Categories
Chicago

Chicago. Soliciting Contributions of Alumni/ae to Fund for Graduate Fellowships, 1931

Scarcely a week goes by for anyone with a Ph.D. these days that does not bring some sort of request for a financial contribution from the one or other alma mater. I can easily imagine that the sort of letter transcribed below from the head of the department of economics at the University of Chicago was still something of a novelty in 1931.

Looking at the list of the former Chicago economics fellows from whom contributions had been requested, I noticed that the first four names are alphabetically arranged, the next four names are likewise alphabetically arranged, the next four names (with one exception) are also so arranged as are the next two and the final three. The facts, that (i) the sample letter (December 16, 1931 to Trevor Arnett) was addressed to the 13th person on the list and (ii) dated only two days before the cover letter to University of Chicago Trustee James Stifler was sent, lead me to conclude that Chairman Millis had a response rate of two for the dozen letters he first sent out. I am somewhat surprised he even sent off his letter to James Stifler before receiving at least one positive response. Maybe Millis was told something like “Why don’t you folks write to some of your earlier fellows and ask for money” and he just wanted to show for the record that he had tried.

___________________________________

 

The University of Chicago
Department of Economics

December 18, 1931

Dr. James M. Stifler
The President’s Office
Faculty Exchange

Dear Mr. Stifler:

I enclose a carbon copy of a letter written to Mr. Arnett, one of the former fellows in Economics, and a list of the seventeen persons to whom such letters were sent. For your information, I may say that to date I have had only two replies, both of them in terms of “I regret.”

Sincerely yours
[signed]
H. A. Millis

 

HAM-W
Encl.

___________________________________

 

December 16, 1931

COPY

 

Mr. Trevor Arnett
General Education Board
61 Broadway
New York City

Dear Mr. Arnett:

I have talked over an idea I have had for some time with a few men who have held fellowships in Economics at the University of Chicago, and, finding a favorable reaction to it, now write you. The idea is this: that those of us who feel so inclined should contribute at our convenience some part of all of the stipend received when fellows to a fund to finance fellowships in Economics at the University. The underlying thought is that there is a good case for those of us who were fortunate enough to have assistance at a crucial time in our training to lend help to others in the generation following us. The need for well trained men is great; many very promising young men and women cannot get the necessary training without some financial aid. Last year, for example, our Department had 175 applications for fellowships and scholarships. Twenty of the applicants for fellowships, and twenty-seven altogether, we graded as A-1, but, with some funds secured from the outside, we were able to grant fellowships to only six of the twenty. From the information I have, it would appear that more than one-half of the remaining fourteen have had to forego entirely or postpone their program of work leading to the doctorate in Economics here or elsewhere. Next year we shall have less fellowship money from the sources available this year.

Do you feel inclined to join some of us in this plan? If you do, will you not write me and state to what extent you wish to contribute and when? In making your decision, you will, of course, keep in mind that there is no desire to exert pressure upon any one, and that there is no thought that a fellowship granted has not been fully earned.

Sincerely yours,
H. A. Millis

HAM-W

 

List of those written:

1. Professor Henry Rand Hatfield Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley, California
2. Dr. Simon J. McLean Board of Railway Commissioners, Ottawa, Canada
3. George G. Tunell The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway, Railway Exchange Building, Chicago, Ill.
4. Professor Henry P. Willis Columbia University, New York City
5. Professor C. A. Arbuthnot Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
6. Dr. Earl Dean Howard Hart, Schaffner & Marx, 36 South Franklin Street, Chicago, Illinois
7. Professor W. W. Swanson Department of Economics, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
8. Miss Anna Pritchitt Youngman 97 Columbia Heights Post Office, Brooklyn, New York
9. Professor H. G. Moulton The Brookings Institution, 744 Jackson Place, Washington, D.C.
10. Professor W. C. Mitchell c/o D. H. MacGregor, Oxford University, Oxford, England
11. Professor Duncan A. MacGibbon Board of Grain Commissioners, Winnipeg, Canada
12. Professor James A. Moffat University of Indiana, Bloomington, Indiana
13. Mr. Trevor Arnett General Education Board, 61 Broadway, New York City
14. Professor Stephen B. Leacock McGill University, Montreal, Canada
15. Professor Spurgeon Bell Department of Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
16. Miss Hazel Kyrk University of Chicago, Faculty Exchange
17. Professor Sumner Slichter School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

