branch of economics forms part of the regular course, and, in these latter, an examination is held. In the former, however, the subjects thus taught are distinctly subordinated to the technical sciences which occupy the chief attention of the students, while in the schools of commerce only those branches receive adequate treatment which bear or appear likely to bear upon commerce in its practical aspects.

HOLLAND.

The connection between the universities and the legal profession is close in Holland, none but doctors of jurisprudence being qualified to practise as advocates. This is a circumstance which has a material effect upon the study of economics, inasmuch as this, in its more elementary branches, forms one of the obligatory subjects of the first examination for the degree. Thus, so far as this one profession is concerned, a certain knowledge of economics is necessitated.

In the higher administrative service no such knowledge is obligatory, but it is considered that officials who possess the degree of doctor of political science have better chances of promotion. For this degree a thorough study of economics is required. In certain other government services demand is made for acquaintance with certain branches of the subject. In the examinations for the consular service the ‘general principles of economics’ and the ‘elements of statistics,’ chiefly with regard to trade and shipping, form subjects of examination. A similar knowledge is required for the diplomatic service. In none of these cases, it should be noted, is attendance at specified courses compulsory. The subject forms part of the examination.

The requirements indicated above explain to some extent the position which economics occupies in the four Dutch universities. It is a necessary subject for two degrees—the doctorate in laws and the doctorate in political science. But the nature of the knowledge required differs greatly. In the former it is elementary, not going beyond the first principles of the theory, while in the latter case the examination necessitates a really careful and detailed study. In addition to the general course of lectures taken by all, candidates for this latter distinction usually attend two other courses, one in capita selecta (taxation, finance, socialism, &c.), and another in statistics. These courses, unlike those at German universities, extend throughout the academic year, i.e. from September to July. For advanced students discussion classes are held, where the students, after a previous study of a chosen subject, meet to discuss it among themselves and with the professor. Before proceeding to the degree of doctor a candidate has to write, and afterwards to defend, a dissertation on some branch of the general science which he has taken up. Thus, in the case of political science, the thesis may be on some economic question. Outside the universities the chief study of economics takes place in the intermediate schools, where, during the fourth and fifth years of the five years’ curriculum, it is taught for two hours weekly by a doctor of political science, or by another teacher duly qualified by a special examination. At the Polytechnic at Delft there is a chair of economics, but neither is attendance at the course obligatory, nor does it form one of the subjects of examination.

BELGIUM.

By the law of 1890, which provides the regulation for higher instruction, political economy is made obligatory for the attainment of the degree of doctor of laws, a distinction proving a professional qualification, and for the grade of engineer, the course for the former involving some forty-five lectures, that for the latter some fifteen. In both cases the subject is taken in the earlier years of study. Students training for these professions would appear to form the great bulk of those attending economic lectures at the universities. In neither case can the course be said to furnish more than elementary instruction.

The universities have made provision outside these State requirements for more advanced students. The candidates for the degree of doctor of political science have to show a more thorough acquaintance with economic subjects. At the University of Ghent the course which is provided for them is considerably longer; still more stringent regulations prevail at the University of Louvain, for the degree of  ‘docteur en sciences politiques et sociales.’ The important regulations are as follows :—

ART. 5.

Pour être admis à l’épreuve du doctorat il faut:

    1. Avoir acquis depuis une année au moins le grade de docteur en droit.
    2. Avoir pris une inscription générale aux cours du doctorat en sciences politiques et sociales et avoir suivi les cours sur lesquels porte l’épreuve.
    3. Présenter, sous l’approbation du président de l’École, un travail imprimé sur un sujet rentrant dans le cadre du doctorat.

ART. 7.

L’épreuve comprend un examen oral d’une heure et demie. Cet examen porte:—

    1. Sur six branches portées comme principales au programme de l’École.
    2. Sur deux branches au moins choisies parmi celles qui sont portées comme branches libres au programme de l’École ou—avec l’autorisation du président de l’École—parmi celles qui sont portées au programme de l’université.
    3. Sur le travail présenté par le récipiendaire.

The list of lectures for the two years’ curriculum, 1892-3, 1893-4, is as follows :-

For the first year—Histoire parlementaire de la Belgique depuis 1830, la législation ouvrière comparée ; le droit public comparé; de la neutralité de la Belgique et de la Suisse; du régime légal des sociétés commerciales en droit comparé.

For the second year—Histoire diplomatique de l’Europe depuis le Congrès de Vienne; l’Evolution économique au XIXe siècle; les institutions de la France et de l’Allemagne; lé régime colonial et la législation du Congo; les associations en droit comparé.

Seminar or class instruction is given at the universities, though the particular form it takes varies with the other organisation provided, and the character of the students. At the University of Ghent a class supplementary to the lectures is formed, where discussion takes place; at Louvain Professor Brants directs a ‘cours pratique,’1 the members of which (some dozen in number) write treatises, discuss economic movements, and make excursions to centres presenting features of economic interest.

1Conférence d’Économie Sociale. Rapport sur ses travaux, 1891-92. Louvain.

ITALY.

Outside the universities there are in Italy but few institutions which give much instruction in economics. Though courses are delivered at the superior schools of commerce, as, for instance, at Genoa, Venice, and Bari, and the Polytechnic School of Milan, which compare in their nature with those existing at similar places in Austria and Germany, the main aim of such schools, and the limited extent to which they are frequented, prevent them from obtaining any control over the development of economic teaching in the country. It is, then, to the universities that we must look for information as to the methods chiefly employed. At them economics is studied as a subsidiary subject to law, being taken by students in their second year. There are three courses at which attendance, or, to speak more accurately, inscription is obligatory on legal students. In the case of the three obligatory courses the attendance is fairly regular, owing, it is said, to the combined effect of the latitude allowed in the teaching of the subject and the position of the professor as examiner. Without passing the economic examinations students cannot attain to legal degrees. The courses are those in Economic Theory and Administration, Finance, and Statistics. According to the condition of the university these are taught by the same or different teachers, in most cases by the professors who are appointed and paid by the State. In addition to these courses others are given at the option of the teachers, either professors or docents. The attendance at these is not good, though in many cases a large number of students enter themselves as a mark of courtesy towards the lecturer. It costs them nothing, as they pay a compound fee, and it benefits him considerably if a docent, as he receives from the State a payment proportionate to the number of students registered for his courses. In addition to the examination, a candidate for the legal degrees presents a thesis which may, and not infrequently does, deal with some economic subject.1 The study of economics is, moreover, obligatory on students seeking the higher official careers. Many complaints are made as to the position occupied by economic studies in Italy. Their connection with law creates no doubt a certain and a large audience in the lecture room; but, as one Italian professor points out, students do not remain there long enough to acquire anything like a sufficient knowledge of the subject. They come from the schools wholly unprepared, and they leave the university without having undergone a training thorough enough to counterbalance the loose economic notions gathered from their more diligent study of the newspapers. The study of economic facts does not seem to have had sufficient place in the universities of Italy. Attempts are now being made to remedy this defect by the formation of discussion societies among the students of economics, and the encouragement of research into statistical and similar questions.

1Professor Tullio Martello calculates that at the University of Bologna some 15 per cent of those graduating in law present a thesis dealing with economics.

At the minor technical schools lectures are delivered on elementary economics, finance, and statistics.

RUSSIA.

The conditions under which Economics is taught in Russia bear a superficial resemblance to those prevalent in the Latin countries, where it is annexed to the study of law, and pursued very much as a subject of secondary importance. Here, too, it forms part of the regular training through which a jurist must pass in his four years’ curriculum. There are three economic courses which he must attend, and in the subject-matter of which he must display sufficient knowledge in the May State examinations. These are on Economic Theory, Statistics, &c., and Finance. In addition to formal lectures, the professors in charge of the subject may, and sometimes do, organise classes, discussion societies, or seminars, though attendance at these is not obligatory.

The provision for further and more detailed study is considerable. A student who has finished his law studies with a diploma of the first degree can remain in the university, if he wishes, for more special research in one or other subject (Roman law, political economy, private law, financial law, &c.), under the supervision of the special professor or professors. Such a student is examined, and, if successful, obtains the title of magistrandus of the subject in question. Then he must present a dissertation and defend it, after which he obtains the degree of magister. After a second dissertation and disputation he attains the higher degree of doctor of his special subject.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The conditions under which the study of Economics is carried on in the United States of America are widely different from those which prevail in the countries of continental Europe. On the one hand, there is no inducement held out to students by its inclusion among the subjects of state or professional examinations. On the other, there is evidence in the importance which such subjects have assumed at the universities and colleges of a strong public sentiment in favour of their careful study far exceeding that in existence either in these countries or in the United Kingdom. In one respect the regulations of the colleges have had an important effect, independent of the action which they have taken in respect of the strong public demand. Owing to the freedom of the students in most of these institutions from prescribed and compulsory courses of study in most stages of their career, Economics has escaped being relegated, as, for instance, in England, to the position of a subject outside the usual curriculum, and optional only in some one or, perhaps, two stages. Where such prescription does exist it is not deemed a subject necessarily unfit to form part of a compulsory general course. Its inclusion, to some extent, would probably be demanded by the strong public opinion which has grown up during the past twenty years.

The causes of the popularity of Economics are stated with fair unanimity by various writers, though their respective importance is very differently estimated. In the first place, the very novelty of economic studies is itself in favour of their ardent prosecution. Till comparatively recently, it has been said till between 1870 and 1880, they were disregarded because unknown. Now they are seized, studied, and followed because they offer, or seem to offer, an explanation of the vast and complex economic condition which is in process of rapid evolution in this country at once so great and so new. So, too, in England some half century back or more the theories of the economists of that time were received by large numbers as an intellectual gospel. But in the next place the circumstances attending this ‘novelty’ of study have considerable consequences. That the study of Economics is a novel study is important, but it is of equal importance that it is novel at the present time and under present conditions. The American economists have not to shake off the half-uttered, half-silent opprobrium attached to their subject through the action of the more numerous though less conspicuous of their predecessors in their rigid adherence to incomplete or ill-founded theories. They are fortunate in entering upon their teaching at a time when the need of inductive inquiry and training is more fully recognised. This gives a more systematic aspect to the economic instruction demanded from them than was the case in England. In the third place, the campaign in favour of civil service and tariff reform has drawn a great deal of attention to those departments which deal with finance and the more prominent aspects of political life. Lastly, it is urged that the political eagerness which so largely affects the younger generation of Americans combines with the foregoing to crowd the economic lecture rooms with anxious and willing students. Economics is needed by politicians, and ‘we are all politicians,’ writes one professor; it is needed by journalists both because they are keen for political knowledge themselves and because they write for politicians.

The same causes which stimulate economic students have often led to its connection with political science, with history, and in some instances with general sociology.

Returns from several of the universities show the large number of students who attend economic lectures, and the comparatively large number who pass into advanced courses. The universities differ so much among themselves that no common standard of teaching exists. In some the elementary courses are very elementary, in others more thorough than might be concluded from the name. Thus at Harvard these include a study of Mill’s ‘Principles of Political Economy,’ lectures on general theory, or on what is termed descriptive economics, including a survey of financial legislation, while in addition a course is provided on the Economic History of England and America since the Seven Years’ War. In some cases a great part of the junior work consists in the use of text-books, and proceeds rather by class instruction and interrogation than by lecture. Turning to the consideration of the courses organised for the more advanced students, it is highly satisfactory to note the very considerable proportion which these form of the total number engaged in economic study. According to the information collected from various quarters, at Harvard they amount to some 38 per cent; at Columbia College to 41 per cent; at Cornell to 26 per cent. At some others they do not present so favourable an appearance, though at Michigan I am informed that the twenty returned as ‘advanced’ consists entirely of very advanced students, all the others being included under the heading of elementary. No doubt students described as advanced at one institution may not be so regarded at others, for, as has been already suggested, these vary very greatly as regards both their courses and the attainments of their students. With regard to the former, those provided at some of the better known and more highly developed and equipped universities afford a description of the nature of the training offered in the United States. At Harvard the advanced courses for the year 1892–93 are as follows:—

Full courses

    • Economy Theory—Examination of Selections from leading writers.
    • The Principles of Sociology—Development of the Modern State and its Social Functions.
    • The Social and Economic Condition of Working Men in the United States and in other Countries.
    • The Economic History of Europe and America, to 1763.

Half-courses

    • History of Tariff Legislation in the United States.
    • Railway Transportation.
    • The Theory and Methods of Taxation.
    • History of Economic Theory down to Adam Smith.
    • History of Financial Legislation in the United States.

At Columbia College the courses are as follows:—

    • Elements of Political Economy.
    • Historical and Practical Economics.
    • History of Economic Theories.
    • Science of Finance.
    • Science of Statistics.
    • Railway Problems.
    • Financial History of the United States.
    • Tariff and Industrial History of the United States.
    • Communism and Socialism.
    • Taxation and Distribution.
    • Sociology.

At Cornell the lectures which succeed the purely elementary ones are not quite so full, but consist of courses on—

    • Economic Reforms.
    • Finance.
    • Economic Legislation.
    • Statistics.
    • Economic History.
    • Financial History of the United States.

There are few universities which do not offer some courses beyond these on elementary theory and history. As a rule, finance and some other branch of applied economics are added. Where graduate schools have been established, as, for instance, at Harvard and at Michigan, the study proceeds very much on the lines indicated above, so far as the former is concerned. At Michigan, the advanced courses are distinguished into intermediate and graduate. Intermediate courses treat of the following:—The Transportation Problem. Principles of the Science of Finance. Theory of Statistics. History and Principles of Currency and Banking. History of the Tariff in the United States. History and Theory of Land Tenure and Agrarian Movements. Industrial and Commercial Development of the United States. History and Theory of Socialism and Communism. History of Political Economy. Graduate courses:–Critical Analysis of Economic Thought. Critical Examination of the Labour Problem and the Monopoly Problem.

Most universities have, in addition, established seminars, where study proceeds on the lines with which continental students are familiar. Individual members, in most instances graduates, and all advanced students, undertake particular subjects on which they prepare reports or treatises to be read and discussed at the weekly meeting. During their researches they are more or less under the direction of the professor or teacher who undertakes the courses in connection with the department of economics under which their subject falls. At Yale there are two seminaries and one discussion society; at Columbia College there is one for students who have studied only one year, two (in Economics and Finance) for those who are more advanced. The value of the work produced differs, of course, with the character of the university. At Harvard and the other more highly developed universities it is naturally very high.

In certain other countries the attention given to the subject of Economics demands for different reasons less detailed notice. In some instances the resemblance to countries already described renders further description superfluous; in others the geographical limitations of the country, or the comparative absence of opportunities for such special branches of the higher education, necessitate a much slighter notice than that given to the foregoing countries.

In Spain the connection between economic and legal studies is very similar to that existing in Italy. Students of the first and second year attend courses in Economics and Finance, Statistics being apparently nowhere insisted upon. At some of the universities an attempt is made to supplement these elementary courses by conferences and by visits, both to industrial undertakings, as factories, mines, &c., and to financial establishments, as banks; while the introduction of sociological institutes or seminars is looked for at others, as, for instance, at Oviedo.

In Sweden ‘there are two professors of political economy, one at the University of Upsala, one at the University of Lund, both belonging to the Faculty of Law, and teaching in addition to Political Economy some purely juridical subjects. There are also two professors in Politics and Statistics, one at Upsala, one at Lund, both belonging to the Faculty of Arts, and teaching at their discretion, Public Law, either Swedish or foreign, and Statistics.’ ‘The two professors of Political Economy in the Faculty of Law have to prepare and examine all the students who go in for the State examinations for entrance to the different branches of the civil service. But as Political Economy possesses very little importance in any of the three forms of these examinations, as compared with Jurisprudence, little stress is laid on its study in this faculty. Of the two other professors, one (at Upsala) lectures chiefly on Politics, the other on Statistics, both these studies being optional for the two arts degrees. The theory of Political Economy is not taught. Seminar instruction is arranged to supplement that given in the lecture courses.

In Norway, at the University of Christiania, the system is nearly identical with that of Sweden. There, too, it is found that, owing to the complete subordination of Economics to Law, the knowledge required is elementary in character.

The same impulses which direct the attention of young Americans to the study of Economics are felt in Canada. At the University of Toronto the importance attached to such studies is adequately shown by the large attendances present at the several courses. These courses are carefully arranged and graduated so as to furnish the student with a sound knowledge of the various branches of the subject, and to fit him to undertake, as he is expected to do in his latter years, research into some branch of economic fact.

In Switzerland, the position held by economic studies is, on the whole, at least as favourable as that in the southern countries of Germany. A knowledge of Economics is obligatory on those entering the legal profession, while, owing to the arrangements made, the duty of examining the candidates may, and in practice, I believe, does fall largely on the university professors. Moreover, in the university curricula, the place of economics, so far as Berne is concerned, is very fortunate. True, the subject is optional, as indeed are all subjects for the doctorate, but it may be taken for either the legal or the philosophical doctorate (Dr. Juris, or Dr. Phil.). At the Zürich Polytechnicon it is taught, being obligatory in some form or other for the diplomas of forestry and agriculture. In addition there is a fair voluntary attendance at these lectures. The system of instruction presents no features requiring particular notice. The chief courses are on National Economy and Finance, with the frequent addition of Practical Economics. These are supplemented by special courses at the option of the teacher, and by the seminar.

 

APPENDIX II.

On Economic Studies in France.
By Henry Higgs.

Economic teaching in France, so far as it consists of lectures regularly delivered at the same place by the same person, is to be looked for in—

(i.) The Collège de France, Paris;

(ii.) The Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers, Paris;

(iii.) The Université de France, consisting of the aggregate of local ‘universities,’ or faculties officially recognised, in Paris and the provinces;

(iv.) The free or unofficial faculties and schools in Paris and the provinces, including all the Catholic ‘universities’ (which cannot come to terms with the State on the question of the faculty of theology), the École Libre des Sciences Politiques, Paris, and others.

A certain amount of economic instruction is also imparted in the Écoles supérieures du Commerce, generally endowed by the municipalities of commercial towns. Elementary notions of Economics are officially prescribed as part of the programme of elementary schools.

