July 9, 1886 ] 



SCIENCE. 



25 



It was necessary that the sunlight sliould look 

 upon this prayer during the rest of the day ; there- 

 fore every precaution ■was taken to protect the 

 place from intrusion. 



On Monday morning, with the consent of Wa- 

 Wah, the prayer-plumes, and the earth contain- 

 ing them, were carefully dug up, without distiirb- 

 ing a feather (fig. 6), and deposited in the national 

 museum, perhaps the roost unique object ever 

 placed among its precious collections. 



This ceremony has been carefully studied among 

 the Zufiis by Mr. Frank Gushing and Mrs. Steven- 

 son, and among the Navajos by Dr. Washington 

 Matthews, all of whom will give more detailed 

 descrij^tions, with translations of the prayers, in 

 the future reports of the Bureau of ethnology. 



O. T. Mason. 



U. S. national museum. 



CAN ECONOMISTS AGREE UPON THE 

 BASIS OF THEIR TEACHINGS ? 



One of the first and most obvious tests by which 

 to determine whether men possess exact and re- 

 liable knowledge of a subject should be afforded 

 by the agreement or disagreement of its recog-nized 

 cultivators. I propose to show in the present 

 paper that there is no sound reason why political 

 economy should not favorably pass such a test. 

 It is true that its cultivators difi'er both in the 

 methods and objects of their studies. But such 

 differences do not imply difference of views re- 

 specting either fundamental j)rinciples or con- 

 clusions. 



Let us illustrate this by the case of physics. 

 We have some writers and teachers of physics 

 who prefer the experimental method. They teach 

 principles by experiments, and lay little stress on 

 mathematical deduction. Others teach the lead- 

 ing branches of the subject by mathematical rea- 

 soning, clothing their results in formulae and 

 theorems. 



But these two classes of teachers do not stand 

 in any antagonism to each other, nor accuse each 

 other of ignorance. Each class recognizes the 

 fact that there can be no diversity between coiTect 

 theory and experimental results, and gives the 

 other credit for aiming at truth in his own way. 

 It is very clear to them that they are viewing 

 and approaching the same subject from different 

 points. 



So, also, there are some economists who lay 

 most stress upon the general principles of the 

 science and the conclusions to be deductively ob- 

 tained from them. Others prefer to lay stress 

 upon the observed facts of society and business, 

 showing the student how to work out such the- 

 ories as may be founded on the facts he observes. 



But it is an unpleasant fact that these two 

 classes of teachers do not, like their brethren the 

 physicists, mutually recognize each other as seek- 

 ing and reaching valuable tiiiths by different ways. 

 Theu- attitude toward each other resembles that of 

 the mediaeval philosophers more than that of the 

 modern scientists. Tliey divide themselves into 

 ' schools,' each of which seems very unwilling to 

 admit any truth in the system of the other. I 

 hold that this state of things is a great drawback 

 to the character and usefulness of economic 

 science, and propose to inquire whether there is 

 any necessity for its existence. 



Since we must agree upon a common end, I 

 shall assume such end to be the improvement of 

 society, either by promoting such pvibhc measures 

 and social movements as tend in that dii-ection, or 

 by discouraging and repressing those which tend 

 to injure society. It is true that this is viewing 

 the subject as an art and a policy rather than a 

 science, and, in fact, taking a stand-point wliich 

 detracts from its scientific dignity. But I am 

 careful to say that this practical end is not the im- 

 mediate subject which concerns us, but only the 

 ultimate object which we may have in view. 



Admitting, then, that a student desires to know 

 what measiu-es will benefit society, and what 

 measures will injure it, how shall he proceed in 

 acquirhag that knowledge'? I reply, he must be 

 able to ti-ace beneficial and injurious causes to 

 theu- effects upon the social organism. If the 

 knights of labor tell him that they want him to 

 favor an eight-hour law, he wants to foresee what 

 effect such a law will have on the interest of all 

 concerned, — wage-workers, mechanics, men out 

 of employment, and capitalists. So, also, when 

 two opposing parties want him to vote for or 

 against the coinage of silver, he cannot reach any 

 intelligent conclusion unless he can foresee what 

 effect free coinage or a cessation of coinage wiU 

 have upon industry, commerce, and wealth. In 

 a word, society being an extremely complicated 

 and dehcate organism, he must know what effects 

 different causes may have upon it. 



How shall he prepare himself for this gTeat 

 problem ? I answer, that he must prepare himself 

 as he would in the case of any other organism or 

 machine: he must begin by understanding the 

 anatomy and physiology of the social organism in 

 its minutest details. Especially must he under- 

 stand to what forces it is subjected, and what in- 

 fluence these forces have upon its workings. 



Possibly we may here be met with the assertion 

 that this is not a subject on which any exact 

 knowledge can be acquhred. There are respectable 

 people, even teachers of economics, who seem to 

 deny that they are deahng with a science. All 