___________________________________

 

[Carbon copy]

December 21, 1931

 

Dear Mr. Millis:

I have received and read with great interest the letter which you sent to Mr. Trevor Arnett. It seems to me to be an excellent letter and I do not see how anybody could object to it.

I fancy that you may receive some further regrets but I hope that there may be a considerable number who will feel that they can fall in with the plan.

Faithfully yours,

James M. Stifler

Mr. H. A. Millis
Department of Economics
Faculty Exchange

___________________________________

 

 

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration. Records. Box 72, Folder “Economics Dept, 1929-1931”.

Image: Social Science Building, University of Chicago.

 

Categories
Chicago Economists Funny Business

Chicago. Economics Ph.D. (1903), Canadian Humorist Stephen Leacock.

It is not every day that one stumbles upon a history-of-economics arc connecting Thorstein Veblen to Groucho Marx and Jack Benny. The economist that connected the iconoclast economist to those veterans of vaudeville comedy is the Canadian humorist and Chicago student of Thorstein Veblen, Stephen Butler Leacock.

First I post here some data (the actual starting point of my background check of Leacock, the Chicago Ph.D.) found in the University of Chicago’s registers of its Ph.D.’s and annual catalogues.

The author’s autobiographical Preface to Leacock’s greatest hit, Sunshine Sketches of a Little Town (1912) follows. The stories themselves strike most, if not all, of the same chords that Garrison Keillor’s News from Lake Wobegon has played over the past decades. 

Finally I will allow myself the short-cut of quoting Wikipedia to complete the sketch of both sides of this most interesting fellow. 

The McGill economics department entry for Stephen Leacock.

 

_____________________

Stephen Butler Leacock
University of Chicago Ph.D. in Political Economy, 1903.

Thesis Title: The doctrine of laissez faire.

 A.B. University of Toronto, 1891.

1889-99. Instructor in French and German, Upper Canada College.
1899-1900. Graduate Student, University of Chicago.
1921. Head of Department of Economics and Political Science, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
1931, April 1. Professor and Head of Department of Economics and Political Science, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
1938, April 1. Professor Emeritus of Economics and Political Science, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

 

_____________________

Author’s Preface to Sunshine Sketches of a Little Town (1912)

               I KNOW no way in which a writer may more fittingly introduce his work to the public than by giving a brief account of who and what he is. By this means some of the blame for what he has done is very properly shifted to the extenuating circumstances of his life.

I was born at Swanmoor, Hants, England, on December 30, 1869. I am not aware that there was any particular conjunction of the planets at the time, but should think it extremely likely. My parents migrated to Canada in 1876, and I decided to go with them. My father took up a farm near Lake Simcoe, in Ontario. This was during the hard times of Canadian farming, and my father was just able by great diligence to pay the hired men and, in years of plenty, to raise enough grain to have seed for the next year’s crop without buying any. By this process my brothers and I were inevitably driven off the land, and have become professors, business men, and engineers, instead of being able to grow up as farm labourers. Yet I saw enough of farming to speak exuberantly in political addresses of the joy of early rising and the deep sleep, both of body and intellect, that is induced by honest manual toil.

I was educated at Upper Canada College, Toronto, of which I was head boy in 1887. From there I went to the University of Toronto, where I graduated in 1891. At the University I spent my entire time in the acquisition of languages, living, dead, and half- dead, and knew nothing of the outside world. In this diligent pursuit of words I spent about sixteen hours of each day. Very soon after graduation I had forgotten the languages, and found myself intellectually bankrupt. In other words I was what is called a distinguished graduate, and, as such, I took to school teaching as the only trade I could find that needed neither experience nor intellect. I spent my time from 1891 to 1899 on the staff of Upper Canada College, an experience which has left me with a profound sympathy for the many gifted and brilliant men who are compelled to spend their lives in the most dreary, the most thankless, and the worst paid profession in the world. I have noted that of my pupils, those who seemed the laziest and the least enamoured of books are now rising to eminence at the bar, in business, and in public life; the really promising boys who took all the prizes are now able with difficulty to earn the wages of a clerk in a summer hotel or a deck hand on a canal boat.