(i.) It is at the Collège de France that one expects to find leading teachers of Economics in France. The traditions of its chair (which was founded in 1830), and the authority vested in its occupants, added to the attractions of a scientific post in Paris, have been a sufficient inducement for the most eminent economists to offer themselves for appointment here. The stimulus of contact with growing, vigorous, and inquiring minds is not, however, afforded to the professors, and they have to fight against a tendency to fall into prosy sermons and easy repetitions of old theory. No fees are charged to the students, nor is any record kept of their names unless they wish to obtain certificates. The lectures are delivered twice a week (two on Economics by M. Leroy-Beaulieu, and two on Statistics by M. Levasseur), in the afternoons. The auditors are for the most part a casual collection of shifting persons, of whom many are foreigners passing through Paris, who attend once or twice out of curiosity to see the lecturer. There is no discussion either during or after the lectures. The professors are paid a fixed stipend by the State. They appear to regard their lectures in the main as vehicles for the dissemination of generally received economic theory. So far, however, as they employ their leisure in prosecuting original research, their stipends may be regarded as an endowment for the advancement of Economics. Their personal examples are stimulating. It would be difficult to mention two more active economists in Europe. But in their lectures they are perhaps too dogmatic to supply students with the zest of grappling with ‘unsettled questions,’ or with the incentive to enlarge, however little, the bounds of knowledge by pointing out to their hearers the frontiers of ignorance which are often in sight.

(ii.) The oldest chair of Political Economy is in the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers, and was first filled, in 1819, by J. B. Say. The instruction now given here is of a more popular character, consisting of lectures addressed to the working classes at a late hour of the evening. M. Levasseur delivers a five-year cycle of about fifty lectures a year on Economics, and M. de Foville a four-year cycle on Industry and Statistics. There are on the average from 300 to 400 auditors. They pay no fees. The professors are appointed and paid by the Government.

(iii.) By a law passed in 1877 Economics was for the first time officially incorporated into the organisation of higher education in France, by being made an obligatory subject in the second year’s studies of the faculties of law. Economics in France has, it is said, laboured under the disadvantage of offering no opening for a career. On the other hand, the youth of the country flock to the schools of law, for to lawyers all careers are open— politics, journalism, literature, education, legal practice, and many official appointments. The professor of law is overworked, and the professor of Economics underworked. The faculty of law, therefore, generally expects of its professor of Economics that he shall be able to help in legal instruction and examinations; and there has been a tendency to select a lawyer rather than an economist for these chairs. This reproach, however, is rapidly being removed, and the new professors of Economics are in many cases vigorous and promising in their proper spheres. Economics has recently been transferred from the second to the first year’s programme. The law students are said to show a better intelligence of law now that they also study Economics. It can hardly yet be stated what effect this organisation will produce on Economics itself.

In addition to this obligatory study, Economics may be taken as one of the eight optional courses at a later period of preparation in the law faculties. For this purpose there is generally a special course of lectures on Finance, in which financial legislation is a prominent topic; but the option in favour of Economics is not much exercised.

The professors and lecturers in Economics and (in italics) in Finance in the official faculties of law are as follows:—

Paris. MM. Beauregard, Alglave and Ducrocq; Fernand Faure (Statistics); Planiol (Industrial Legislation); Maroussem (Monographs).
Aix: M. Perreau.
Bordeaux: MM. St. Marc, de Boech.
Caen: MM. Willey, Lebret.
Dijon: MM. Mongin, Lucas.
Grenoble: MM. Rambaud, Wahl.
Lille: MM. Deschamps, Artus.
Lyons: MM. Rougier, Berthélémy.
Montpellier: MM. Gide, Glaise.
Nancy: M. Garnier.
Poitiers: MM. Bussonnet, Petit.
Rennes: MM. Turgeon, Charveau.
Toulouse: M. Arnault.

There are also at Montpellier lectures on industrial legislation by M. Laborde.

(iv.) The position of the Catholic ‘universities’ has already been referred to. While following the lead of the State in associating economics with law, they have the advantage of recruiting among their students a large number of those who desire to enter the Church with a training in economic science as an aid to the study of social problems. The respective professors are MM. Jannet (Paris), Baugas (Angers), Béchaud (Lille), Rambaud (Lyons), and Peyron (Marseilles).

The École Libre des Sciences Politiques, Paris, directed by M. Boutmy, is perhaps the most hopeful academic institution in France for the promotion of economic study. Lectures are given by MM. Cheysson (Economics); Stourm, Dubois de Lestang, Plaffin, Courtin (Finance); Levasseur (Statistics); Dunoyer (History of Economics since Adam Smith); Arnauné Foreign Trade and Customs Laws); Lévy (Banking); P. Leroy-Beaulieu (Colonial Systems); Paulet (Industrial Legislation); and Guieysse (Industrial Problems). In addition to these lectures, which are well attended by paying students, there are discussions and classes for original work on the seminar plan. Travelling scholarships are also given, and excellent work is done, to which the general scheme of instruction largely contributes. The primary function of the school is the thorough intellectual equipment of young officials for the State. Foreign languages, travel, and comparative study of laws and social institutions are encouraged, together with an intelligent interest in history and politics. The personal assistance rendered to individual students by the professors, the seminar, and the scholarships, the comprehensive breadth of view, and the rigid impar. tiality of this school are, as yet, unique in France.

Other economic lectures in Paris which require mention are those of M. Colson, at the École Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées (where the Government non-military engineers and road surveyors are trained), of M. Cheysson at the École Nationale des Mines (also under Government), of M. F. Passy at the École des Hautes Études Commerciales (endowed by the municipality), of M. Émile Chevallier, &c. Lectures (by M. Guérin) are organised by the Société dEconomie Sociale, founded by Le Play. M. Demolins, the leader of a secession from this school, also delivers a course of lectures. There is, on the whole, too much diffusion of separate economic lectures in Paris.

An impressive plea has lately been published by M. Chailley-Bert for the recognition of distinct economic faculties, and for such endowments as will spare professors from the need of spending their time and brains upon accessory sources of income.

APPENDIX III.

On the Condition of Economic Studies
in the United Kingdom.
By E.C.K. Gonner.

Though the full extent of the disadvantages under which economic study in this country suffers can only be realised from a fairly detailed account of its position in the various universities and with relation to certain professions, it will not be out of place to preface this report with a few words as to their nature.

(a) In the first place it is a matter of serious concern that economics is not regarded as a necessary part of any professional curriculum. This particular hardship, however, might be faced with comparative equanimity were there existent in this country, as for instance in the United States of America, a strong body of popular feeling in support of its study and its efficient teaching. But, despite frequent assertions to the contrary, I believe, and in this I shall have the concurrence of many colleagues engaged in teaching, that there is no such body of feeling. Its absence has been variously accounted for. To a great extent it is no doubt part of the legacy of distrust and misunderstanding due to the false view of Economics placed before a former generation, and it will probably be a long time before the popular conception of an economist as a compound of text-book theory and ignorance of fact can be entirely dispelled.

(b) Owing largely to the early prominence of the abstract school of economic thought in England the position which the subject holds in the University curricula is far from satisfactory. It is treated as a subject narrow in scope and subordinate—necessarily and naturally subordinate— to other subjects. But this is by no means the position which it should hold, and now that the importance of the studies of economic fact and administration is more clearly seen, the impossibility of effective teaching within the prescribed lines has become glaringly apparent. At present indeed English economic teaching is without a regular system. It is usually supposed that prescribed University courses should offer a means of systematic training in the various subjects, the pass courses of ordinary training, the honours courses of advanced and thorough training. So far as Economics is concerned, this is precisely what the Universities do not provide. With one possible exception they offer at the present time little more than isolated opportunities of showing economic knowledge in examinations primarily devoted to other subjects.

In the United Kingdom the encouragement of the study of Economics rests entirely with educational bodies. So far as professional examinations and curricula are concerned it meets with almost universal neglect. This is wholly so with regard to the examinations qualifying for the practice of law, either as barrister or solicitor, and partly so in the case of the Civil Service Examinations. For these latter Economics may be taken up, as may almost any other subject included in the Sciences and Arts. It is not recognised, that is to say, as more cognate to the administrative callings for which these examinations qualify, than is Chemistry, for instance; indeed, in comparison with many of these other subjects it is at a discount owing to the smaller maximum of marks assigned to it. In other words, it is excluded from the legal curriculum; in the Civil Service Examinations it is an optional but not an important subject. Elementary Political Economy is one of the optional subjects in the examination for chartered accountants, and is obligatory on candidates for the voluntary examination recently instituted by the Institute of Bankers.

At the Universities it receives an insufficient recognition in the degree courses, but as its position varies a great deal a brief summary of the usages of the various Universities with regard to it may be given. Degrees are granted in England by the five Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, London, and Victoria; in Scotland by the Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and St. Andrews; in Ireland by Trinity College and the Royal University of Ireland.

ENGLAND.

At Oxford it is an optional subject which may be taken up as one of the three selected subjects for the pass B.A. degree. As studied for this examination it is mainly elementary and largely theoretical, many of the questions relating to certain prescribed portions of the works of Adam Smith and Walker. To pass this examination, for which the yearly number of candidates presents an average of two hundred, demands common sense and a fair general acquaintance with leading Economic topics. A paper on Economics is included among those set in the Honour School of Modern History.

At Cambridge the position occupied by Economics in the University curricula is far more satisfactory. In some shape or other it forms part of three degree examinations. All candidates for the ordinary pass B.A., after passing the general examination, have to take up a special subject for their concluding study. Of these, sixteen in all, there are seven arts special subjects, one of which is Economics. The special examination in Economics (Political Economy) consists of two parts, which may be taken at separate times:—

Part I.—Three papers.

    • Two in General Economic Theory.
    • One in Economic History.

Part II.—Three papers.

    • Two in Taxation and Economic Functions of Government, with History of Trade and Finance, 1760–1860.
    • One in General Theory of Law and Government.

In the Moral Science Tripos (Honour B.A.) there are six obligatory papers, two being assigned to Political Economy (i.e. Theory), while in addition advanced Political Economy ranks as one of the optional subjects, two of which must be passed in by a candidate desirous of being classed. Lastly, in the Historical Tripos (Honour B.A.), one paper is in Economic History, the paper on general History of England also being supposed to require some Economic knowledge. Further, candidates who desire it may take Political Economy and theory of Government with International Law as an alternative to the study of a second special subject. Of these three examinations the one which seems most satisfactory, so far as Economics is concerned, is the special for the pass B.A., which embraces at once the four important branches of administrative, theoretical, historical, and financial Economics, and it is to be regretted that it has not yet been possible to organise an Honour examination on corresponding lines, but wider and more advanced. Were such in existence it would furnish English students with similar encouragement to systematic study and similar opportunities to those provided in the better developed Continental schools.

In the University of Durham, in addition to the obligatory subjects, two optional subjects have to be chosen by candidates for the degree. These are selected out of a number of subjects, of which Economics is one. The knowledge required is not of an advanced nature.

In the University of London Economics holds no position but the somewhat unfortunate one of an optional subject for candidates proceeding from the B.A. to the M.A. degree in Moral Science, a position which at once restricts the number of students likely to study it, and prevents its study from extending beyond the knowledge of general theory. It is not a subject, either optional or obligatory, at any other examination.

In the Victoria University Economics, comprising Political Economy and Economic History, forms one of the twelve optional subjects, of which two have to be selected for the final year of study by candidates for the pass B.A. degree, the two other subjects being more or less restricted. Economic Theory or History may also be taken in conjunction with Modern History as one subject by candidates who wish, for instance, to take Modern History but not Ancient History. As, however, nearly all the other subjects are, with some difference of standard or period, subjects at the Intermediate or Second-year Examination, in some instances compulsory, and again in certain cases subjects at the final examination, the study of Economics, involving as it does the entry of the student upon a wholly new subject during his final year, is naturally discouraged. Further, Economic Theory (Political Economy), like any other arts or science subject, may, by permission, be substituted for one of the two selected general subjects, Ethics or Modern History, at the intermediate stage of the Law degree (LL.B.). A course of lectures in Political Economy has to be attended by candidates for the Honours degree in History. It is not a subject in the examination.

SCOTLAND.

By the regulations of the Commission applicable to all Scotch Universities Economics holds a two-fold position.

(a) With regard to the ordinary M.A. examination, it is one of the three optional subjects which have to be selected out of the usual arts and science subjects. In all, seven subjects must be taken, but of these four are more or less prescribed. The course which must be attended consists of at least 100 lectures.

(b) It is further a compulsory subject for the first examination for the Agricultural B.Sc. In this case the knowledge required is much slighter, and naturally much more closely related to rural economy.

IRELAND.

At Trinity College Economics is part of one of the seven groups in which the Honour degree may be taken, the other subjects in this group being History and Law. All candidates for the law degree must be graduates in Arts, but not necessarily graduates in honours, or if in honours, in this particular group. It is also included among the options for the pass degree.

In the Royal University of Ireland Economics (Political Economy) is an alternative with Ethics in one of the three groups, one of which must be passed by candidates for the ordinary pass B.A. In the examinations for the Honour degree (B.A.) it, with Civil and Constitutional History and General Jurisprudence, constitutes one of the six groups open to the student. It holds a very similar position in the examination for the M.A. degree.

—————————

The foregoing account shows clearly how little opportunity is given for the systematic study of Economics as a preliminary to degree examination, and especially in the case of honours. It is certainly very unfortunate that an able student anxious to graduate in honours is almost precluded from devoting a large amount of attention to the study of Economics.

In face of this tacit discouragement, so far as examinations are concerned, the provision for teaching made in many places by colleges and universities is almost a matter for surprise. At both Cambridge and Oxford it is satisfactory in all but one respect. It is varied, copious and comprehensive, but—and this is a matter of regret—it is not systematic. At each of these universities there is a professor engaged in active teaching, while other lecture courses are provided by college lecturers. At the universities and colleges in the rest of England the provision for teaching is of necessity less complete. At those best equipped, instruction in Economics depends on the energy and vigour of a single teacher, supplemented, perhaps, by an occasional course of lectures by some other Economist, while at the rest, if taught at all, it is attached to the duties of a teacher principally engaged in, and probably principally interested in, teaching some other subject, for, as a general rule, the teaching of Economics in conjunction with some other subject has meant little more than that the teacher of some other subject has had to give a course of lectures on General Economics. At two of the three colleges of the Victoria University Economics has separate teachers, at Liverpool one holding the rank of professor, at Manchester one holding that of a lecturer. At Leeds, on the other hand, there is no teacher of Economics. At the other university colleges in England the two London colleges possess each a professor, though the professor at King’s College delivers Economic lectures only during the six winter months. At the University College, Nottingham, Economic lectures are delivered by a professor at the same time engaged in teaching history and literature. The other colleges (Birmingham, Bristol, Sheffield, and Newcastle) at present make no provision for teaching a subject which they find so discounted as a subject for examination.

In Wales two of the University Colleges (Aberystwith and Cardiff) have made some sort of provision for Economic teaching by the appoint. ment of lecturers in History and Political Economy, while at Bangor Economics is tacked on to the duties of the Professor of Moral Philosophy.

In Scotland there is a fully instituted chair of Political Economy at the University of Edinburgh, and measures are in progress for the endowment of a Professorship at Glasgow, where the Economic work has recently been performed by a lecturer acting as assistant to the Professor of Moral Philosophy. At St. Andrews a yearly course of lectures is delivered by the Professor of Moral Philosophy.

In Ireland, at Trinity College, Dublin, there is a Professorship of Economics. At the Queen’s Colleges of Belfast, Cork, and Galway this teaching is combined with that of Jurisprudence, and limited to a very short portion of the year. Owing to the great differences existing between the courses delivered at the various institutions, and the entirely diverse character of the respective audiences, it is impossible to give any satisfactory statistics of attendance. From most quarters come complaints. Indeed, with the two possible exceptions of Oxford and Cambridge, it is difficult to imagine a more complete indifference to the scientific study of Economics than that displayed at the present time.

In addition to lectures, more informal instruction is often imparted to more advanced students, but the formation of a seminar in Economics has been undertaken but seldom, if at all. That this is due not to lack of will on the part of the teachers in those colleges where Economic teaching is entrusted to a separate teacher, but mainly to the singular deficiency in advanced or even moderately advanced students, is shown by the readiness with which individual instruction, often involving much sacrifice of time, is given to such students when they do present themselves. Such an institution can be successfully introduced only when Economic studies are so recognised as to be able to attract the abler students in a university or college.

Attempts to develop popular Economic instruction by means of evening classes, and separate courses of lectures, have been made by the University Colleges and other institutions, and by the Societies for the Extension of University Teaching; and at some of the former particular attention has been paid to the Economic teaching, noticeably at Owens College, Manchester, and University College, Liverpool. The class of students attracted to these lectures may be spoken of very favourably. From the reports and information supplied by the Societies, it would seem that though the attendance at Economic courses, when given, is good, the demand for them is not very great. The interest shown in the subject in some one or other of its branches is said to be reviving—certainly to be greater than it was some few years ago. There has been a decided increase in the demand for lectures on Economics, and subjects partially economic, during the last two years.

Economic studies in England require at the present time organisation and encouragement. As to the ability of English Economists and the quality of their contributions there can be no doubt; but, when compared with continental countries, England is sadly lacking in the number of Economic students. Where they have many, she has few. As has been said, this is largely due to the unfortunate positions to which Economics has been relegated in many Universities, and its neglect so far as professional callings are concerned. On the other hand, the revival of interest in Economic matters, so abundantly manifested, makes it more than ever desirable to provide means and opportunities for sound scientific training.

Source: Methods of Economic Training in this and other Countries. Report of the Cunningham Committee, Report of the Sixty-Fourth Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at Oxford in August 1894, pp. 365-391.

Also: at the Biodiversity Heritage Library Website; and at Harvard College Library, Gift of the Overseers Committee to visit the Department of Economics.

Image Source: William Cunningham page at the Trinity College Chapel website.

 

Categories
Columbia Economists Germany Yale

Columbia. Economics Ph.D. alumnus Henry Crosby Emery, 1896

 

Time to meet another economics Ph.D. alumnus.  Henry Crosby Emery was awarded his doctorate from Columbia University in 1896. His dissertation was on the economics of speculation. Professor at Yale, chairman of the U.S. Tariff Board, professor at Wesleyan among other stations, including being a witness to the Russian Revolution. He died relatively young in 1924 at age 51.

________________________

EMERY, Henry Crosby (view from 1900)

Harvard A.M 1893 — Columbia, Ph.D. 1896.

Born in Ellsworth, Me., 1872; graduated Bowdoin, 1892; Harvard A.M., 1893; Columbia, Ph.D., 1896; Instructor in Political Economy, Bowdoin, 1894-96, and Professor, 1897-1900; succeeded Pres. Hadley in Chair of Political Economy at Yale, August 1, 1900.

