April 4, 1902. ] 



SCIENCE. 



551 



be both scientific and popular, the former com- 

 prising (a) technical meetings in '^Washing- 

 ton and such other centers as may be desired, 

 and (h) a technical publication distributed 

 primarily among the fellows to serve as a 

 record of original geographic work, and the 

 latter comprising (a) popular lectures not 

 only in Washington, but in other cities, and 

 (b) an illustrated magazine of largely popu- 

 lar character, but designed to serve as a con- 

 venient medium for geographic publication. 

 Should the plan for the technical memoirs 

 fail of approval by the Society at large, the 

 publication committee propose including the 

 technical matter in the monthly magazine. 



It is, perhaps, unfortunate that later devel- 

 opments in the National Geographic Society 

 have not been more promptly and widely an- 

 nounced; yet it is by no means to be regretted 

 that the delay has led to expressions from 

 other quarters which seem to be precisely in 

 line with the plans and policies of this organi- 

 zation. 



W J McGee, 

 Y ice-President National Geographic Society. 



Baldwin's social and ethical interpretations. 



To THE Editor of Science : I have received, 

 evidently in commdn with many other socio- 

 logical confreres, a printed copy of a letter 

 addressed by Professor Albion W. Small, of 

 the University of Chicago, to both Professors 

 Baldwin and Giddings. This publication gives 

 renewed impetus to the unfortunate contro- 

 versy raised by Professor Baldwin in an article 

 published in the January number of the Psy- 

 chological Review. May I be allowed to ex- 

 isress, on the subject, the opinion of an out- 

 sider, which is also the opinion of the 

 majority of workers who think that the ad- 

 vancement of social science is in no way pro- 

 moted by such personal quarrels ? 



The facts of the case are known. In an- 

 swer to a fair and, let me say, pertinent and 

 conclusive criticism of his work on 'Social 

 and Ethical Interpretations' by Professor 

 Giddings, Professor Baldwin found no better 

 answer than to cast upon his critic the re- 

 proach of 'poaching' upon his preserves. Pro- 

 fessor Baldwin's answer was conceived in such 



a way as to convey the impression that the 

 word 'poaching' was simply a quotation from 

 a review of Professor Giddings' 'Elements of 

 Sociology,' previously pviblished by Dr. Small. 

 But the latter, besides showing that the word 

 in 'question was contained only in a private 

 letter, openly and frankly disclaims all respon- 

 sibility for the construction placed upon it by 

 Professor Baldwin, and clearly states that 

 by using it he did not mean "anything 

 more than 'out of bounds,' i. e., plowing in a 

 field that belongs more properly to another" 

 which is eine ganz andere Sache. 



In the face of Professor Small's statement. 

 Professor Baldwin is, of course, left to take 

 the whole responsibility for the ofPensive con- 

 struction which he has placed upon the word 

 of his colleague. That is what he has done in 

 the 'Correction' published in the March num- 

 ber of the Psychological Review. It is to be 

 remarked, however, that the terms of this ' Cor- 

 rection' are strikingly ambiguous. The reader 

 might be led to believe that Professor Small 

 considers Baldwin's mistake in the interpre- 

 tation of his word, 'immaterial.' As a mat- 

 ter of fact, as shown by Professor Small's let- 

 ter, he refers very distinctly the 'immaterial- 

 ity' of the mistake, not to the use of the word, 

 but to its source, which is, again, eine ganz 

 andere Sache. 



What remains, after this, is a clear impli- 

 cation of plagiarism against Professor Gid- 

 dings. 



Let us say, once for all, that Professor 

 Baldwin can lay no claim whatever to the dis- 

 covery that has changed our view of social 

 life by lending a definite support of facts to 

 the psychic conception of social relations. 

 The discovery is that of 'imitation' by Tarde. 

 In spite of Professor Baldwin's futile attempt 

 to minimize Tarde's merit by associating the 

 name of the latter with that of Bagehot, Tarde 

 is and will always be, for every unprejudiced 

 student, the discoverer of imitation as a great 

 psychological force underlying both social and 

 mental development. Bagehot only gave us 

 vague hints and tentative guesses. Tarde gave 

 us the clear notion of the elementary social 

 fact, the unit of social investigation. Pro- 

 fessor Baldwin has undoubtedly the merit of 