In 1899 I gave up school teaching in disgust, borrowed enough money to live upon for a few months, and went to the University of Chicago to study economics and political science. I was soon appointed to a Fellowship in political economy, and by means of this and some temporary employment by McGill University, I survived until I took the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in 1903. The meaning of this degree is that the recipient of instruction is examined for the last time in his life, and is pronounced completely full. After this, no new ideas can be imparted to him.

From this time, and since my marriage, which had occurred at this period, I have belonged to the staff of McGill University, first as lecturer in Political Science, and later as head of the department of Economics and Political Science. As this position is one of the prizes of my profession, I am able to regard myself as singularly fortunate. The emolument is so high as to place me distinctly above the policemen, postmen, street-car conductors, and other salaried officials of the neighbourhood, while I am able to mix with the poorer of the business men of the city on terms of something like equality. In point of leisure, I enjoy more in the four corners of a single year than a business man knows in his whole life. I thus have what the business man can never enjoy, an ability to think, and, what is still better, to stop thinking altogether for months at a time.

I have written a number of things in connection with my college life — a book on Political Science, and many essays, magazine articles, and so on. I belong to the Political Science Association of America, to the Royal Colonial Institute, and to the Church of England. These things, surely, are a proof of respectability. I have had some small connection with politics and public life. A few years ago I went all round the British Empire delivering addresses on Imperial organization. When I state that these lectures were followed almost immediately by the Union of South Africa, the Banana Riots in Trinidad, and the Turco-Italian war, I think the reader can form some idea of their importance. In Canada I belong to the Conservative party, but as yet I have failed entirely in Canadian politics, never having received a contract to build a bridge, or make a wharf, nor to construct even the smallest section of the Transcontinental Railway. This, however, is a form of national ingratitude to which one becomes accustomed in this Dominion.

Apart from my college work, I have written two books, one called “Literary Lapses” and the other “Nonsense Novels.” Each of these is published by John Lane (London and New York), and either of them can be obtained, absurd though it sounds, for the mere sum of three shillings and sixpence. Any reader of this preface, for example, ridiculous though it appears, could walk into a bookstore and buy both of these books for seven shillings. Yet these works are of so humorous a character that for many years it was found impossible to print them. The compositors fell back from their task suffocated with laughter and gasping for air. Nothing but the invention of the linotype machine or rather, of the kind of men who operate it made it possible to print these books. Even now people have to be very careful in circulating them, and the books should never be put into the hands of persons not in robust health.

Many of my friends are under the impression that I write these humorous nothings in idle moments when the wearied brain is unable to perform the serious labours of the economist. My own experience is exactly the other way. The writing of solid, instructive stuff fortified by facts and figures is easy enough. There is no trouble in writing a scientific treatise on the folk-lore of Central China, or a statistical enquiry into the declining population of Prince Edward Island. But to write something out of one’s own mind, worth reading for its own sake, is an arduous contrivance only to be achieved in fortunate moments, few and far between. Personally, I would sooner have written “Alice in Wonderland ” than the whole Encyclopaedia Britannica.

In regard to the present work I must disclaim at once all intention of trying to do anything so ridiculously easy as writing about a real place and real people. Mariposa is not a real town. On the contrary, it is about seventy or eighty of them. You may find them all the way from Lake Superior to the sea, with the same square streets and the same maple trees and the same churches and hotels, and everywhere the sunshine of the land of hope.