Henry Crosby Emery, Ph.D., Political Economist, was born in Ellsworth, Maine, December 21, 1872. His father, the Hon. L. A. Emery, is Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of that state. Henry C. Emery was graduated at Bowdoin College in 1892, took a post-graduate course at Harvard in the following year, where he received the degree of Master of Arts in 1893, and pursued his studies further at Columbia, being made a Doctor of Philosophy by that University in 1896. From 1894 to 1896 Mr. Emery taught at Bowdoin as Instructor in Political Economy and was advanced to a Professorship there in 1897, upon his return from Germany, where he had gone to complete his studies in that branch at the University of Berlin. Professor Emery has attained and holds a place among the political economists of this country of unusual distinction for one of his years. His contributions to economic literature, published in periodicals devoted to that science, have attracted wide attention, especially those dealing with modern methods of speculative business. His studies have been largely directed to this specialty, his Doctor’s thesis covering in detail the subject of stock and produce speculation on the exchanges in this country, and at the Convention of the American Economic Association at Ithaca in 1899 the subject of his address was The Place of the Speculator in Distribution. The election of Professor Arthur T. Hadley to be President of Yale making a vacancy in the Professorship of Political Economy in that University, Professor Emery was appointed to that Chair to assume its duties August 1, 1900.

Source: Universities and their sons; history, influence and characteristics of American universities, with biographical sketches and portraits of alumni and recipients of honorary degrees, Joshua L. Chamberlain, ed. Vol. 5 (Boston: R. Herndon Company, 1900), pp. 47-48.

________________________

Henry Crosby Emery, an obituary

DR. EMERY DIES OF PNEUMONIA AT SEA

Had Held Chairs At Yale and Wesleyan Before Taking China Post

Dr. Henry Crosby Emery whose body was buried at sea following death aboard ship while en route to America, according to wireless dispatches from Peking, was well known In Connecticut, having held the chair of political economy at Yale, and at one time was professor of economics and social science at Wesleyan. He also served as acting mayor of Middletown for two years. Pneumonia was the cause of his death which occurred while he was traveling from Kobe to Tientsin. His wife was with him when he died. Dr. Emery was formerly a member of the Peking Branch of the Asia Banking Corporation of New York and once served as chairman of the United States tariff board.

Professor at Yale.

New Haven, Feb. 7. — Death of Dr. Henry Crosby Emery, while on the way to San Francisco from Shanghai, China, caused regret at Yale where he was well known, having been for nine years professor of political economy at the university. Prof. Emery came to Yale from Bowdoin College in 1899, having held the chair of political economy at that institution from which he graduated in 1882. In 1909 he left Yale to accept the chairmanship of the United States tariff board, to which position he was appointed by President Taft.

Taught at Wesleyan.

In 1913 Dr. Emery was appointed professor of economics and social science at Wesleyan University to succeed Willard C. Fisher, who resigned after holding the post for many years and was serving mayor of Middletown for two terms. Prof. Emery was a son of former Chief Justice L. A. Emery of the state of Maine. After leaving Wesleyan Prof. Emery sailed for Russia in 1916 to make a study of the commercial, industrial and financial conditions there for the Guaranty Trust Company in New York. While in Russia he married Miss Susanne Carey Allinson of Providence, R. I., who traveled to Russia alone for the wedding.

Imprisoned by Germans.

On his departure from Russia in 1918 Prof. Emery was taken prisoner by the Germans in the Aland Islands, a part of Finland. He was held in a barbed wire stockade for a time and later given his freedom in a small Pomeranian town. He was released and left Germany for America the fall of 1918.

Source: Hartford Courant, 8 February 1924, p. 22.

________________________

Links to Publications of Henry Crosby Emery

Legislation against Futures, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Mar., 1895), pp. 62-86.

Speculation on the Stock and Produce Exchanges of the United States. Published in Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, Columbia University, Vol. VII, No. 2 (1896).

The Results of the German Exchange Act of 1896, Political Science Quarterly (Vol. XIII, No. 2, 1898), pp. 286-319.

The Place of the Speculator in the Theory of Distribution, Publications of the American Economic Association, 3rd Series, Vol. 1, No. 1, Papers and Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting, Ithaca, N. Y., December 27-29, 1899 (Feb., 1900), pp. 103-122.

Futures in the Grain Market, The Economic Journal, Vol. 9, No. 33 (Mar., 1899), pp. 45-67.

The Tariff Board and its Work, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1910.

Speculation” in Every-Day Ethics, Addresses delivered in the Page Lecture Series, 1909, before the Senior Class of the Sheffield Scientific School, Yale University. New Haven: Yale University Press (1910), pp. 107-139.

Politician, Party and People, Addresses delivered in the Page Lecture Series, 1912, before the Senior Class of the Sheffield Scientific School, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1913.

Some Economic Aspects of War, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1914

________________________

Archival Papers of Henry Crosby Emery

Henry Crosby Emery Papers, Special Collections & Archives, Bowdoin College Library.

Biographical/Historical Note

Henry Crosby Emery (Bowdoin 1892) was born December 21, 1872, in Ellsworth, Me., the son of Lucilius Alonzo and Annie Stetson (Crosby) Emery. His father was chief justice of Maine, a member of the state senate, professor of medical jurisprudence at Medical School of Maine, and lecturer on Roman law at the University of Maine. An 1892 graduate of Bowdoin, the younger Emery also received his masters from Harvard (1893) and a doctorate from Columbia (1896).

An economist and professor at Bowdoin (1897-1900) and at Yale (1900-15), Emery was married in St. Petersburg, Russia (1917) to Suzanne C. Allinson, daughter of Francis G. Allinson of Providence, RI. The Emerys toured Russia (1917-18) to make a study of the industrial and financial conditions of that country, and while there, observed the outbreak of the Russian Revolution and fled the country, only to be taken prisoner by the Germans on their way to Sweden. The women of the party were allowed to go on, but the men were detained in Danzig and later in Berlin. With the collapse of the German monarchy Emery was released.

The Emerys also resided in China (1920-24), where he was manager of the Peking branch of the Asia Banking Corporation of New York. He died of pneumonia aboard the steamship “President Lincoln” between Shanghai and Japan (1924), on his way back to the United States from China, and was buried at sea.

Emery’s study of Speculation on the Stock and Produce Exchanges of the United States(1896), his Ph.D. dissertation at Columbia, was the authoritative analysis of the economics of exchanges.

Scope and Content

Letters (1917-1924), diaries (1917-1918), articles and speeches (1908-1924) written by Henry C. Emery and his wife, Suzanne, during their travels in China and Russia. Also included are photographs and clippings (1905-1985). Material from the collection was used in Ernest C. Helmreich’s article (Lewiston sun-journal, March 30, 1985) entitled, “A Maine couple’s account of the November, 1917 Russian Revolution.”

Henry Crosby Emery Papers at Yale

The papers center on two aspects of Emery’s activities: his teaching career at Yale and his service as chairman of the U.S. Tariff Board (1909-1913). Papers relating to the Board include correspondence, reports, statistics, and cloth samples collected in connection with the board’s investigation of the carpet, wool, and cotton manufacturing industries, ca.1911-1912. Principal correspondents are members of the board, among them Alvin H. Sanders, James B. Reynolds, L. M. Spier, N. I. Stone, R. B. Horrow, and Charles A. Veditz.

Image Source: Portrait of Henry Crosby Emery in The World’s Work, Vol. XIX, Number 1. November 1909, p. 12183.

Categories
AEA Amherst Columbia Economists Germany Johns Hopkins Smith

Columbia. Short biographical note on John Bates Clark at age 52

 

Today’s post adds to the virtual clipping file of relatively obscure biographical items for John Bates Clark. The turn of the century volumes edited by Joshua L. Chamberlain, Universities and Their Sons, serve as a who’s who with an academic twist and the source of this early-through-mid-career biography for the great John Bates Clark.

Pro-tip: At the bottom of this post you can click on the keyword “ClarkJB” to summon all the John Bates Clark related posts here at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

_________________________

Other Biographical postings for John Bates Clark

From the Smith College yearbook (1894)

Columbia University Memorial Minute (1938)

_________________________

CLARK, John Bates, 1847-

Born in Providence, R. I., 1857; studied at Brown for two years; Amherst for two years, graduating in 1872; studied abroad at Heidelberg University for one and a half years and at Zurich University one-half year; Professor of Political Economy and History, Carleton (Minnesota) College, 1877-81; Professor of History and Political Science at Smith College, 1882-93; Professor of Political Economy at Amherst, 1892-95; Lecturer on Political Economy, Johns Hopkins. 1892-94; Professor of Political Economy at Columbia since 1895.

JOHN BATES CLARK, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Political Economy at Columbia, was born in Providence, Rhode Island, January 26, 1847. His parents were John Hezekiah Clark, a well-known manufacturer of Providence, and Charlotte Stoddard Huntington, a granddaughter of General Jedediah Huntington of New London, Connecticut. He received his early education in the public schools of his native place. In 1865 he entered Brown, spending two years in study there, and later entered Amherst. During an interval of absence from this College he engaged in the manufacture of ploughs, and was one of the founders of the Monitor Plow Company, of Minneapolis, Minnesota. He retired from active business in 1871, and returned to Amherst, graduating in 1872. He then went abroad and studied for a year and a half at the University of Heidelberg, for a term at the University of Zurich, and for a short period in Paris. He returned to America in 1875 and, two years later, became Professor of Political Economy at Carleton College. He retained this position for four years, and then came to Massachusetts to take the Professorship of History and Political Science at Smith College. He was with Smith in this capacity for eleven years, until, in 1893, he was made Professor of Political Economy at Amherst College. From 1892 to 1894 he was also Lecturer on Political Economy at Johns Hopkins. He left Amherst in 1895 to take a Chair of Political Economy at Columbia, and has since been in charge of the department of Economic Theory of the University. In 1893 and also in 1894 he was elected President of the American Economic Association. Professor Clark has written a number of monographs and articles on economic subjects, and a book — The Philosophy of Wealth — which presents new theories. He also published in collaboration with Professor F. H. Giddings, The Modern Distributive Process, and is now about to publish a second work on Distribution [The Distribution of Wealth; A Theory of Wages, Interest and Profits (1899)]. He is a member of the Century and Barnard Clubs. Professor Clark married, September 28, 1875, Myra Almeda Smith of Minneapolis. They have four children, three girls and a boy.

Source: Universities and their sons; history, influence and characteristics of American universities, with biographical sketches and portraits of alumni and recipients of honorary degrees, Joshua L. Chamberlain, ed., Vol. II (Boston: R. Herndon Company, 1899), p. 423.

Image Source: Same.

 

Categories
Economists Germany Harvard Minnesota Northwestern

Halle. Economics PhD Alumnus, John Henry Gray (Harvard AB, 1887), 1892

 

The Harvard graduate, John Henry Gray (A.B. 1887), was an instructor of political economy at his alma mater in 1888-1889. His European tour as a graduate student took him from Halle (Germany) to Paris, Vienna, and Berlin. He returned to the U.S. with a doctorate from the University of Halle to begin his academic career at Northwestern. A chronology of his life and subsequent career is included below.

Fun Fact: John Henry Gray donated his private library of about one thousand volumes to Carleton College. It included a third edition of Wealth of Nations.

__________________

John Henry Gray

1859. Born March 11, 1859 at Charleston, Ill.

Prepared for college at State Normal University in Illinois.

1881-1882. Principal of the High School of Centralia, Illinois.

1883. Enters Harvard College. Sophomore year he began his studies of Political Economy.

1887. A.B., magna cum laude.  Harvard with special honors in Political Science. Phi-Beta-Kappa.

1887-1888. Graduate student, Harvard University.

1888-1889. Appointed instructor of political economy following resignation of Professor J. L. Laughlin.

July, 1889. Rogers Fellow of Harvard for graduate study of two semesters at Halle with Professors Conrad and Loening (1889-1890); seven months at Paris (1890-1891), with Levasseur, Leroy-Beaulieu, Sorel, De Foville; one semester at Vienna with Carl Menger, Böhm-Bawerk and v. Miaskowski (1891); and more than a semester in Berlin with Wagner, Schmoller and Gneist (1891-92).

1892. Doctorate awarded by the University of Halle, magna cum laude. Thesis: Die Stellung der privaten Beleuchtungsgesellschaften zu Stadt und Staat. Die Erfahrungen in Wien, Paris und Massachusetts. Jena, 1893.

1892-1907. Professor of political economy and social science, Northwestern University.

1893. Chairman of the World’s Congress Auxiliary on Political Science in Chicago.

1894-1896. Chairman of the municipal committee of the Civic Federation of Chicago.

1902. Consultant to the United States Department of Labor to investigate restrictions of output in Great Britain.

1902. International Cooperative Congress in Manchester, England as representative of the U.S. Commissioner of Labor.

1902. U.S. representative to Congresses of labor, commerce and industry in Düsseldorf (Germany) and Ostend (Belgium).

1905. Member of the National Civic Federation Commission on Municipal Ownership.

1907-1920. Professor of economics, University of Minnesota.

1911-1914. National Civic Federation Commission on Municipal ownership, regulation of public service corporations.

1913. Author of compilation and analysis of all American statutes relating to the regulation of public service corporations.

1914. President of the American Economic Association.

1917-1919. Chief analyst and examiner in the bureau of valuations, Interstate Commerce Commission.

World War I. Lt. Col., U.S. Army and member of the board of appraisers of all property commandeered for the Army.  Second man to enroll in the American Legion.

1920-1925. Professor of economics, Carleton College.

1925-1928. Chief analyst and examiner in the bureau of valuations of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

1928-1932. Head of department of economics in the graduate school of American University.

1929. Joint author with G. W. Terborgh of a study of Urban Mortgages in the United States since 1920.

1933. Co-author with Jack Levin, The Regulation and Valuation of Public Utilities. Harper & Brothers.

1946. Died April 4 in Winter Park, Florida.

Sources:

Personal Notes, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science Vol. 3 (Sept., 1892), pp. 112-113.

Jesse S. Robinson. John Henry Gray, 1859-1946. American Economic Review, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Sept. 1946), pp. 664-666.

 

Image Source: University of Minnesota Libraries, UMedia. Gray, John H. webpage.

 

Categories
Berkeley Columbia Dartmouth Economist Market Economists Germany Iowa Northwestern

Columbia. Economics Ph.D. alumnus who killed his Dean and self at Syracuse. Beckwith, 1913

 

Imagine what can possibly go wrong when a narcissist finds himself (herself) terminated from nine jobs over the course of a decade. The worst case scenario of murder-suicide as the culmination of professional decline and fall for the 1913 Columbia Ph.D. alumnus, Holmes Beckwith, is documented below using a few contemporary press accounts. His story was sensational and reported widely across the country.

For this post I have added a chronology along with a pair of genealogical tables to help readers distinguish among the members of the Beckwith and the Holmes families mentioned. Warning: I have encountered numerous errors in the contemporary newspaper accounts.

The final entry included in the post paints a much more sympathetic portrait of Holmes Beckwith, reminding us all of the tragedy of mental illness.

The annual reports of the Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society served as a sort of “Alumni notes” with contact information as well as personal and professional news that were useful in keeping track of Holmes Beckwith’s movements over his brief professional career.

Useful genealogical information found at a roots.web Beckwith page.

Note: Holmes Beckwith does not appear to have been closely related (if at all) to William Erastus Beckwith, husband of 1925 Radcliffe Ph.D. Ethelwynn Rice).

_________________________

Chronology

1884. Born October 5 in Haiku, Maui of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Parents: Frank Armstrong Beckwith (1854-1885) and Ellen Warren Holmes.

1900. Lived with his mother (Ellen), sister (Ruth), and aunt (Mary G. Holmes) in Los Angeles.

Holmes went to high school in Los Angeles.

Attended Pacific Theological School at Berkeley, CA, completing about half the course, transferred to University of California.

1906. Address: 2231 Dana St., Berkeley, CA. (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1907. Address: 2231 Dana St., Berkeley, CA. (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1908. B.L. from University of California, Berkeley.

Address: 2223 Atherton St., Berkeley, CA. (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1909. M.L. from University of California, Berkeley.

Address: 2223 Atherton St., Berkeley, CA. (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1909. June 22. Marriage to Helen Frances Robinson in Berkeley, CA. (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1910. Address: Columbia University, New York City. (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1911. Address: Columbia University, New York City. (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1911. Summer. Research trip to Germany for dissertation.

“To learn at first hand from German experiences, I spent the summer of 1911 investigating industrial education in Germany. The cities visited were selected with a view to their importance industrially and include a number of the chief industrial centers in various lines of manufacture. The following cities were visited: The city State of Hamburg; Leipzig, Dresden, Chemnitz, and Plauen in Saxony; Munich in Bavaria; Mannheim, in Baden; and Berlin, Magdeburg, Frankfort on Main, Coblenz, Cologne, Dusseldorf, Elberfeld, Barmen, Dortmund, Essen, Duisburg, Crefeld, Munchen-Gladbach, Rheydt, and Aachen, in Prussia.” From the Preface of his dissertation.

1911-12. Dartmouth College. Instructor in economics.

Entered Federal service, Children’s Bureau (the Bureau of Education published his dissertation). The Children’s Bureau was established April 9, 1912 by President William Howard Taft. Initially part of the Department of Commerce and Labor. After 1913 it became part of the Department of Labor.

1913. Ph.D. from Columbia University.

German Industrial Education and its Lessons for the United States. Printed in the U.S. Bureau of Education [Department of the Interior], Bulletin No. 19, 1913. [Professor Henry R. Seager acknowledged in the preface]

1913-14. University of California. Assistant in economics and political economy.

“The Rev. F. H. Robinson of 2809 Russell street, Berkeley, his former father-in-law, states that his severity toward the students at that time caused them to demand his resignation.” The San Francisco Examiner. 3 April 1921, p. 8.
“According to colleagues in the department of economics in the university, he was ‘very eccentric.’” Oakland Tribune, Apr. 2, 1921, p. 1.

1914. Address: 3008 Benvenue Ave., Berkeley, CA.  “Mr. Holmes Beckwith is a professor in the State University at Berkeley, Calif., and has recently received the degree of Ph.D.” (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1914. August-December as bank examiner with the California State Banking Commission.

“Officials of the commission said the bankers complained he ‘lectured them like students’ on the theories of their own business instead of confining himself to the actual examination work”. New York Herald, April 3, 1921, p. 17.

1915. Address: Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1915-16. Officers’ training camp at Plattsburgh. [according to NYT: discharged for physical disability.] First Lieutenant of artillery (?), U.S. Army. [Note: I have not been able to confirm the reported military service claims yet.]

