188 PUBLIC FINANCE 



to have lost this sense of social unity, and, as a consequence, much 

 that he said was confused, and much that he did failed to prosper. 

 There was need of a new statement of these fundamental, ethical 

 relations, and it was reserved to that branch of investigation known 

 as sociology to render this service. Without undertaking to trace 

 the rise of the science of sociology we must, I think, admit that the 

 science exists, and that the organic nature of society is its cornerstone. 

 So far as fundamental ideas are concerned, the science of finance is 

 in perfect sympathy with the aim, purpose, and the methods of the 

 science of sociology. It will prove to be of great advantage to stu- 

 dents of finance, as well as to practical financiers, that their point of 

 view is thus emphasized by students and workers in yet another 

 field. No difficulty arises with sociology, but when one comes to 

 consider the point of view of many who assume the name of socio- 

 logists and who concern themselves with all kinds and sorts of social 

 reforms rather than with the investigation of the social structure 

 and the discovery of social principles, the attitude of the science of 

 finance is decidedly hostile. This is true because the social reformer 

 is determined to make use of fiscal machinery for all kinds and sorts 

 of social ends. It is superfluous to say that such an attitude of 

 mind fails to appreciate the relative values of social interests. It 

 seems scarcely pertinent, however, to follow this suggestion further. 

 The determination of the extent to which fiscal machinery should' 

 be directed for secondary ends rests on considerations that lie outside 

 the scop 3 of this paper. It is likely that the practical result of the 

 relation which at present exists between sociology and the science 

 of finance is that writers of finance will be forced to a clearer and 

 more definite expression of those rules and principles according to 

 which public expenditures are determined and by which the use of 

 the financial organization of the state is limited. 



The relation of the science of finance to history and to statistics 

 might perhaps be considered under the title given to this paper, but 

 an analysis of this relation would introduce a point of view quite 

 foreign to that by which it has thus far been characterized. History 

 and statistics are methods of investigation rather than domains 

 of investigation. As methods they are common to all sciences, and 

 for that reason do not call for special treatment. 



Conclusion 



The impression left by the foregoing analysis must be that the 

 organization of our knowledge relative to human relations is neither 

 arbitrary nor directed by the convenience of the investigator. Each 

 of the sciences passed in review claims for itself a definite field of 

 investigation r.nd rests upon a definite and clearly defined purpose 



