Marcw 29, 1912] 
done all in their power to make it clear to 
the colleges that the funds at their com- 
mand, and likely in the future to be at 
their command, could eare for only a lim- 
ited number of colleges. Nevertheless, in 
spite of this effort, it has been tacitly as- 
sumed by many colleges, and generally by 
those of the lowest standards in scholar- 
ship, that any obligation on their part to 
care for their old teachers vanished with 
the inauguration of the foundation. 
Notwithstanding the disadvantages, how- 
ever, that must occur in the administration 
of any such system of these pensions, it 
seems clear that the advantages that have 
resulted from the conferring of pensions 
have greatly outweighed the disadvantages, 
and that, furthermore, the advantages on 
the whole seem likely to become stronger 
with time, while the disadvantages tend to 
diminish. The value of a pension system 
depends not only on those who administer 
it, but no less on the spirit and morale of 
those who are to participate in its benefits. 
The dangers of a non-contributory system 
lie mainly in those universal dangers that 
come from human weakness and human 
selfishness. 
It is, to my thinking, a fair question 
whether college pensions ought not, lke 
other pensions, to carry a contributory fea- 
ture. No one can be more sensible than 
I of the tremendous demands made upon 
the meager salaries of the American college 
teachers, and yet notwithstanding this, it 
is impossible to remove the college teacher 
from those social and moral influences that 
affect all men. The experience of the 
world seems to make clear the fact that on 
the whole a contributory form of pension 
is likely to be most just and least harmful. 
The sacrifice of the individual to which 
I have referred is directly connected with 
the question, ‘‘ What obligations rest upon 
a college to care for those who have grown 
SCIENCE 
481 
old or have broken down in its service?’’ 
This question is rendered more urgent by 
the establishment of the Carnegie Founda- 
tion. In every report of the foundation 
attention has been called to the fact that 
the income that it is likely to have can pro- 
vide at most for only a small minority of 
the college teachers of the country. All 
that the trustees can hope to do is to estab- 
lish the principle of a generous and fair 
retiring allowance system as a part of the 
régime of higher education in the United 
States. The question, What is the duty of 
the college in this matter? still remains, 
even to a considerable extent, in the ac- 
cepted institutions. In these institutions 
the main burden of pensions is carried by 
the foundation, but the obligation of these 
institutions to care for those who have 
served them well, and who are not eligible 
to retirement under the foundation, still 
remains. 
The question as to the duty of the college 
is, of course, only part of a larger question 
that all organizations in the social, educa- 
tional and industrial circles of our coun- 
try are now facing. The relation of a 
pension provision to efficiency and the obli- 
gation of a corporation to its servants is 
being discussed to-day from every point of 
view. The college must face this question 
just as other corporations are facing it. 
One does not need to be an extreme indi- 
vidualist to realize that the individual is 
too often sacrificed to the service of the cor- 
poration. Perhaps in no form of organiza- 
tion is this more often true than in the col- 
leges. We need constantly to be reminded 
that colleges, as other human organizations, 
were made for men; men were not made 
for colleges. The obligation rests upon 
every organization in the social order to 
deal fairly with the question, how far it is 
accepting the sacrifice of the individual in 
order to promote the organization, or the 