1916-17. Grinnell College.

“Several years ago a Holmes Beckwith was an assistant professor in the department of business administration at Grinnell college. He was here about a year and was never popular with the students. He left Grinnell about the middle of 1917.” The Gazette (Ceder Rapids, Iowa), April 2, 1921, p. 1.

1917. Address: Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1918. Address: Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.  (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1919. Address: 1724 Chicago Ave., Evanston, Ill. (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1918-19Northwestern University, Assistant Professor of Banking.

“…where he was described as being nervous and erratic.” New-York Tribune April 4, 1921, p. 5.

1919-20. Colorado College, College Springs, CO.

“He had a penchant for telling stories that were considered risqué for a Christian college.” New York Herald, April 3, 1921, p. 17.

1920. Address: 817 N. Tejon St., Colorado Springs, Col. (Source: Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society)

1920-21. Syracuse University, College of Business Administration. Instructor in Insurance.

1921. April 2. Suicide (+Murder). See below.

_________________________

Cast of relatives
[boldface denotes persons mentioned in the newspaper accounts]

Holmes Beckwith: Father’s side

(Grandparents)
Edward Griffin Beckwith (1826-1909)

(Granduncle)
George Ely Beckwith (1828-1898)
m. Harriet

(father)
Frank Armstrong Beckwith (1854-1885)

m. Ellen Warren Holmes in Montclair NJ

(Aunt)
Martha Warren Beckwith
(1871-1959)
(Aunt)
Mary E. Beckwith (1867-) teacher, artist
Holmes Beckwith
(1884-1921)
m. Helen Frances Robinson in 1909.
(sister)
Ruth Beckwith
(1882-1968)
m. Amasa Archibald Bullock

Note: (Professor) Aunt Martha Beckwith in Poughkeepsie, N.Y. had been a protégé of Columbia anthropologist Franz Boas. She became chair of the Vassar folklore department.

Holmes Beckwith: Mother’s side

(maternal grandparents)
Samuel Holmes (1824-1897) and Mary Howe Goodale (1829-1899)

(mother)
Ellen Warren Holmes (1857-1902) m. Frank Armstrong Beckwith in 1881
(uncle)
David Goodale Holmes (1865-1944) m. Elizabeth Ann Bates (1862-1940) in 1886
(aunt)
Mary Goodale Holmes (1862-1960)

(uncle)
George Day Holmes (1867-1953) m. Julia Georgiana Rogers Baird, (1868-1928) in 1896.

Note: Uncle David Goodale Holmes of East Orange, N.J. was President of the Utility Company, 636 West Forty-fourth Street, New York City according to the report of New York Times, April 4, 1921, p. 17. Uncle George Day Holmes lived with his wife Julia in Montclair, N.J. Since she died in 1928, we can presume she was the ill aunt (presumably Aunt “Hattie”) who was not to be told of Holmes’ death.

_________________________

Professor Slays Dean, and Himself
Former U.C. Instructor Ends His Life After Fatal Shooting At Syracuse University; Note Tells of Plans
Dr. Holmes Beckwith, Once Employed As Examiner for State Banking Commission, Well Known in Berkeley

Oakland Tribune
02 Apr 1921, Page 1

By Associated Press.

SYRACUSE, N. Y., April 2. — J. Herman Wharton, dean of the College of Business Administration, Syracuse University, was shot and killed by Holmes Beckwith, professor of financial and insurance subjects, in the college this morning. Beckwith then turned the gun on himself and committed suicide. The shooting occurred in. the office of the School of Administration, in the College of Agriculture building. Professor Beckwith had been unpopular with the students, it was said, and petitions had been circulated among the student body asking for his removal.

Note tells of plan to commit suicide

In a statement issued soon after the shooting, Chancellor Day declared that it was his belief that Dean Wharton died trying to prevent Professor Beckwith from committing suicide. [Later reports note this is incorrect.] This was indicated in a note left for Dean Wharton by Prof. Beckwith, the chancellor said, in which he intimated that he was going to kill himself and referred to alleged unjust treatment of himself based on the fact that he had been dismissed, the dismissal to take effect at the end of the year. Dean Wharton’s chair, a stout one, was broken. He evidently leaped from it when Beckwith tried to kill himself, the gun was turned on him and the dean was shot through the head. Beckwith was shot in the chest. He also stabbed himself to make death certain. [This is apparently incorrect, though he was found to have had knife with him.]

Suicide was once artillery lieutenant

Dr. Beckwith was a first lieutenant, field artillery, in the world war. He joined the Syracuse University Faculty last September [1920]. He was head of the department of finance and insurance. Dean Wharton was a graduate of Syracuse university and has been an instructor there for the last few years. Two years ago he conceived the idea of a college of business administration and he was appointed to carry out the plan.

San Francisco, April 2. — Dr. Holmes Beckwith was an examiner for the State Banking Commission from August to December, 1914, and was dismissed upon complaint of the banks that he was not a proper person for the position, according to the commission’s records. These records show that he obtained the highest marks of those who participated in the test for examiner.

Beckwith was well known on U. C. campus Berkeley, April 2. — Holmes Beckwith was well known in Berkeley. At the University of California, where he was both a student and an instructor, he bore a reputation for being somewhat peculiar. According to colleagues in the department of economics in the. university, he was very eccentric.

Beckwith was a graduate of the State University of the class of 1908 and took his master’s degree a year later. Going East to study, he was granted a doctor of philosophy degree in Columbia in 1913. After receiving the Columbia degree he came to the University of California from Los Angeles to occupy a place on the college faculty. For the college year 1913-14 he was an assistant in economics at the university. He was reappointed for the following year of 1914-15, but did not serve.

_________________________

The Philadelphia Inquirer
April 3, 1921, pp. 1, 10.

“Beckwith failed to attend a meeting of the college faculty yesterday afternoon [April 1] and instead sent a letter to Dean Wharton, intended to be read at the meeting. The letter was found on Professor Wharton’s desk today after the murder.”

_________________________

Fires Five Bullets into Victim’s Body; Commits Suicide
John Herman Wharton of Syracuse University Slain by Prof. Beckwith in Revenge for Dismissal of Latter — Apparently Crazed by An Obsession of Persecution, as He Had Written of Impending Tragedy.

The Buffalo Times
April 3, 1921 [pp. 21-2.]

By Associated Press.

SYRACUSE, N. Y., April 2. — Dr. Holmes Beckwith, a former United States army lieutenant and California bank examiner, shot and killed his superior, Dean John Herman Wharton at Syracuse University, this morning, before commiting suicide himself, was probably insane as a result of chagrin over losing his position here, according to statements made by the authorities and Chancellor James R. Day of the University late tonight.

That Beckwith had premeditated suicide had not been clearly established, the instructor having left several letters showing his intention in that respect.

At first it was believed that Dr. Wharton had been killed in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent Beckwith’s suicide but this theory has now been cast aside.

Shot After Quarrel.

Coroner C. Ellis Crane, District Attorney Frank Malpass and Chancellor James R. Day are all agreed in the belief that Dr. Wharton was shot following an argument when Beckwith presented a letter in answer to Wharton’s notification that the university would have no need of Beckwith’s services after the close of college in June.

Five bullets were found in Dr. Wharton’s body indicating that Beck with had made sure his superior was dead before he turned his revolver upon himself and committed suicide.

Dean Wharton was in his 32d year and had been an instructor at Syracuse University since his graduation from that institution eight years ago. He was made dean of the College of Business Administration two years ago and Beckwith was one of the instructors under him.

Beckwith had been the butt of several jokes by the college student body during the last year. He had established the practice of locking the doors of the class room at the exact minute passes were due to begin and he would not admit tardy pupils.

He was strict in discipline and in the matter of time devoted to his classes and he had some peculiarities which made him more or less of a victim for students’ pranks and he was decidedly unpopular with them. It is claimed they circulated a petition for his discharge last fall.

University authorities had convinced themselves that Beckwith was a liability rather than an asset and last Monday he received his notification to look elsewhere for a teaching assignment next fall.

He protested but his arguments were without avail.

“Cornered Rat Will Fight.”

Friday night, it has been established, he spent hours in his room writing letters, one of which was addressed to Dean Wharton. It was lengthy document saying among other things, a “cornered rat will fight.”

His uncle Holmes of Montclair, N. J., be notified and that his action be kept from an aunt who is ill.

He wrote two aunts, Dr. Martha Beckwith and Miss Mary Beckwith of No. 50 Market Street, Poughkeepsie. N. Y., and to “Aunt Hattie,” believed to reside in Montclair. The letters thanked the relatives for their love and care assuring them that he loved them.

That he had a rather turbulent career and regarded at least two persons, outside of Syracuse, who had figured in his troubles in the educational world, as being worthy subjects for murder is shown in the story of his life, written under date of March 30, and turned over, according to his written wishes, to Prof. John O. Simmons, a faculty member here.

Discussing his discharge at Colorado College, Dr. Beckwith speaks of a Mr. Howbert, a bank president, apparently one of the board of governors, and writes:

“Mr. Howbert’s anger knew no bounds, I have never met him. I think a man to take the action he did is so unjust he should be shot.”

In his written story of his life he discusses troubles he had at Grinnell College in Iowa, which evidently culminated while he was serving in the army. He wrote:

“I would have murdered Mr. Main who certainly deserves this end in having treacherously betrayed one in his country’s service. Then I would have shot my self.”

Born in Hawaii.

The story of Beckwith’s life shows he was born October 5, 1884, in Kaiku, Island of Maui, then one of the Hawaiian kingdom. His father and grandfather were Congregational ministers and his one sister, Ruth Beckwith Bullock, is a missionary in Siang-Tan, China. He attended the Pacific Theological School at Berkeley, Calif., but did not complete the course. In 1911 he was graduated from Columbia, to which university he transferred in 1908. He married Helen Frances Robinson in California before entering Columbia. They had separated some time ago.

After graduation he spent a short time in Germany and returned to America as a teacher at Dartmouth. He condemned Dartmouth “as the toughest college In America, all men, the dominant element of whom delights in toughness.” He had trouble there, blaming his trouble on Prof. George R. Wicker, of whom he says “this humane cur, Wicker, has since died.”

His story tells of engagements in California, Colorado and Iowa, finally reverting to Syracuse.

Dismissed as Bank Examiner.

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif., April 2. — Dr. Holmes Beckwith was an examiner for the State Banking Commission from August to December, 1914, and was dismissed upon complaint of the banks that he was not a proper person for the position, according to the commission’s records.

The records show that he obtained the highest marks of those who participated in the test for examiner but was unable to meet the standards of the position in the financial field. Officials of the commission said that the bankers complained that he “lectured them like students” on the theories of their own business instead of confining himself to the actual examination work. He went to the banking commission from the University of California, where he was an instructor in economics and political economy.

Letter Beckwith Wrote Shows He Resented Wharton’s Act

SYRACUSE, April 2. — The following letter, written to Dean Wharton by Professor Beckwith, was found on Dean Wharton’s desk. In it the professor claims that he was in difficulties with the students only because he refused to permit them to run his classes.

“My attitude toward the students is that of seeking their best good,” Professor Beckwith wrote, protesting against his dismissal.

His letter follows:

The School of Business Administration.
John Herman Wharton, Director.
Department of Banking and Finance.

Holmes Beckwith,
Early Childs.
April 1, 1921.

To Dean John Herman Wharton and to whom it may concern:

I received last Saturday morning a letter from you stating that you did not care for further services on this faculty after this year. This was a great surprise to me, despite several conferences we have had in which some friction with students was discussed. I thought the matter was solving itself. I visited you at your home on Monday afternoon, and we discussed the matter, and I protested to you against the injustice done me. This was in vain.

Your only statement of causes was that certain disciplinary troubles and friction had arisen in my classes, and that I was not popular with my students. Now popularity Is NOT always easy to explain, or the lack of it, but certainly a man’s right to his position should not be dependent on such a fickle force. I believe that it is evident in the present case that this unpopularity is due primarily to my maintenance of relatively high scholastic standings, and to my suppressing certain tendencies toward running of the class by students.

The chief trouble was in money and banking class in the first semester. There was a very large registration, yet the whole number only filtered into class days late. This delayed the process of dividing into sections and started a spirit of unrest. Then the students objected to assignments averaging about two hours’ preparation per hour of recitation or lecture, which is I believe a proper standard for bona fide institutions. They walked out in a body on the day of any important game. The net result was, in one direction, that their grades suffered severely, and I had, after very careful consideration, to mark 33 out of 50 as failed. Those who failed, or many of them, I am told, objected seriously to this, and called me unfair.

I deny the charge, and assert that I have tried to be entirely fair throughout, and believe I have been so. I have no motive to be otherwise; and justice means much to me, not only toward myself, but towards others. These facts stated above explain any opposition on the part of any students, I believe sufficiently.

The dean says that other instructors have not had similar trouble. I know positively that some others have had. Though not so much as I. He says “force has its limitations in controlling students, and personality” must be used. I recognize this, and neither used force nor authority exclusively, nor failed to use personality.

Here inconsistency is shown by his suggesting at one time greater strictness, at another time less. My attitude toward my students is that of always seeking their best good. But that best good is not to be sought by slipshodness and making things too easy. I may say, without pressing the point, that a number of the faculty on the hill are too lax in standards, both of scholarship and discipline, seeking and obtaining popularity in degree thereby. These men constitute unfair competition to those of us who try to bring the students to higher levels in these respects. I am not naturally strong as a disciplinarian but with any proper students and any proper administration or support do well.

My subjects are technical and my students find them hard. This explains some of their reasons. They are not as a group, willing to pay the price for this knowledge and ability. Among them, I am glad to say, are some, whose earnestness is excellent and a few quite capable students. The student attitude in my classes, and I believe toward me personally, has been bettering. Dean Wharton did not care to consider this. Syracuse University is notably low in scholarship and low in discipline, honesty and general student morale. These facts are notorious, every faculty man knows and deplores them; many students also.

The dean’s action follows the line of least resistance, and shows little or no principle. It is easier to suit a number of disaffected students than one professor; to do injustice to one and to support that one in maintaining or securing some one higher standard. And certainly as to scholarship, who knows better or as well what is a requisite standard than the specialist in charge?

Such treatment is not new to me. This may seem to excuse the treatment but does not, I leave this point to ethical students. My rights are independent of the misconduct of others, as in the present instance, students or certain students. Unfortunately, by consent of the general student body, or of all in a class, the tone is often given more by the poorer or less desirable student than by the better element. It is the psychology of the mob in a degree. This matter at present is slowly improving in the college, due to student co-operation action.

I have a right to earn my living, to serve and be served. The world owes me a living — provided I can earn it. This right, is independent of whether I am given an opportunity to earn it or not. I am entitled to that opportunity in proportion to my ability. My physical qualifications are admittedly high and there is no criticism, expressed or implied as to them, or as to my technical conduct of teaching, or ability to impart. My recommendations on file in the dean’s office bear sufficient testimony to my ability.

[New York Herald,  Apr 3, 1921, p. 17 reported the previous paragraph followed by the following two paragraphs.]

Even a cornered rat will fight. With others primarily, as I believe, at fault, should I alone bear the burden? I have written a general statement of my earlier experiences, which will aid in interpreting me for any who so desires.”

(This paragraph reported in other accounts as the end of Beckwith’s longer, autobiographical letter) “I shall cease to exist. My consciousness, a function or product, in some sense of my whole organic life, will cease and will remain a memory only. I trust I have bettered the world rather than the reverse. Om mane padne om! (The dew droops slips into the shining sea).”]

What did I mean by claiming right? The cynic denies that there is such a thing. The political scientist sometimes says there are no rights in society, organized as a State, has not formally granted by law.

Unfortunately the right to earn a living is not one of those thus far recognized by law. I believe it is a right notwithstanding. I am not embracing the so-called rights fallacy — or not the fallacious part of it. This fallacy consists in thinking that there are any rights, always and anywhere valid, not dependent on circumstances. Yet the heart of the doctrine is true that right exist, whether men recognize them or not. I consider that rights in the best sense, that is expedient or rational rights, are claims which are within accord with social or public expediency — mine for continuous employment in accord with my abilities and recognition of such abilities? Social interest in this case requires, I believe, administrative support, continuous support, and pressure, to raise the student standard, rather than the ousting of me. I have only asked reasonable standards of them and even compromised to the extent of raising every student 10 per cent, in most classes, who would thereby pass.

The present situation is intolerable to me, in the strict sense. This isn’t largely due to the repetition here of similar treatment elsewhere received. Despite similar injunctions I have arisen, by inherent ability and hard work. I have had so many changes of location, also so many different courses, and developed them so much, by mimeographed notes and otherwise, that I have not had time to write for publication yet. My rise has been due to my ability; the obstacles and injustices due to conditions not primarily my fault.

I have been bruised for others’ iniquities.

I informed the dean that he had made the situation intolerable to me and presented my case, asking for justice. He refused, and said his action was final. I cannot continue thus — subject to lack of confidence of those in authority, worry, depression often-times as now marked, lack of incentive and of hope. Some students and others simply do not like my type of man, or the standards which I represent; though I think and many friends think (I believe) that the type is a high one, of much potentialities of good for the world.

Dean Wharton and some others in authority have given way to this pressure, taking “the easiest way” for them, and in doing so repeatedly confirmed my suspicions that the world, as a whole, as indicated by the attitude of those who control the situation, is unfriendly to me. I cannot be hardly accused of ingratitude if I do not accept this opinion and consider that the world has not even given me a semblance of justice. The dean is fully responsible, as he accepted this proposition. He could support me, and should but refuses. Collectively the students who oppose me (I am glad that that does not include all my students, and I believe the dean underestimates the extent of their loyalty to me) have the main responsibility.

[New York Times, p. 14 includes the following:
“They started this and are about to see their handiwork come to fruition. Perhaps they may earn something from this that will benefit themselves and others. The tyranny of the mob over the individual is here very evident, and the individual is not strong enough to permanently stand against the mob.
I do not believe I have been appreciated. I have not done injustice to anyone. I have fought the good fight and my conscience is clear. I am too idealistical ethically, not philosophically, for my own good. I realize that principle means too much to me. Even a cornered rat will fight. With others, I believe, primarily at fault, should I alone bear the burden.
The law was established to settle quarrels, not to establish justice, which is incidental only. I quote from a prominent New York attorney. Since the world has so greatly failed to give me justice, why would not I, as fully as my power permits, attempt to secure a modicum of justice?
If society would have it otherwise, let them establish it.”]

