July 2, 1886.] 



SCIUJ^CM 



of the position. This is very different from the ordi- 

 nary view, which is that the state has' no right to 

 participate in economic and industrial hfe. Some 

 time ago Dr. Lyman Abbott wrote an article for 

 the Century magazine in which he raised the ques- 

 tion, whether the United States would not have 

 done better to build and manage itself the Pacific 

 railways rather than to give vast empires of land, 

 and millions in money, to corporations to induce 

 them to construct those great highways. His 

 argument was presented with a great deal of force ; 

 but, in a later issue of the magazine, space was 

 given for an objection. In what did the objection 

 consist ? Simply the dogmatic assumption that it 

 was not the province of government to construct 

 and manage railways. It was not regarded by 

 the writer as essential to prove that it would not 

 have been useful. When the question was raised 

 recently in Philadelphia, whether the public gas- 

 works should be sold to a private corporation, 

 many newspapers thought it an argument to urge 

 that it was not the function of a municipality to 

 furnish gas. These are typical cases ; and it is, I 

 repeat, a satisfaction to be able to cite Professor 

 Newcomb as an authority against such dogmatism. 



Again : the article by Dr. James is criticised be- 

 cause 'there is so little to object to in it.' This is 

 another concession which must give satisfaction to 

 many members of the new school. It differs widely 

 from prevailing public opinion ; and even so lib- 

 eral and progressive a man as Professor Taussig 

 thinks that Professor James ' goes too far.' A new 

 theory of taxation is suggested by Dr. James, 

 which is, I think, of far-reaching importance. It 

 is not at present received either by our legislative 

 or our judicial bodies. 



Professor Newcomb's position as first stated, in 

 regard to the development of economic thought, 

 differs not in one whit from that of the new school. 

 Adherents of this school all regard economics as 

 a development, and, without exception, they value 

 the works of their predecessors. They were the 

 first in America to give a proper position to Adam 

 Smith, Ricardo, and Malthus, by the introduc- 

 tion of courses in the history of political economy 

 into our colleges. In the ' Statement of princi- 

 ples ' of the American economic association, it is 

 expressly declared that ' we appreciate the work 

 of former economists.' Again : it is j)leasant to 

 be able to agree with Professor Newcomb ; but, as a 

 matter of fact, this is a different opinion from that 

 which was a short time ago current. Writers, not 

 long since, looked uj^on political economy as a 

 comj)lete and perfect science, true for all times and 

 all places. Buckle and Lord Sherbrooke advocated 

 this view ; and even Professor Laughlin of Har- 

 vard, who probably does not regard himself at all 



as a representative of the extreme 'orthodox' 

 school, conveys the impression, in his useful Uttle 

 work on methods of instruction in economics, 

 that there is, after all, not much constructive work 

 to be done in our science. When Professor New- 

 comb, however, begins to criticise Dr. Seligman, 

 I am iinable to agree with him ; for he speaks as if 

 political economy were a mathematical science, 

 with a body of trath unchangeable and eternal, 

 like the statement, " A straight line is the shortest 

 distance between two points." It is, according to 

 this view, only the application of fixed principles 

 which must be changed with time and place. Now, 

 what is this body of mathematical truth in econom- 

 ics ? There are some truisms in economics of 

 that nature ; but a large and important body of 

 such principles I have never been able to discover, 

 though I have searched for it long and diligently. 

 It seems to me that Professor Newcomb fails to 

 distinguish between mathematical sciences and 

 those which are more descriptive in their nature, 

 and have to do with growing, changing bodies. 



This brings us naturally to Professor Newcomb's 

 objection to my conception of economics as a 

 science concerned with what ought to be, — an 

 objection which it seems to me, though very 

 natural in a mathematician, is not valid. I be- 

 lieve all sciences which treat of concrete organ- 

 isms consider what ought to be as well as what is. 

 The scientific physician treats of the perfect body 

 as well as of the diseased, imperfect body. The 

 biologist observes living forms, and expresses ap- 

 proval and disapproval. Natural sciences treat 

 continually of purpose and adaptation to ends. 

 Who can so well treat of social remedies as he 

 who has studied society? Why stop when we 

 have reached that point which first renders our 

 science useful ? 



Professor Newcomb implies the argument, for- 

 merly a favorite one and stUl too common, that 

 selfishness and enlightened philanthropy lead to 

 the same ends. Observation does not confirm 

 this. To a certain extent then* courses will be 

 parallel ; but in important particulars there will 

 be a divergence, and that divergence wUl be the 

 difference between health and disease. His illus- 

 tration of the treatment of the servant ' Cuffee ' 

 is pertinent. A careful observer will note a very 

 different treatment of him by a selfish lady, and 

 one who apphes the dictates of ethics to her every- 

 day Hfe. This difference will affect the welfare 

 of ' Cuffee ' materially. I dismiss the question 

 " Would he (Professor Ely) have Cuffee trained 

 into a novelist, a chemist, or a metaphysician ? " 

 as not pertinent to the discussion, and as being, in 

 fact, the exact opposite of what I did say. Not 

 to weary the readers of Science, and not to make 