Similarly, the Reverend Mr. Drone is not one person, but about eight or ten. To make him I clapped the gaiters of one ecclesiastic round the legs of another, added the sermons of a third and the character of a fourth, and so let him start on his way in the book to pick up such individual attributes as he might find for himself. Mullins and Bagshaw and Judge Pepperleigh and the rest are, it is true, personal friends of mine. But I have known them in such a variety of forms, with such alternations of tall and short, dark and fair, that, individually, I should have much ado to know them. Mr. Pupkin is found whenever a Canadian bank opens a branch in a county town and needs a teller. As for Mr. Smith, with his two hundred and eighty pounds, his hoarse voice, his loud check suit, his diamonds, the roughness of his address and the goodness of his heart, all of this is known by everybody to be a necessary and universal adjunct of the hotel business.

The inspiration of the book, —a land of hope and sunshine where little towns spread their square streets and their trim maple trees beside placid lakes almost within echo of the primeval forest, is large enough. If it fails in its portrayal of the scenes and the country that it depicts the fault lies rather with an art that is deficient than in an affection that is wanting.

STEPHEN LEACOCK.

McGill University,
June, 1912.

Source: Stephen Leacock, Sunshine Sketches of a Little Town, London: John Lane, 1912, pp. vii-xii.

 

_______________________

Academic and political life

Disillusioned with teaching, in 1899 he began graduate studies at the University of Chicago under Thorstein Veblen, where he received a doctorate in political science and political economy. He moved from Chicago, Illinois to Montreal, Quebec, where he eventually became the William Dow Professor of Political Economy and long-time chair of the Department of Economics and Political Science at McGill University.

He was closely associated with Sir Arthur Currie, former commander of the Canadian Corps in the Great War and principal of McGill from 1919 until his death in 1933. In fact, Currie had been a student observing Leacock’s practice teaching in Strathroy in 1888. In 1936, Leacock was forcibly retired by the McGill Board of Governors—an unlikely prospect had Currie lived.

Leacock was both a social conservative and a partisan Conservative. He opposed giving women the right to vote, disliked non-Anglo-Saxon immigration and supported the introduction of social welfare legislation. He was a staunch champion of the British Empire and the Imperial Federation Movement and went on lecture tours to further the cause.

Although he was considered as a candidate for Dominion elections by his party, it declined to invite the author, lecturer, and maverick to stand for election. Nevertheless, he would stump for local candidates at his summer home.

Literary Life

Early in his career, Leacock turned to fiction, humour, and short reports to supplement (and ultimately exceed) his regular income. His stories, first published in magazines in Canada and the United States and later in novel form, became extremely popular around the world. It was said in 1911 that more people had heard of Stephen Leacock than had heard of Canada. Also, between the years 1915 and 1925, Leacock was the most popular humorist in the English-speaking world.

A humorist particularly admired by Leacock was Robert Benchley from New York. Leacock opened correspondence with Benchley, encouraging him in his work and importuning him to compile his work into a book. Benchley did so in 1922, and acknowledged the nagging from north of the border.

Near the end of his life, the American comedian Jack Benny recounted how he had been introduced to Leacock’s writing by Groucho Marx when they were both young vaudeville comedians. Benny acknowledged Leacock’s influence and, fifty years after first reading him, still considered Leacock one of his favorite comic writers. He was puzzled as to why Leacock’s work was no longer well known in the United States.

During the summer months, Leacock lived at Old Brewery Bay, his summer estate in Orillia, across Lake Simcoe from where he was raised and also bordering Lake Couchiching. A working farm, Old Brewery Bay is now a museum and National Historic Site of Canada. Gossip provided by the local barber, Jefferson Short, provided Leacock with the material which would become Sunshine Sketches of a Little Town (1912), set in the thinly-disguised Mariposa.

Although he wrote learned articles and books related to his field of study, his political theory is now all but forgotten. Leacock was awarded the Royal Society of Canada’s Lorne Pierce Medal in 1937, nominally for his academic work.

Source: From the Wikipedia article “Stephen Leacock”.

Image Source: PMA Productions, Extraordinary Canadians. Margaret Macmillan’s Episode on Stephen Leacock.