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

Beckwith Butt Of Jokes from First Class Day

SYRACUSE, N. Y., April 2. — Professor Beckwith was the butt of jokes by the students from the first day that he took a class. When he was registering a class in banking and finance, some jokester wrote a fake registration in the name of “Makiswash Blivitz” and turned it in. The professor failed to realize that the name was false, and he put it in his registration book, and never failed to call it out when taking the attendance or calling the roll.

The name of “Blivitz” always drew a laugh from the students. To make their joke more certain, they occasionally imported a law school student, a stranger to Professor Beckwith, who answered to the call of “Blivitz.”

The joke was too good to be retained within the student body. The faculty heard of it, and of course, some of the professors laughed about it, too. Then it reached the ears of Chancellor Day, and he instructed Professor Beckwith to take the name of Blivitz from his lists.

Professor Beckwith refused to do this, however, thinking that some day he would catch the student who sometimes answered to the name and make an object lesson of him. One result was that the newspapers heard of it, and one printed a series of “Blivitz” stories, which annoyed the professor tremendously.

Another thing for which the professor became noted was that he operated his classes under lock and key. As soon as the bell rang for a class he locked the door, and if a student came late he was admitted by the professor himself.

It was also noticed by the students that if Professor Beckwith’s class concluded its work a few minutes ahead of time he always held them in the class room until the exact minute scheduled for closing of classes.

_________________________

Murder and Suicide Verdict Given in Syracuse Tragedy
Dr. Wharton, Victim of Radical Professor’s Bullet,
Was About to Marry a Rich Woman, Friends Say

New York Tribune
April 4, 1921 [p. 5]

SYRACUSE, N. Y., April 3. “Murder and suicide” was the coroner’s verdict to-day in the double tragedy at Syracuse University yesterday when Professor Holmes Beckwith shot and killed Dean John Herman Wharton, of the College of Business Administration, and then, reloading the gun, fired two bullets into his own body, killing himself.

Beckwith fired five bullets into the body of the dean as it lay on the floor turned the revolver on himself and fell ten feet away.

Professor Wharton’s body was removed to his home in Clarendon Street where funeral services will be held. Beckwith’s body has been claimed by David G. Holmes, of East Orange, N.J., an uncle.

Authorities are still delving into the mass of letters, papers, essays and other documents left by the murderer in his home and sent, to various friends and college associates, most of them; written after he had been asked to resign from the Syracuse faculty at the end of the college year. It was learned to-day that Dr. Wharton was about to be married. So far as can be learned he had not given out the name of his prospective bride even among his intimate friends. The woman is understood to have been of independent means. Beckwith’s last literary effort, his life story, given to the public by Professor J. O. Simmons, reveals the entire philosophy of the assassin, American-born in Hawaii, intellectual apostate Christian, athletic dilettante, reader of strange tongues, sociologist, egoist, professed lover of humanity, army officer, dabbler in Far East religions, radical, atheist, murderer and self-slayer.

Among his effects was found a snap-shot photograph of his father and former President Taft as classmates at Yale, where they wore contestants for the presidency of the class.

That the crime was premeditated shown by Beckwith’s own writings. Desperate because of repeated failures to hold a place in the teaching profession, having been dismissed in disgrace from all of the nine places he had he since graduation from the University of California ten years ago, he determined to leave a world in which could not succeed and to take the man he held responsible for his latest failure along with him.

On several other occasions, when he had been dismissed from college faculties, he had planned murder, sometimes suicide in addition. Once was at Northwestern University at Evanston, Ill., where he was described as being nervous and erratic.

_________________________

Suicide and Deathwished in Biography
Slayer in Syracuse Tragedy Was Obsessed With Belief of Persecution at Hands of University Executives
Had Murder of His Employees [sic] in Mind Frequently and Brooded Over Trouble With Wife, His Writings Reveal

Oakland Tribune (California). April 3, 1921, p. 33.

By Universal Service. Leased Wire to Tribune.

Syracuse, N.Y., April 2. —

That death and suicide ran continuously through the mind of Dr. Holmes Beckwith of the college of business administration of Syracuse University, who today shot and killed Dean John Herman Wharton, and then committed suicide, is shown in his farewell biography.

That document shows:

First, that Dr. Beckwith had in his mind the murder of President John Hanson Thomas Main of Grinell College.

Second, that Dr. Beckwith thought that President Irving Howbert, of the First National Bank of Colorado Springs “should be shot.”

Third, that Dr. Beckwith considered the late Dr. George Ray Wicker, his superior at Dartmouth, a “human cur” and a man “who would stab his best friend in the back if he saw an advantage in it.”

Suicide Obsessed by Idea of Persecution

Dr. Beckwith finally was crazed by the obsession that he was the target for persecution at nearly every college where he taught, and this was aggravated by mourning for his wife, who had divorced him and whom, he believed, had married again.

Dr. Wharton had advised Dr. Beckwith that his services would be no longer required at Syracuse after June.

Dr. Beckwith, a native of the Hawaiian Islands, was a former bank examiner in California and expert in finance and statistics. Before coming to Syracuse Dr. Beckwith was professor of similar subjects at Colorado college, Colorado springs. Also he was formerly with Iowa State University [sic, Grinell college] and the school of commerce at Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill. He had degrees of bachelor of law and master of law at the University of California and doctor of philosophy from, Columbia University.

In his farewell biography Dr. Beckwith says:

“In 1909, before going to Columbia I had married Helen Frances Robinson of Berkeley a fellow philosophical student. We also went to Germany together. On return from Germany we settled at Hanover, N.H., where I had a position as instructor in economics in Dartmouth college.

“The start here was extremely unfortunate, as Dartmouth is the toughest college in the country. I had some disciplinary trouble with my students. Another element was the personality of the professor in charge of the beginning course, in which all my work lay. He, Professor George Ray Wicker, is a bright man, an idealist in the abstract, but as my office mate stated, he would “stab his best friend in the back if he saw an advantage in it. He sought my discharge and evidently demanding it from his chief, I was left to shift for myself.”

Wife Finances Him When Out of Work

Later, the Beckwiths landed in New York, “broke.” Beckwith details:

“Karl and his wife, Sadie Robinson, my wife’s first cousin, took us in and got Helen a position as his secretary in a war relief organization. She financed us in the main, all that year, aided by the proceeds or sale of my share and by realty dividends. My wife deserves all credit for this aid, aptly given to a hard-pressed husband.

“In August, 1916, I went to Plattsburgh officers’ training camp at infantry. I then left to take a position as assistant professor of business administration in Grinnell college, Grinnell, Iowa. An affair had developed between Karl Robinson and my wife. She later ceased to love me and the upshot prolonged over a number of heart-rending years (for we had been for years very well and thoroughly married) was that my former wife is now Mrs. Karl Davis Robinson of New York City; the former Mrs. Robinson is now alone with two children; and I am alone. In this matter I may say that the guilty pair have, I believe, the sympathy of no one who knows the case, though their families can not fail to regard them as still blood relations and friends. I am, I am glad to say, still enrapport with my wife’s family and especially, good friends with her mother.”

Then came a period of military service. Discharged for disability, Beckwith went back to Grinnell. The instructor was met with a refusal of his old berth on the faculty. Beckwith held President Main responsible.

“I would have murdered Mr. Main, who certainly deserves this end in thus treacherously betraying one in his country’s service,” he writes.

Colorado College Afford Trouble

Next came his connection with Colorado college. He styles President Diniway as “a weak, unscrupulous man, the tool of the trustees.” He claims President Irving Hawbert, of the Colorado Springs First National bank, demanded his discharge because Beckwith used another bank than his.

An atheistical religious lecture also was involved in the controversy, Beckwith says: “Mr, Judson M. Bemis, self millionaire and founder of the department in which I taught, learned of the religious lecture, took violent opposition thereto and had his private detectives look up all the incumbents of the department chair.”

In conclusion, Beckwith says:

“The world as a whole has not given me justice, or anything like justice. I am comforted in a measure by the loyalty and appreciation of some friends. But it seems that the employing class, the executives who hold my fate in their hands, have been notably unfriendly as a class. Injustice rankles; it cuts like a knife. The worry, the fears, the uncertainty, the depression due to the injustice and lack of appreciation, the constant moves, the lack of incentive to good work, are not permanently endurable. They must end—in some way.”

_________________________

Beckwith Leaves Estate To Aunt; Gives Sister Only $10

Buffalo Courier, April 9, 1921 p. 2

Syracuse, April 8. – Prof. Holmes Beckwith, who shot and killed Dean Wharton and himself at Syracuse university last Saturday, leaves practically his entire estate, valued at $4,500, to an aunt, Mrs. Mary G. Holmes of Los Angeles. The will was filed for probate by David G. Holmes of East Orange, N. J., an uncle, today. A sister, Ruth B. Bullock, doing missionary work in China, is cut off with $10 because, “in my years of severe trouble she, unsister-like, gave me no economic aid and only scant sympathy.”

_________________________

Report from the Hawaiian Children’s Society, 1922

Holmes Beckwith.–The tragic circumstances attending the death of Holmes Beckwith may lead those who did not personally know him to misunderstand his life and character. It was perhaps to the completely feminine control under which he grew up that he owed a sensitiveness almost woman-like. His exacting Puritan ancestry gave him his habit of introspection and his dependence upon an absolute justice which never allowed him the relief of compromise. Intellectually he was as honest and open as the sun. He loved to be out of doors, had disciplined his body to long tramps and his mind to the love of solitude in the open. Yet he was the most social of beings. He was a quick and accurate observer; as a boy of eleven he knew the rigging of every craft in New York harbor. His habit of systematic thinking made him able, without practical experience, to grasp difficult technical subjects with astonishing readiness and clearness and to delight in such acquisition. He collected and sorted knowledge as other men collect objects of value. He was gentle with women. Children adored him. A fellow-boarder who knew him during his last year at Syracuse writes of “his fidelity to intellectual honesty and industry, with an eye single to the welfare of humanity which was his guide and passion in all he said and did,” of “his character sound to the core, the high aspirations, the honesty, simplicity and courage, together with a warm heart, zeal for service and brilliant intellect.” She says, “He cared more for religion even in these last years, than for anything else in the world.”

A friend and fellow-student in his university days writes, “No man held in reverence a higher standard of right in private and in public. He was not like other men, nor did he know men well enough to make allowances for their weaknesses. He applied to them the same rigid exactness he did to himself. His fine strong life and adherence at all costs to what he felt right and true will leave a lasting impression on all students he has studied with. He was always so genuinely interested in every detail of life, and without a cantakerous feeling in the world, was so frank and open and free, I shall always be his debtor. I can see him now as he swung along fast, yet firm down a street, every nerve and both eyes intent on his present plan I can hear his hearty greeting: ‘Hello, Arch, how do you function in your philosophic soul?’ He never lost one whit of his direct boyish appeal and immediate contact with everyone. He took every one straight into his thought just as he tried to get straight into theirs.” Those who knew and appreciated his brilliant capacities and un swerving honesty of life and purpose, and who watched his brave struggle with those inherent difficulties of temperament which blocked his progress among men, can say with confidence that his life was at no moment an unworthy one; and the tragedy of his death was such that those who best knew the circumstances and who suffered most directly from them, have attached to him no blame.

Source: The Seventieth Annual Report of the Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society, 1922, pp. 68-69.

_________________________

Image Source: Pittsburgh Press (April 6, 1921), p. 36.

Categories
Chicago Cornell Economists Germany Harvard

Chicago. Economics Ph.D. alumnus, later Cornell professor, Newman Arnold Tolles, 1932

 

Tracking the careers of Ph.D. trained economists at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror has not been limited to the handful of tournament winning, prize economists of past times or even the prominent gatekeepers of orthodoxy. Our series “Meet an economics Ph.D. alumna/us” includes both those who have moved and shaken their local academic communities without leaving much of a footprint in the sands of the history of economics and those who have constituted the vast majority of economists who have survived the demands of the graduate economics programs of their times and then modestly contributed to the pool of our collective economic knowledge during the course of their professional careers.

Today’s economics Ph.D. alumnus, Newman Arnold Tolles (University of Chicago, 1932), achieved considerable professional success during his lifetime, though he is unlikely to ever be found in the syllabi of present and future histories of economics. Tolles is however worthy of nomination as one of a myriad poster-children representing mid-20th century U.S. economics. 

_______________________

Newman Arnold Tolles

Sept. 21, 1903. Born in New York City.

1923. B. Phil in economics, School of Commerce, University of Chicago.

1924. M.S.,University  of Chicago.

1925. Recent Literature on British Unemployment Insurance. Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. 39, No. 4 (Aug., 1925), pp. 651-662.

1926. A.M.,  Harvard.

1925-27. Study at the London School of Economics.

1929-35. Assistant Professor Mount Holyoke and part-time at Smith College in 1931-33.

1932, Autumn. Ph.D. U of Chicago (diss: Economic Aspects of Unemployment Insurance in Great Britain, 1911-31. Published Chicago: University of Chicago libraries, 1935).

1935-1945. Government service (1935-38 as economist with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1938-40 as assistant director and director of research in the US Dept of Labor’s new Wage-Hour Division., 1940-45 chief of the Working Conditions Branch at BLS).

(with Louis M. Solomon) Earnings in Eastern and Midwestern Airframe Plants, 1942 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 728.

(with Robert Julius Myers) Income From Wages and Salaries in the Postwar Period : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 845.

Spendable Earnings of Factory Workers, 1941-43 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 769.

(with Louis M. Solomon) Wage Rates in the California Airframe Industry, 1941 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 704.

(with Theodor Winter Reedy) Wage Stabilization in California Airframe Industry, 1943 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 746.

1945-47. Professor and chairman of the graduate department of economics, American University.

1947. appointed Professor at Cornell’s newly-established New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations to retirement July 1969.

1951. (with Earl Brooks and Richard F. Dean) Providing Facts and Figures for Collective Bargaining—The Controller’s Role. Ithaca: New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University.

1952. (with Robert L. Raimon) Sources of Wage Information: Employer Associations. Ithaca: Cornell Studies in Industrial and Labor Relations, no. 3.

1953-54. Fulbright guest professorship in Munich and Kiel.

1957. New York State Department of Labor. Chairman of the minimum wage board for the cleaning and dyeing industry.

1959. American Minimum Wage Laws: Their Purposes and Results. Ithaca: New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University, no. 95.

1960. The Purposes and Results of U.S. Minimum Wage Laws. Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 83, No. 3 (March 1960), pp. 238-242.

1961. (assisted by Betti C. Goldwasser) Labor Costs and International Trade (Washington, D.C.: Committee for a National Trade Policy).

1964. Origins of Modern Wage Theories (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).

1965 study of salaries of professional economists for the American Economic Association [published AER Vol. 58, No. 5, Dec. 1968, Supplement, Part 2. Studies of the Structure of Economists’ Salaries and Income.]

1966. Weathering Layoffs in a Small Community: Case Studies of Displaced Pottery and Carpet-Mill Workers. Washington, D.C.: Bulletin of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1516.

1965-1969. Two terms as Ithaca city alderman as a Democrat.

1969. Lost race for mayor of Ithaca.

Two years after retirement part-time teaching at Cornell also teaching at State University College at Geneseo (economics department).

July 1971. Becomes emeritus professor at Cornell.

Apr. 10, 1973. Died from a heart attack while teaching his class at Geneseo State Teachers College.

Sources:

Cornell University Faculty Memorial Statement by Robert H. Ferguson, Vernon H. Jensen, Robert L. Aronson.

“Arnold Tolles Dead; Served County, City with ‘Compassion’”, The Ithaca Journal, April 11, 1973, p. 3.

Guide to the N. Arnold Tolles Papers. Kheel Center for Labor-Management Documentation and Archives, Cornell University Library

Image Source: From Tolles’ obituary printed in The Ithaca Journal, April 11, 1973, p. 3.

_______________________

All the World’s a Stage
Tolles @ Center Stage

Photograph of a scene from the 1932 faculty show. Verso reads: A Scene from Faculty Show, presented once every four years at Mount Holyoke College by members of the Administration and Faculty. They present ‘A Hard Struggle’ by Westland Marston, Esq., as a curtainraisser. Left to right: Miss Ruth Douglass of the department of Music, Leslie Burgeivin of the department of English Literature, Miss Dorothy Graves of the department of Art; N. Arnold Tolles of the department of economics; Miss Elizabeth Doane of the department of French; and Bernard Bloch of the department of English.

Source:  https://compass.fivecolleges.edu/object/mtholyoke:24371

 

 

 

 

Categories
Austria Economics Programs Germany History of Economics

Berlin and Vienna. A comparative guide to the two economic faculties. Seager, 1893

 

Henry R. Seager (Columbia University Ph.D., 1894) was yet an ambitious American graduate student in economics at the end of the nineteenth century who sought to complete his economics education by attending courses and seminars in Berlin and Vienna. His personal experiences were reported in the following article published in the first volume of the Journal of Political Economy. I have added links to the publications mentioned in his account.

The course offerings in U.S. graduate schools can be found in an earlier post that lists the courses offered at 23 universities during the 1898-99 academic year.

Other posts on economics in Germany at that time:

_______________________

ECONOMICS AT BERLIN AND VIENNA.
H. R. Seager, Vienna.

Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 1, No. 2 (March, 1893) pp. 236-262.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1817770 or
https://archive.org/details/jstor-1817770/page/n1/mode/2up

Since the publication of Roscher’s Grundriss zu Vorlesungen über die Staatswirthschaft nach geschichtlicher Methode, in 1843, in which the ideas, since characterized as those of the Historical School, first found systematic formulation, Germany has been the scene of an almost uninterrupted struggle for supremacy between conflicting opinions concerning the most fundamental questions in political economy. Among these questions there is none more interesting or more vital than that as to the proper method to be employed in economic investigations, and few intellectual battles have been fought with more vigor and with a more equal mustering of ability in the rival camps than has the famous Methodenstreit. For some time it seemed as if the Historical School was going to carry all before it. Its acute criticisms of the system of economics built up, largely with the aid of abstraction and deduction, by Adam Smith and his immediate followers, were unanswerable. Attacked also by the Socialists, economic theory was rapidly falling into ill repute, and with it the method upon which it had rested.

As was to be expected, a reaction set in. The leader in this reaction was Professor Carl Menger, of Vienna, who, in his Grundsätze der Volkswirtschaftslehre; published in 1871, [English translation by James Dingwall and Bert F. Hoselitz, Ludwig von Mises Institute reprint 2007] tried to demonstrate that the errors of the Classical School were due, not to the choice of a wrong method, but to the wrong use of a right method, by employing the same method of abstraction and deduction to arrive at theories more in harmony with observed facts. In 1883, attacking the methodological question directly, he published his Untersuchungen über die Methode der Socialwissenschaften, und der Politischen Oekonomie insbesondere, [English translation by Francis J. Nock, Ludwig von Mises Institute reprint 2009] in which he subjected the doctrines of the Historical School to a thorough-going criticism. He concluded that for theoretical Economics there is but one method, — that which he calls the “exact” method, founded, to be sure, upon an analysis of the materials furnished by economic history and by every-day experience, and requiring to be verified by observation, but quite distinct from the inductive method.

Of all the criticisms called forth by this work none was more uncompromising than that of Professor Gustav Schmoller, of Berlin. In the polemic which followed, Professor Schmoller figured as the leader of the extreme left of the Historical School, and would hear nothing of economic theory in the present unripe condition of our science. Professor Menger, on the other hand, asserted that, without theory, economic science, as all science, is impossible. The controversy was heated and of an unnecessarily personal character, and without doubt both parties to it said rather more than they intended. It was none the less of a decided scientific value, and did much to clear the atmosphere of many misapprehensions concerning the real nature of the methodological question that were common to both. If this question was not thereby finally settled it was, at any rate, placed in a clearer light.

What Professor Marshall says in regard to method may be quoted as a very fair summing up of contemporary German opinion: “Induction and deduction go hand in hand. … There is not any one method of investigation which can properly be called the method of economics; but every method must be made serviceable in its proper place.”1 To some minds this denotes that the question of method is really a question of temperament and intellectual bent. Let everyone employ that method that seems best fitted to his hand; the field is large enough for all, working with all sorts of tools. To others such a glossing over of the question is decidedly unsatisfactory. To them, such an answer points eloquently to the backward condition of economic science, and calls, not for indifferentism respecting the question of method, but for a more strict classification of the economic sciences. If there is room for the employment of all methods in political economy, it is high time we were deciding what particular method is appropriate to each particular department of the subject.

1Principles of Economics, 2d ed., pp. 88 and 89.

It is a partial answer to this question — a very concise one, unfortunately — which Professor Menger has attempted to give in his latest writing upon this subject.2 There remains to be written, however, a comprehensive summing up of the whole question, a logic from the standpoint of the economic sciences, and it is upon such a work that Professor Menger is now engaged. Not only because of the prominent part they have taken in the methodological controversy, but also because of their contributions to economic literature in other fields, on the one hand to economic theory and on the other to economic history and statistics, Professors Carl Menger and Gustav Schmoller are to-day two of the most conspicuous figures in the German economic world of letters.

2Grundzüge einer Klassifikation der Wirtschaftswissenschaften. Conrad’s Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, n. 5, Bd. xix. pp. 465-496.

While the war of methods has been waging between the Menger faction and the Schmoller faction of German economists, Professor Adolph Wagner, the distinguished colleague of Professor Schmoller, at Berlin, has been devoting his prodigious energy to working out his own scientific ideas in his own way. To-day he is conspicuous as the acknowledged German authority on all questions of public finance, and as the editor and, to a large extent, the writer, of a Handbook on Political Economy3 which, for comprehensiveness, promises to be an advance upon the well-known, three-volume handbook edited by Professor Schönberg. [Third edition: Volume I (1890), Volkswirtschaftslehre; Volume II (1891), Volkswirtschaftslehre; Volume III (1891), Finanzwissenschaft und Verwaltungslehre]

3The handbook is divided into five principal parts, and will consist of at least fourteen volumes. Cf. Wagner, Grundlegung der Volkswirtschaft. Leipzig, 1892, pp. 2 and 3.

At Vienna, working along by the side of, and in fruitful cooperation with, Professor Menger, is Professor Böhm-Bawerk. At present actively employed in helping to bring order out of the chaos of Austrian finances, he yet finds time to conduct a seminar, and to meet students really interested in economic questions, at his very pleasant home. Professor Böhm-Bawerk has been called the “Ricardo of the Austrian School,” of which, by a less apt comparison, Professor Menger is the Adam Smith. By his two-volume work on “Capital and Interest” [Kapital und Kapitalzins.  First edition, Volume I (1884).  4th edition (1921): Part I, Geschichte und Kritik der Kapitalzins-Theorien; Part II, Vol. I Positive Theorie des Kapitales; Part II, Vol. II  Exkurse] be his conclusions accepted as final or not,4 he has certainly won for himself a lasting place in the history of the development of economic thought.

4There are at present three rival interest theories in the field, all based upon the marginal utility theory of value, viz.: the theories advanced respectively by Professors Böhm-Bawerk, Menger and Wieser.

To these four men, Menger, Schmoller, Böhm-Bawerk and Wagner, the eyes of the economists of all nations are at present directed, as to the most conspicuous representatives of our science in the country in which that science has been most assiduously and most fruitfully cultivated during the last fifty years. To the great universities which are the scenes of their pedagogic activities, attaches an unusual interest for economists. Berlin and Vienna are, at the present time, magnets, attracting to themselves economic students from all countries. A description of the work being done in political economy at these institutions would, therefore, seem not out of place in the Journal of Political Economy.

In what follows I have, as far as practicable, limited myself to my personal observations as a student, first at Berlin — in the summer semester of 1891-92 — and at present at Vienna — in the winter semester of 1892- 935.

5The reader wishing for a more comprehensive sketch of instruction in economics in Germany, may be referred to an admirable monograph by Mr. Henri St. Marc, “Étude sur l’enseignement de l’économie politique dans les universités d’Allemagne et d’Autriche.” Paris, 1892, pp. 1-140.

*  *  *  *

As is well known, the German university year is divided into semesters. The winter semester begins usually about October 15 and lasts until March 15; the summer semester begins about April 15 and lasts until August 15. This nine months of nominal working time, is reduced in reality to about seven in which lectures may be heard, four during the winter and three during the summer semester.

To show the reader what a bewildering task it is to map out a course, I quote the courses in Economics that were announced for the summer semester of last year: —

  1. General or theoretical Political Economy, by Professor Schmoller. Four hours a week.
  2. Special or practical Political Economy, by Professor Wagner. Four hours.
  3. Political Economy (for students of the Agricultural College), by Dr. Sering. Four hours.
  4. Public Finance, by Dr. von Kaufmann. Four hours.
  5. Public Finance, by Dr. Sering. Four hours.
  6. Theory of Statistics, by Professor Böckh. Two hours.
  7. History and Technique of Statistics, by Professor Meitzen (lectures and practice). Two hours.
  8. Statistics of the German Empire, by Professor Meitzen. Two hours.
  9. Economic and Social History of Germany, from the beginning of the Middle Ages until the Peace of Westphalia, by Dr. Höniger. Two hours.
  10. Lectures upon the nature and history of economic “undertaking” and the forms of “undertaking,” by Professor Schmoller. One hour and one -half.
  11. Money and Banking, by Professor Wagner. Two hours.
  12. Trade and Colonial Policy until 1800, by Dr. Rathgen. Two hours.
  13. Industry, Trade and Politics (including the labour question), by Dr. von Kaufmann. Three hours.
  14. The Social Question, by Dr. Oldenberg. Two hours.
  15. The Forms of Public Credit (the character of state and local indebtedness), by Dr. von Kaufmann. One hour.
  16. Seminar (“Uebüngen“) Economics and Public Finance, by Professor Wagner. Two and one-half hours.
  17. Statistical Seminar, by Professor Böckh. Two hours.
  18. Seminar for Economic History, by Dr. Höniger. Two hours.
  19. Seminar for social science combined with excursions, by Dr. Sering. Once a week.

Beside these courses in political economy, there is a tempting array of announcements for each of the related sciences, for history, politics, law and philosophy. Under the circumstances, the first lesson to be learned by the student is that of limitation. Fifteen hours weekly is a liberal allowance for a special student, and this means that at least two-thirds of the economic courses must be neglected, even if, which is unlikely, the student has no desire to browse in other fields. In any case, the courses offered by Professors Wagner and Schmoller are those which particularly interest us here, and it is to a description of these that I shall devote special attention.

As an examination of the courses I have enumerated will show, the economic work at Berlin is so arranged that there are comparatively few rival courses offered. Professors Wagner and Schmoller, though differing decidedly in their convictions concerning many of the most fundamental questions of the science, have, nevertheless, for some years worked along side by side in outward harmony. Those students for whom questions of theory and of public finance have a special interest usually count themselves Wagner’s pupils; others with a bent for historical and statistical researches, fall as naturally to Schmoller. In the winter semester, the former is in the habit of lecturing four hours a week upon theoretical political economy, four hours a week upon public finance, and two hours a week upon Socialism and the history of economic dogma. Schmoller lectures during the same semester four hours a week upon practical political economy, and holds his seminar for economics and statistics. In the summer -semester, Wagner lectures on practical political economy, and holds his seminar, Schmoller lecturing during the same period upon theoretical or general political economy, and upon the history of some particular economic institution, a work in which his genius appears at its best. By following out this arrangement, each is enabled in the course of the year to present a symmetrical system of political economy from his own particular standpoint without, at the same time, entering directly into competition with the other. The advantages springing from such tacit cooperation are too obvious to require emphasizing.

The division of political economy into general and particular, or into theoretical and practical,6 has long been common in Germany. The distinction is broadly that made in English between economics as a science and economics as an art, and does not need to be dwelt upon here.

6These pairs of terms are usually employed as synonyms, though, in strictness, a distinction should be drawn between them. Cf. Menger: Grundzüge einer Klassifikation der Wirtschaftswissenschaften, p. 10.

Professor Adolph Wagner, although already in his fifty-eighth year, retains unimpaired the energy and enthusiasm of a young man. Beginning his economic career as the pupil and follower of Rau, he gradually outgrew the ideas of the classical school, was in 1872 one of the founders of the Verein für Sozial-politik, and has since been known as a leading “socialist of the chair.” His connection with the Verein für Sozial-politik lasted but a few years. His opinions respecting the function of the state as an agent in effecting social reforms were too radical even for his associates, and he finally withdrew, leaving the field to Schmoller, Brentano and their followers.

During the last twenty years, in spite of many distractions, Professor Wagner has, with tireless energy, proceeded towards the completion of his great “Handbook,” which has made his name familiar to the economists of all countries.

It is not, however, with Professor Wagner as an author, but with Professor Wagner as a teacher, that we have especially to do. The energy and earnestness that pervades all of Professor Wagner’s actions is, the reader may be sure, rather intensified than otherwise when he mounts the rostrum. His appearance, when seated behind his high desk delivering a lecture, is striking enough. His features are prominent, and furnish a good index of his character. In his chin and mouth, only partially concealed by his thick and slightly grizzled mustache, one reads the man of prompt action and of resolute will, a born soldier in a nation of soldiers. The facial resemblance between Wagner and Bismarck, not so striking at present as formerly, I believe, has often been remarked upon. When lecturing, his delivery is rapid and emphatic, his voice harsh but not unpleasant. He uses his notes only for occasional reference, being enabled by his remarkable memory to carry the substance of a two-hour lecture in his head without apparent effort. As a lecturer, he, like many of his colleagues, is open to the criticism of paying too much attention to the matter and too little to the form of his utterances. To his unusually logical mind all facts come in groups, classified in advance. His lectures are so filled with “erstens” and “zweitens” that the hearer is apt to lose the kernel of his thought altogether in trying to keep clearly in his head its proper position in the hierarchy of ideas presented. As regards the matter of his lectures, it is needless to say much to any one acquainted with his writings; a wealth of striking illustrations and interesting facts borrowed from the economic histories of all countries, great succinctness of statement and logicalness of treatment — these are characteristic features.

The fundamental idea that prevades and gives unity to Wagner’s economic system is the “social” idea. Analyzing the history of the development of economic thought, he sees, on the one hand, the system of individualism, dating back to the Physiocrats and Adam Smith, the fundamental tenet of which is the “laissez-faire” doctrine; on the other, the doctrines of the socialists and communists, representing a timely reaction from the individualism of the classical school, but, as is usual with reactions, going too far to the other extreme. The standpoint of socialism he accepts as the only rational standpoint, i.e., the good of the community, of society, must be the starting point in political economy, and not the good of the individual or of any group of individuals. But, starting out with this principle, it is necessary to take strict account of existing institutions, on the one hand, and of the nature of man on the other. In neglecting this latter point, i.e., in failing to ground economics upon a rational system of psychology, socialism has committed its cardinal error. Wagner prides himself upon appreciating and adopting in his own system what is best in both extreme positions. He judges everything from the social standpoint; regards, for example, the juster distribution of incomes as a legitimate motive for guiding the action of a state in laying its taxes, but he by no means overlooks the importance of self-interest as one of the principal impelling motives to all human action.

The practical conclusions which he draws from such a line of reasoning may be briefly summarized as follows:

The institutions of private law, and especially private property, are justifiable only so long as they serve the best interests of society; there is nothing inviolable or sacred about them; in fact, as at present existing, they are very far from fulfilling the requirements of an ideal system. Social and economic reform must be preceded by the reform of the legal ideas which constitute the very framework of society. By reform, however, he does not understand any such radical measure as, for example, the abolition of the institution of private property, but rather such modifications in this and other existing legal institutions as shall cause them to better serve the interests of society, without at the same time neglecting self-interest as the chief economic motive of all action.

In such a reform the state is assigned by Wagner to a very important role. The “good-of-the-whole” is the only justifiable principle by which to guide state action.7 It is in this sense and this sense only that Professor Wagner is a ” state socialist” or a ” socialist -of -the -chair,” as are many other leading German professors, such as Professor Schäffle. They form no school, — even the name was thrust upon them by hostile critics, — but none -the -less they represent a dominant factor in German economic thought.

7For a more complete statement of Wagner’s views, see his “Grundlegung der Volkswirtschaft”. Leipzig, 1892, especially pp. 5-67.

In his courses upon “practical political economy” and upon “money and banking,” Professor Wagner had naturally little occasion to expand his theoretical system. In the former course he treated in great detail the subject of agriculture, manufacturing industry, trade and transportation, laying down general rules to guide the action of the state in its relation to these industries. In his course on “money and banking” he discussed the history, nature and function of moneys, the history and statistics of the production of the precious metals, monometallism versus bimetallism, coinage and the reform of the German system of coinage, the nature of banking and the relation of the state to this industry, the various kinds of banks and the reform of the German bank-note system. Especially instructive were his views concerning Germany’s true interest in reference to the silver question. Although regarding her present monetary situation as particularly favored, he by no means believes that this is a sufficient reason for her taking no part in the movement directed towards the securing of a more adequate and flexible medium than is gold, as a basis for the world’s commercial transactions.

On the subject of method Professor Wagner’s views coincide almost exactly with those of Professor Marshall already quoted.8 He expressly says,9 however, that he has much more sympathy for the earnest attitude assumed by Professor Carl Menger towards the methodological question, than for the critically indifferent attitude of his colleague, Professor Schmoller.

8Compare his “Grundlagen,” p. 18.
9Idem., “Einleitung” p. vii, and Vol. I, No. I, of the Journal of Political Economy, p. 110.

It is in his Seminar, however, that Professor Wagner appears at his best. This course, styled “nationalökonomische mit finanzwissenschaftliche Übungen,” is designed only for students making a special study of political economy. Its meetings last year were held upon the Tuesday and Wednesday evenings of each week and lasted regularly from one to two hours. At the first meeting, there were twenty-seven students present, of whom thirteen were Germans, two Austrians, three Hungarians, three Russians, one Japanese, and four Americans — a sufficiently heterogeneous gathering. The meetings were held in the Seminar library, an institution of which I shall have occasion to speak later. There, seated at long tables arranged in the form of a hollow rectangle and surrounded on all sides by books, we were welcomed by Professor Wagner, and told briefly concerning the nature and object of the course we proposed to follow.

Professor Wagner’s conception of a Seminar is that of a course in which the professor takes for the time the minor role of director and the students themselves become the lecturers. Upon the occasion of our second meeting, the director submitted to each one of us in turn a series of questions in regard to our former work in economics, our preferences in the science and the motives which had led us to enter his course. The answers to these questions were designed more for our own instruction than anything else and accomplished their purpose remarkably well. From them I learned, in a short hour, more about the character and acquirements of my fellow students, about the extent of their work in economics and their intellectual sympathies than I would have learned during the whole semester, if left to myself. I was particularly surprised to observe the advanced age of most of the members. The majority were already doctors of philosophy, many public officials, some advocates. Only the foreigners seemed to be what we would call “specialists” in political economy, and only a few of them were looking forward to teaching as a profession.

Each of us having given a short sketch of his mental history, and declared his preferences in the economic field, the director next took up the subject of “Arbeiten.” He explained that, owing to the shortness of the semester, only ten or at most twelve essays could be read and that these must not exceed thirty minutes in length. Upon inquiry it proved that there were just twelve aspirants to take an active part in the exercises of the course.

The difficult task of assigning work to such as desired it was performed by Professor Wagner in a way to excite general admiration. As far as possible, the inclinations of each member were encouraged in the division of themes, but to the same extent that vagueness manifested itself in the mind of any student, did the director assume an arbitrary tone. Those who wished a particular line of work, were in general given it; those who did not know exactly what they wished, were assigned such work as seemed to the professor best to harmonize with what had already been taken. Each one was, before the evening was over, assigned his special task and each one was, apparently, satisfied. By the time the first paper was read, dates had been fixed for the reading of all the rest. Thus at the very outset, a programme for the whole semester was arranged from which only slight variations were subsequently made.

The field covered by the essays was very large. Papers were read upon the wage-fund theory, wages in general, the socialistic theory of value, statistics of the production of the precious metals, the silver question with special reference to India and the East, upon the history of the rise of the Hamburg market, the Austrian monetary situation, the taxation of inheritances, the Prussian income tax, Adam Smith and the Physiocrats, and upon canals and railroads. Of these eleven papers three were presented by Americans. Professor Wagner’s remarkable grasp of economic literature became apparent when he began to discuss in detail the bibliography belonging to each of the assigned subjects. He was able without notes, not only to recall the titles of the principal works bearing upon the question in hand, but also to give a critical estimate of each. His practical suggestions as to the best method of treating each subject were also of the greatest value to the student. The director required that the papers should be handed to him a few days before they were to be presented and he always prefaced their reading with a critical analysis calculated to give direction to the debate which was to follow. Nor did he hesitate, during the reading, to interrupt the speaker whenever a statement seemed to lack clearness or accuracy — a practice which I cannot but think unfortunate, in that it tended to make students over cautious about advancing any original opinion whatever and, at the same time, distracted the minds of the hearers from the thread of the argument in process of development.

So much as to the formal character of the Seminar. Now what can be said of its value as a means of imparting instruction? My experience leads me to believe that no matter how well a Seminar of such a general character is conducted, unless its membership is strictly limited to ten students, the results attained will always be unsatisfactory. The preparation and presentation of a paper before a body of fellow-students is of the greatest value to the individual directly concerned; to his fellow-students, however, of comparatively little value. Those who work in a Seminar get a great deal out of it; those who merely come to listen, in this instance the majority, almost nothing. The discussion is usually limited to a debate between the professor in charge and the reader of the paper; when, upon rare occasions, it does become more general, it is very seldom to the point. In this particular instance the papers read were, as a rule, excellent. Professor Wagner’s criticisms were of the greatest value, but seldom was there anything like a general debate. Five or six of the students present were fond of talking, and did so without much reference to their grasp of the question under discussion; diffidence or indifference kept the rest eternally silent.

There is, however, a social side to a German Seminar, especially when conducted as by Professor Wagner, that must not be overlooked. Here professor and students meet upon a footing of intimacy, the formality of the lecture room is, for the time, put to one side, questions are asked as they arise in the student’s mind and are answered in detail. Here friendships are made that last through life. And then, occasionally, there is the adjournment to a neighboring beer hall, where the professor divests himself of the last traces of his habitual reserve, where stories are told and discussions engaged in that are, here at least, animated enough. It is with these friendly after-gatherings that the most pleasant recollections of many of those who have studied in Germany are associated. Far be it from me to advocate the restriction of an institution which renders them possible.

Professor Wagner’s success as a teacher is due very largely to the sincerity and earnestness of his character. In spite of a manner at times rather brusque and a little repelling, he always inspires his students with confidence and respect. The “social” idea which is the central thought in his economic system is also the guiding principle of his life. In him the pupil recognizes not merely a great scholar but a noble character. His example is fitted to inspire right-living quite as much as is his teaching to inculcate right-thinking.

In Professor Schmoller we have quite another type of “Gelehrter.” Though Professor Wagner’s junior by three years, he appears the older of the two. Shorter in stature but no less erect and martial in carriage, with a flowing white beard and white hair, Professor Schmoller presents a personality to be remembered. Of a type more common to Gaul than to Germania, he seems to find in his sense of humour, in his artistic appreciation of fine sayings and fine writings compensation for his lack of great convictions. In his graceful literary style we find his great point of superiority over so many of his German colleagues. His lectures are attractive, not so much for the truths they contain, however weighty these may be, as because of the manner in which these truths are expressed.

In his course upon “general” economics, it would seem almost a sarcasm to speak of it as upon “theoretical” economics. He devotes the first few lectures to explaining the nature of political economy and its relation to kindred sciences and to defining the terms which the economist employs. Following this introductory portion comes the most valuable and characteristic part of his whole course, a series of lectures upon the rise and development of human institutions. He points out that the three “norms” of any society are its morals, its customs and its laws; these constitute the framework within which each of the social sciences must be built up.

His characterization of modern industrial society is masterly. He treats at length and strictly in accordance with the historical method the subjects of population and division of labour. Here the master historian and statistician shows himself. The manner in which he picks out of the great mass of existing material only those facts and figures essential to his purpose and in which he groups this selected matter so as to draw from it the most far-reaching conclusions, and to give to the student not merely a valuable set of historical notes, but also a grasp of the deeply under-lying principles and tendencies, is truly admirable. Throughout, Schmoller shows himself not merely an historian, but also a philosopher. He has a fondness for philosophical terms and for indulging in excursions outside of his proper field. Herbert Spencer is the English author whom he most frequently quotes. He is inclined “almost” he says, to ascribe to Adam Smith’s “Theory of the Moral Sentiments” greater value than to his “Wealth of Nations.” Here and everywhere we see the two sides to his economic thinking; on the one hand the historian and statistician, upon the other the idealist, who joins the what-is with the what-ought-to-be and forms out of the two a most rosy picture of the future of the human race. In the first case we see the economist, in the second the man.

Up to this point his lectures upon “general” economics had been models of their kind. When, however, he took up what to another would have been theoretical political economy and attempted to treat it also simply descriptively, the listener was at once conscious of a change. At this point came the crucial test for Schmoller’s theory of method, and at this point, it seemed to me, his theory broke down conspicuously.

In his treatment of value and price he showed his acquaintance with the work of the Austrians by freely borrowing their results, not, however, as consequences of a long and difficult chain of deductive reasoning, but simply as the obvious inferences from his own description of market phenomena. In this part of his lectures the student meets only confusion, loose definitions, description instead of careful analysis, and conclusions arrived at, no one knows exactly how. His elucidation of the action of demand and supply in fixing price seemed to me especially unhappy.

When he proceeds to the history and technique of money, the hearer almost sighs with relief. He completed his course with a sketch of the labouring class and a descriptive account of wages and of the labor movement.

In his course upon “the nature and history of economic ‘undertaking’ and the forms of ‘undertaking,’” Professor Schmoller has a subject after his own heart. Here his particular method of treatment is exactly at home and the fruitfulness of its application in the hands of such a master need not be dwelt upon.

However opposed one may be to some of the ideas of Professor Schmoller, one cannot but be impressed by the consummate manner in which he presents them. His importance and influence in German economics cannot be appreciated by one who has never heard him lecture. As editor of a leading economic journal, in the columns of which he himself often figures, sometimes as an original investigator, more often as a graceful and acute critic, he enjoys a conspicuously advantageous position for keeping his ideas constantly before the reading public, and for this reason, perhaps, he has been able to make a showing of strength upon his side in the Methodenstreit which his position hardly warrants.

Of the other courses enumerated it is not necessary to speak in detail. Those offered by Professor Meitzen in statistics are especially to be recommended owing to the commanding position attained by their author in this branch of economic science.

The library facilities afforded the political economist at Berlin are no less superior than the lecture courses opened to him there. Across the Linden from the University is the Royal Library, one of the largest libraries in Germany, from which books may be drawn freely by university students and retained four and, upon renewal, six weeks. In this library is a large reading room supplied with desks and writing materials and with a very choice hand-library of several thousand volumes which may be used by the students without application to the attendants. In addition there are scattered throughout the city various special libraries of great service to the student of economics and politics. The library of the House of Parliament, the statistical library, the university reading-room, where a very complete collection of periodicals is to be found, and the university library itself, deserve special mention. More important still are the Seminar libraries in the university building. The economic Seminar library is contained in two large rooms furnished with desks, writing materials, etc., adequate to supply the needs of all the members of the Seminar. Along the walls are shelves containing a very complete collection of economic works, some five or six thousand in all. Here one finds nearly all the important works in German, English and French bearing upon general economics. In addition there are files of the leading German economic journals, a large assortment of government publications and an especially rich collection of works upon public finance. These rooms may be used from seven in the morning until nine in the evening. They are always well lighted and heated. The student finds here absolute quiet and every facility for prosecuting any special research he may be engaged upon. Books may be taken from the shelves at will in any number; drawer-room is supplied for those who have books or notes to preserve; in short, nothing is lacking to make of it an ideal place for special study.

*  *  *  *

The change from the straightness of Berlin streets and the regularity of Berlin architecture to the pleasing variety afforded by Viennese “Ringstrassen” and Viennese palaces is no less striking to the tourist, than is the change from the University of Berlin to the University of Vienna to the political economist. In Berlin political economy figures as one of the liberal sciences belonging to the philosophical faculty, as a science having closer affiliations with philosophy than with law. Here in Vienna political economy is a study belonging to the law department. A certain amount of work in it is required of all jurists and, in consequence, the benches in the economic lecture-rooms are crowded with law students. Professor Wagner used to complain in Berlin because so few jurists were attracted into the economic work there; here in Vienna the very opposite complaint might be raised. All the students of economics seem to be jurists.

Picking out a course at Vienna is, for the economist, by no means the bewildering task we have found it to be at Berlin. The courses offered here in political economy occupy a very insignificant corner in the hundred-page calendar. They are this semester:

  1. Political Economy by Professor Carl Menger. Five hours.
  2. Seminar for social statistics by Prof. Singer. Two hours.
  3. Credit and banking by Dr. Zuckerkandl. One hour.
  4. Seminar for political economy by Professor Böhm-Bawerk. Two hours.
  5. Explanation and criticism of the socialistic [sic] theory of value (with special reference to Rodbertus and Marx) by Dr. von Kornorzynski. One hour.
  6. The development of socialism by Dr. von Schullern. Two hours.
  7. Statistical Seminar by Professor von Inama-Sternegg. Two hours.
  8. Census of Austria for 1890 by Dr. von Juraschek. Two hours.
  9. Statistics of money and of the monetary standards with special reference to the reform of the Austrian standard of value by Dr. Rauchberg. Two hours.

In all nine courses, occupying just nineteen hours a week. Compared with the nineteen courses occupying forty-eight hours a week offered at Berlin, certainly a rather meagre showing.10 How is this difference to be explained? In part, quite simply. Berlin enrolls annually nearly one-third more students11 and accordingly should be able to offer a more varied and complete course of study than does Vienna. Secondly, the work in economics at Vienna is temporarily crippled, owing to the fact that the chair occupied formerly by Brentano and more recently by Miaskowski, has for two years remained vacant.12 It may be questioned, however, if these two causes sufficiently explain the comparative neglect of economic science that is apparent here. A third and really more vital reason is found in the fact that here in Vienna, and especially is this true of the law faculty, very much of the work preliminary to a degree is expressly prescribed. The student is given very little time for courses not directly necessary as a part of his preparation for the examinations. In consequence the required courses are disproportionately crowded; those not required have a severe struggle for existence. The demand for a varied economic diet does not exist here as it does in Berlin, and in consequence the supply is also lacking. In Berlin nine lecturers find it desirable to offer courses in economics covering forty-eight hours a week; here the same number of lecturers offer altogether only nineteen hours a week.13 These figures speak eloquently of the different conditions at the two places. Coming to details, it will be noticed that all of the courses given here this semester with the exception of three, i.e., the general course of Professor Menger, the seminar of Professor Böhm-Bawerk and the one-hour course on credit and banking of Dr. Zuckerkandl, deal either with statistics or with some aspect of socialism. This fact is further evidence of the absence of a demand, on the part of the student body, for a really comprehensive course in economics.

10Comparing a winter semester with a summer semester is, to be sure, not exactly fair to Berlin.
11According to official figures there were at Berlin during the calendar year 1890-91 an average for each semester of 7,613 students; at Vienna for the same period only 5,670 students.
12Professor von Philippovich, a born Viennese, has quite recently accepted a call from his post at Freiburg to fill this vacant chair. He is himself a follower of Menger on questions of method and of general theory, so that beginning with next year we will no doubt see a harmonious course offered here in economics.
13There are more “Privat docenten” at Vienna than at Berlin, and therefore we would not expect quite the same number of hours.

It has been Professor Menger’s custom to deliver a course of five lectures a week upon general economics in the winter semester, and to continue this with a course of the same length upon public finance during the summer semester. In addition he held last year a seminar for two hours a week for general economics and finance. This semester, Professor Böhm-Bawerk conducts the seminar and, in consequence, Professor Menger’s pedagogic activity is limited to his general lecture course.

Professor Menger carries his fifty-three years lightly enough. In lecturing he rarely uses his notes except to verify a quotation or a date. His ideas seem to come to him as he speaks and are expressed in language so clear and simple, and emphasized with gestures so appropriate, that it is a pleasure to follow him. The student feels that he is being led instead of driven, and when a conclusion is reached it comes into his mind not as something from without, but as the obvious consequence of his own mental processes. It is said that those who attend Professor Menge’s lectures regularly need no other preparation for their final examination in political economy, and I can readily believe it. I have seldom, if ever, heard a lecturer who possessed the same talent for combining clearness and simplicity of statement with philosophical breadth of view. His lectures are seldom “over the heads” of his dullest students, and yet always contain instruction for the brightest.

The majority of Professor Menger’s hearers are taking his course as a part of their required work. It is his task, therefore, to give them in the eighty odd lectures which he delivers, a general view of economics, an idea not merely of economic principles, but also of the history of economic thought and of economic practice. He introduces his course with a vivid sketch of the characteristic features of modern industrial society, emphasizing especially its dependence upon existing legal institutions. Political economy is then defined and its relation to kindred sciences specified. Following, he takes up the history of the development of economic ideas. Commencing with the ideas of Plato and Aristotle, he explains most happily the economic doctrines of various thinkers and schools down to most modern times. In this part of his course he has occasion to give evidence of his profound knowledge of economic literature. In his notes concerning rare editions and unfamiliar bits of bibliography one sees the book-lover and the antiquarian.

He has the happy faculty of giving life to the ideas and the authors he is discussing. The economic doctrines of the old Mercantilists and the Physiocrats are not, as explained by him, the impossible combinations of fallacies and absurdities one still finds in many text-books, but the simple products of the times which gave them birth correct to a large extent in their practical conclusions, if deceived in their premises. And he is not satisfied with simply explaining and criticising exploded theories, but impresses them vividly upon the minds of his hearers by pointing out, here and there, survivals of these old theories in the popular economics of to-day.

Coming down to contemporary economists and economic thought, he displays a freedom in treatment and objectivity in criticism uncommon in Germany. The isolated position occupied by Professor Menger here at Vienna enables him to speak with more candor and openness of his German contemporaries in his lectures than they venture to use in speaking of each other. Especially interesting to the foreign student is his characterization of the historical school and of Kathedersozialismus, the forerunners of which last he finds in Simonde de Sismondi and J. S. Mill. He closes his historical sketch with six lectures upon socialism and communism, and the role they have played in economic literature.

Such an extended historical sketch as he gives would invite criticism of his method of treatment as being too minute for a general course on political economy, were it not for the masterly manner in which Professor Menger unites in these lectures the present with the past. He knows his students thoroughly and has, no doubt, learned from experience that ideas are readily comprehended when unfolded to the individual mind, not dogmatically, but in the same order in which history shows them to have been unfolded to the race. His success in developing his own ideas and theories, side by side with those which he is nominally discussing, is certainly remarkable and answers all criticism in advance.

The latter half of his course is devoted to the expounding of his own theoretical system. The starting point in political economy is to him the relation between human wants and the goods, be they material or immaterial, upon which depends the satisfaction of these wants. The fact that there are more wants than means of satisfying them gives rise to the phenomenon of value. Thus the value of any particular good to any particular individual is simply his estimation of the importance of the want the satisfaction of which depends upon that good. It is therefore a resultant of the utility and scarcity of the good in question. The classification of wants on the basis of their intensities next takes up his attention as a preliminary step leading to the law of “marginal utility.” With the help of this law he explains the Austrian theory of value and price. These theories he applies in turn to the problems met with in exchange and distribution much as in his Grundsätze der Volkswirtschaftslehre.

One can scarcely say too much in praise of Professor Menger as a teacher. His great popularity with his students and the success that has attended his efforts to gather about himself talented young men, who sympathize with his fundamental views, are sufficient evidence of his genius in this direction. Among the several thousand volumes upon Professor Menger’s shelves will be found almost every work upon economics that is likely to interest the student of general theory, not only in German, but also in English, French, Italian, and even Dutch. The library is specially rich in works upon method, upon money, upon public finance and in complete files of economic journals. To have access to such a collection of books is itself a boon of inestimable value; add to it the advice and guidance of such a man as Professor Menger, and the reader will understand some of the attractions which induce not a few economic students to come here to Vienna in preference even to going to Berlin.

In Professor Böhm-Bawerk’s seminar we have a course of even greater interest to the specialist than the general course of Professor Menger, which we have just described. Professor Böhm-Bawerk, although only forty -two years of age, is already known to economists of all countries as one of the most prominent economists of the Austrian school. To Professor Menger belongs the supreme credit of having originated in their broad outlines all of the ideas that characterize this school. Professor Böhm-Bawerk, however, has helped more than anyone else to popularize these ideas and follow them out to their logical but more remote consequences. Shortly after receiving an appointment to an important post in the finance department, Professor Böhm-Bawerk was given the title of honorary professor in the University of Vienna. It is in this latter capacity that he conducts the economic seminar.

The meetings of the economic seminar occur this semester every Friday at five o’clock and last usually an hour and a half. They are held in a simple lecture room accommodating some fifty or sixty students and usually fairly well filled. Adjoining is a small room containing the seminar library of a few hundred standard works. Periodicals fail, alas, altogether. The thirty-five or forty students who assembled at the first meeting appeared to be nearly all Austrians. All ages and conditions seemed to be represented, from the care-free corps student to the hard-working graduate, looking forward to higher academic honors. At the opening exercise Professor Böhm-Bawerk lost no time in explaining the purpose of the course. The wages question was to be our subject; its exhaustive, historical and critical discussion, and, as far as possible, its solution, our object. Papers should be presented upon the various wages theories that have gained prominence from the time when the question first received scientific attention, and upon the basis of these discussion was to be engaged in until positive conclusions should be reached. Original theories were to be given a hearing as soon as the material to be found in literature had been disposed of.

The reader will observe at once that this is quite another sort of seminar from that we have seen Professor Wagner conducting in Berlin. To the latter a seminar is a course in which all sorts of original investigations in any particular field are to be given a hearing; to Professor Böhm-Bawerk it has a more special character — some particular topic is to be taken and studied by a number of students collectively; every student present is supposed to be especially interested in the topic under consideration and to take an active part in the debate; no point is to be abandoned until all are agreed that it has been sufficiently discussed. The presentation of papers is simply secondary; they are designed to introduce, but never to take the place of, the general debate which is to follow. The purpose of such a seminar as Professor Böhm-Bawerk offers makes its attainment much more certain than in a general seminar like Professor Wagner’s. When all are studying the same subject, all must be intelligently interested in such papers as are presented, and all must learn something from the different points of view brought out in the debate.

Already, at our second meeting, the first paper was presented, giving a rapid historical sketch of wages’ theories and stating the problem which such theories have to solve. The debate which followed was to me an agreeable surprise. The five or six students who took part in it displayed a talent for succinct and forcible statement and for critical analysis for which my previous experience with German seminars had little prepared me. In the summary with which the director closed the discussion, the subjects upon which special papers should be presented were enumerated.

Up to the present time papers have been presented upon the “minimum-of-existence-theory” of wages, the “cost-of-production-theory” of wages, and the “wages-fund theory.” The discussions have been, for the most part, interesting and valuable, though, as usual, in a seminar, repetitions are frequent, and much superfluous matter is introduced. Nearly all of the members of the seminar are old pupils either of Professor Menger or of Professor Böhm-Bawerk, and all are eager partisans of the Austrian School. It is this that gives a certain unity to the various ideas and points of view that find expression in the debates, and that constitutes the most attractive and interesting feature of the course to the stranger.

Here in Vienna the marginal-utility theory of value is anything but an “academic plaything.”14 It is through the application of this theory to the general problem of distribution that a solution of the wages question is expected, in so far as it is possible to find any purely economic theory to account for a phenomenon, in the production of which so many uneconomic elements are prominent factors. Whether as a final result of this careful discussion of the wages question in all its bearings, a positive conclusion, to which all are ready to subscribe, will be arrived at or not, is a matter of comparatively slight importance. The value of the course consists in the encouragement it gives to original thinking and in the sharpening effect it has upon the critical faculties of all those who take part in it. It has been to me the most valuable economic course I have had in Germany. I cannot well say more.

14It is thus that Ingram characterizes the similar ideas advanced by Jevons in England. Cf. History of Political Economy, London, 1888, p. 234.

The other economic courses offered here at Vienna are, as has been already hinted, of no great interest to the foreign student. The statistical work being done here deserves, however, some mention. Professor Inama-Sternegg, himself a prominent official in the statistical department of the imperial government, is taking up in his seminar this semester the question of statistics of professions, a subject the importance of which is just beginning to be appreciated. The papers presented have been largely of an historical character, describing and comparing what various governments have, up to the present time, done to develop this branch of statistical investigation. An interesting practical feature of the course was a visit we made one evening to the census building while the electrical counting machines were in full operation, and where their mechanism was fully explained to us by the attendant officials.

In Professor Singer’s seminar, this semester, social statistics are the subjects under discussion. Statistics throwing light upon the condition of labourers and their families in different occupations, upon their yearly budgets and the nature of their employments, are collected by different members of the course and submitted to the rest during the weekly meetings. Careful reviews of recent literature belonging to this field are an important feature of the course.

The public library facilities afforded the economic student here at Vienna are only moderately good, not to be compared with, those afforded at Berlin. In the university library there are some 400,000 volumes. The use of these, however, is hedged about by so many disagreeable and time-consuming regulations that it is difficult to judge exactly how large a proportion of the books are of an economic character. In addition, I may mention the royal library and the library of the statistical bureau, which are easily available for the purposes of the student. More valuable still are the private economic libraries, to which the student may obtain access here in the city. I have already mentioned the magnificent library of Professor Carl Menger. His brother, Professor Anton Menger, the distinguished jurist and socialist, has for many years been a collector of works upon socialism and communism. He at present has some 5,000 volumes and a great number of pamphlets bearing upon these subjects, which he is glad to have utilized for scientific purposes. The libraries of Professors Böhm-Bawerk and Singer are also unusually complete, for private libraries.

*  *  *  *

The reader who has followed these pages thus far will have seen that in almost every respect the material facilities for economic work afforded the specialist at Berlin are decidedly superior to those afforded him here at Vienna. To conclude from this fact, however, that more is to be gained by a semester at the former place than by a semester here, would be unwarranted. It all depends upon what the student wants. If he is interested especially in economic history, in social questions, or in practical economics and public finance, Berlin undoubtedly will give the greater satisfaction. If, on the other hand, he is interested in general theory, in the fundamental questions of the science, such as the methodological question, or in the history of economic dogma, of the development of economic theory, the balance is as unquestionably in favor of Vienna.

He will find here a remarkably able corps of teachers, all professing substantially the same beliefs and economic doctrines, and all striving to apply these doctrines to the reform of economic science. What has already been done in the direction of recasting general economic theory on the basis of the marginal utility theory of value is only a foretaste of what yet remains to be done.

Source Image: Berlin University between ca. 1890 and ca. 1900. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C.

Categories
Bryn Mawr Columbia Economists Germany Pennsylvania

Columbia. Appointments of H. L. Moore, H. R. Seager, and A. S. Johnson, 1902

 

 

Memorial minutes of the Columbia University Faculty of Political Science for both Henry L. Moore and Henry R. Seager have been transcribed earlier here at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror. This post takes us back to the start of their Columbia University careers, namely the 1902-03 academic year. Professor Richmond Mayo-Smith’s suicide in November 1901 left a significant gap in Columbia’s economics faculty which was then closed with the appointment of Henry L. Moore.

_______________________

Columbia Announcement of the appointments of Henry L. Moore (Prof.) and Henry R. Seager (Adjunct Prof.), 1902

It seems fitting to introduce to the acquaintance of the readers of the QUARTERLY those who come from other universities to occupy professors’ chairs in our own. Professors Moore and Seager enter the service of the University in the School of Political Science…

Professor Henry L. Moore, who comes to us from Smith College, is thirty-two years of age; a native of Maryland and a graduate of Randolph-Macon College in Virginia. His special training in economics was received at the Johns Hopkins University, from which he received, in 1896, the degree of Ph.D., and in Vienna, where he was a pupil of Professor Karl [sic, “Carl”] Menger. He was appointed to an instructorship in economics in the Johns Hopkins University in 1896, and to a professorship in Smith College in 1897, though he continued after this, for a time, to give, in the Johns Hopkins University, lectures which treated of the application of mathematical principles to economic problems.

His chief published work is an essay on Von Thünen’s “Theory of Natural Wages,” which, beside throwing new light on a scientific problem, offers to the English reading student the best introduction to the study of the works of Von Thünen and of the extensive literature which has grown up about them.

Henry R. Seager, the new adjunct-professor of political economy, was graduated from the University of Michigan in 1890. During the next four years he studied at Johns Hopkins, Halle, Berlin, Vienna and the University of Pennsylvania, receiving the degree of Ph.D. from the last-named institution in 1894. From that date he was on the teaching force of the University of Pennsylvania, holding successively the titles of instructor and assistant professor of economics, till he accepted the call to Columbia. Professor Seager was for three years Secretary of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, and in 1900 he became editor-in-chief of the Annals, the magazine published by the Academy. His publications in periodicals have been numerous, and his more important works include “The Finances of Pennsylvania,” “The Teaching of Economics at Berlin and Vienna,” [JPE, March 1893]The Fallacy of Saving,” and “The Teaching of Economics and Economic History.”

Source: Columbia University Quarterly, v. 4, June 1902, pp. 293-94.

_______________________

Announcement of the Columbia appointments of Henry R. Seager (Adjunct Prof.) and Alvin Saunders Johnson (Reader), 1902

Columbia University.- Doctor Henry R. Seager has resigned his position of Assistant Professor of Political Economy at the University of Pennsylvania, and has accepted the position of Adjunct Professor of Political Economy in Columbia University. His duties in Columbia University will begin with the opening of the coming academic year.

Mr. Seager has published the following papers:

German Universities and German Student Life.” The Inlander, June, 1892.

Economics at Berlin and Vienna.” Journal of Political Economy, March, 1893.

Philippovich’s Grundriss der Politischen-Oekonomie.” ANNALS, July, 1893.

Pennsylvania Tax Conference.” Ibid., March, 1894.

Seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association.” Ibid., March, 1895.

Malloch’s Labour and the Popular Welfare, and Dyer’s The Evolution of Industry.” The Citizen, June, 1895.

Cunningham’s Outlines of English Industrial History.” ANNALS, January, 1896.

Bruce’s Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century.” Ibid., 1896.

The Fallacy of Saving.” Supplement to Economic Studies, American Economic Association, April, 1896.

Smart’s Studies in Economics.” The Citizen, August, 1896.

Stray Impressions of Oxford.” The Pennsylvanian, February, 1897.

Higgs’ The Physiocrats.” ANNALS, July, 1897.

Gibbins’ Industry in England.” Ibid., September, 1897.

Bullock’s Introduction to the Study of Economics.” Ibid., November, 1897.

The Consumers’ League.” Bulletin of American Academy, April, 1898.

George’s Political Economy.” Political Science Quarterly, December, 1898.

Devine’s Economics.” ANNALS, March, 1899.

Hull’s The Economic Writings of Sir William Petty.” Ibid., May, 1900.

Smart’s The Distribution of Income.” Ibid., July, 1900.

Clark’s The Distribution of Wealth: A Theory of Wages, Interest and Profits.” Ibid., September, 1900.

Editorial. Ibid., January, 1901.

Meeting of American Economic Association.” Ibid., March1901.

Professor Patten’s Theory of Prosperity.” Ibid., March, 1902.

Editorial. Ibid.

Meeting of American Economic Association.” Ibid.

Crowell’s The Distribution and Marketing of Farm Products.” Report of United States Industrial Commission, Vol. VI, 1901. Political Science Quarterly, March, 1902.

Mr. Alvin Saunders Johnson, at present Reader in Economics at Bryn Mawr College, Pa., has been appointed Tutor in Economics at Columbia University, New York City. His work in Columbia will begin at the opening of the coming academic year.

Source: Personal Notes, Annals of the American Academy, Vol. 19 (May, 1902), pp. 103-104.

Image Sources: Henry Moore (left) Smith College, Classbook of 1902, p. 11. and Henry Seager (right) Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C.

Categories
Dartmouth Economists Germany Michigan Princeton Suggested Reading Syllabus

Princeton. Course readings for “Government and Business”. Frank Haigh Dixon, 1924-25

 

 

According to the Princeton catalogue for 1922/23, the undergraduate course Economics 407 “Corporations: Finance and Regulation” was taught by Professor Frank Haigh Dixon. The course was designated as a senior course that graduate students could attend with supplementary work and a weekly conference. Frank W. Fetter took Economics 407 (that appears to have had the title “Government and Business” during the first semester of the academic year 1924-25. In his papers at the Economists’ Papers Archive at Duke University, one finds 47 pages of lecture notes for this course taken by Fetter (in which clear references to Dixon as the lecturer are found) plus about 40 pages of notes he took on his reading assignments. 

This post is limited to providing links to the texts and the weekly reading assignments of Dixon’s course. The course outline is followed by a memorial faculty minute for Professor Frank Haigh Dixon that provides career and biographical information.

__________________

Princeton University, 1924-1925

Government and Business
Economics 407

Links to Course Texts

Gerstenberg, Charles W. Financial Organization and Management. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1924. [Revised in 1923, Second revised edition 1939, Fourth Revised Edition, 1959]

Jones, Eliot. The Trust Problem in the United States. New York: Macmillan, 1921.

Ripley, William Z. (ed.). Trusts, Pools and Corporations, rev. ed. Boston: Ginn and Company, 1916.   [1905 edition]

Morgan, Charles Stillman. Regulation and the Management of Public Utilities. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, Riverside Press Cambridge, 1923. [Awarded second prize in Class A of the Hart, Schaffner & Marx competition]

Assignments

Sept. 26 Gerstenberg Ch. 4-7
Sept. 30 Gerstenberg Ch. 8-12
Oct. 6 Gerstenberg Ch. 13, 18, 19, 22
Oct. 13 Gerstenberg Ch. 27, 28, 29
Oct. 20 Gerstenberg Ch. 30, 31, 32
Oct. 27 Gerstenberg Finish book
Nov. 3 Jones

Ripley

Ch. 1, 2, 3, 4, 19

old ed. pp. 244-249
rev. ed. pp. 465-470

Nov. 10 Jones

Ripley

Ch. 13, 14

Ch. 1 and 2

Nov. 17 Jones

Ripley

Ch. 5, 7

Ch 4 (rev.) or 5 (old)

8 (rev. only)

Nov. 24 Jones Ch. 6, 9, 10.
Dec. 1 Jones Ch. 17 & 18
Dec. 8 Jones

Ripley

Ch. 8

Ch 18 (rev ed.) &

pp. 545-549 (rev. ed)

Dec. 15 Jones

Ripley

Morgan

Ch. 15

Ch 19 (rev. ed.)

Ch. 1 & 2

Jan. 12 Morgan Ch. 3, 5
Jan. 19 Morgan Ch. 6, 7

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Frank Whitson Fetter Papers, Box: 49, Folder:  “Student Papers, Graduate Courses (Princeton University) EC 407 Government and Business Notes 1924-1925”.

__________________

Faculty Minute adopted March 6, 1944

FRANK HAIGH DIXON

The death, on January 27, 1944, of Frank Haigh Dixon, professor of economics, emeritus, closed a scholarly career of national distinction in his special field of transportation and public utilities. Professor Dixon was born in Winona, Minn., on October 8, 1869, the son of Alfred C. and Caroline A. D. Dixon. He pursued his collegiate studies at the University of Michigan until his attainment of the doctorate in 1895. This was followed by a year of study at the University of Berlin. Returning to Michigan, he served one year as an instructor in history before becoming an assistant professor of economics. At the University of Michigan he had the good fortune to have as his teacher and later as colleague that able economist and remarkable man, Henry Carter Adams, who at that time was organizing the uniform accountancy system of all the American railroads under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission. As a young economist Dixon was thus attracted to the subject of transportation, in which he wrote his doctoral thesis. Declining an invitation to go to Cornell University, he in 1898 accepted a call to an assistant professorship at Dartmouth College.

Professor Dixon’s record of academic and public services is outstanding. Following a visit to England in 1900 to get information, he largely prepared the plans for the establishment at Dartmouth of a graduate school of commerce and business, the Amos Tuck School of Administration and Finance, of which he became the first director. In 1903 he attained full professorial rank. Giving up the Tuck School position, he retained the chairmanship of the department of economics and at the time of his resignation to come to Princeton was recognized as one of the most influential leaders in the Dartmouth faculty.

Professor Dixon came to Princeton in 1919 with ripe scholarship, broad experience and outstanding ability as a lecturer and teacher of college classes, as was further evidenced at once by the large enrollments in his Princeton courses. His coming put Princeton in the first rank of American universities for the distinction of its graduate work in this field. His Alma Mater, Michigan, tried in vain to lure him away from us. His services as chairman of the department of economics and social institutions from 1922 to 1927, on various faculty committees, and particularly in the building up of the Pliny Fisk Collection of research material in the fields of railroad and corporation finance, were marked by clear vision, practical judgment, and unwavering loyalty to the best interests of the University as a whole. In 1938, having reached the age for retirement, he became professor emeritus.

From the first of his career Professor Dixon was very active professionally outside the classroom. In 1907-1908 he served as a consulting expert for the Interstate Commerce Commission and in the following year in a similar capacity for the National Waterways Commission. During the first world war he was a special expert for the U.S. Shipping Board and he was a member of the executive board of the New Hampshire Commission on Public Safety. From 1910 to 1918, without giving up his college work, he was chief statistician of the Bureau of Railway Economics at Washington. For a full half century he was a member of the American Economic Association, serving repeatedly on its executive committee, and in 1927 he was vice-president of the Association. His writings, which with few exceptions were on transportation, are too numerous to be listed here. One of the most notable items in his bibliography was his authoritative text published after his coming to Princeton, “Railroads and Government: their Relations in the United States, 1910-1921.”

In 1900 Professor Dixon married Alice L. Tucker, daughter of the Rev. William J. Tucker, then president of Dartmouth College. In coming to Princeton Professor and Mrs. Dixon left in Hanover many close professional and personal friends. In turn they quickly won in Princeton many others whose number and regard have grown with the passing years. We rejoice that Mrs. Dixon is keeping the family residence among us. To her and to her three children, William Tucker, Roger Colt, and Caroline Moorhouse Dixon, the faculty of Princeton University wishes to express its deep sympathy as well as the high appreciation of the large contributions which Frank Haigh Dixon made to this University community.

Frank A. Fetter
William S. Carpenter
Stanley E. Howard, Chairman

 

SourcePrinceton Alumni Weekly, Vol. 44 (April 28, 1922), p. 25.

Image Source: Frank Haigh Dixon faculty portrait Tuck School, Dartmouth College. Rauner Special Collections Library.

Categories
Cambridge Exam Questions Germany

Cambridge. Exam question from a Ricardo quote translated into German, 1922

 

 

The last post began with the exam question below taken from the 1922 Cambridge Economics Tripos.

Meanwhile at the Facebook outpost of Economics in the Rear-view Mirror Ross Emmett asked quite naturally “Who is the quote from?” Charles Robert McCann Jr did a Google books search on the quote and came up with a link to page 234 in Volume 5 of the series Ausgewählte Lesestücke zum Studium der politischen Ökonomie edited by Karl Diehl and Paul Mombert and published in 1912.

I was able to track down a pdf copy of the Diehl and Mombert volume at the University of Mannheim (see link below).  The quote actually comes from a Ricardo letter to Malthus quoted by Marshall in his Principles. The examination bastards board must have wanted to double-disguise the quote’s Ricardian/Marshallian origins, presuming the examinees would have been intimately familiar with Marshall’s Principles. Or perhaps this was merely a gratuitous test of German reading skills? Anyhow, mystery solved. You’re welcome!

_________________

Cambridge Economics Tripos
PART I

Monday, May 29, 1922. 9—12.
GENERAL ECONOMICS. I.

  1. “Ich bestreite nicht den Einfluss der Nachfrage weder auf den Getreidepreis noch auf dem Preis aller andern Dinge; aber das Angebot folgt ihr dicht auf den Fusse, und alsbald erlangt es die Macht, den Preis von sich aus eigenmächtig zu bestimmen, und indem es ihn regelt, ist er durch die Produktionskosten bestimmt.” Comment.

_________________

Where this German translation comes from

Alfred Marshall, “Note on Ricardo’s Theory of Value“: Anmerkung über Ricardos Werttheorie, Handbuch der Volkswirtschaftslehre, pp. 477-486. German translation from the 4th edition [sic] of Marshall’s Principles by Hugo Ephraim and Arthur Salz (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1905). Reprinted in Karl Diehl and Paul Mombert (eds.) Ausgewählte Lesestücke zum Studium der politischen Ökonomie, Band 5 Wert und Preis, II. Abteilung (Karlsruhe: 1912), p. 234.

_________________

Original: Ricardo to Malthus (1820)

“I do not dispute either the influence of demand on the price of corn or on the price of all other things; but supply follows close at its heels and soon takes the power of regulating price in his [sic] own hands, and in regulating it he is determined by cost of production.”

Source: Letter LXXIV (November 24, 1820) of Ricardo to Malthus, in James Bonar (ed.) Letters of David Ricardo to Thomas Robert Malthus, 1810-1823 (Oxford, 1887), p. 179.

Image Source: Thomas Phillips portrait of David Ricardo in 1821. Public domain copy at Wikimedia Commons.