SCIEN'GE. 



[Vol. VIII., No. 178 



popular debate, that many refuse to attempt it 

 under any circumstances. Points are brought up 

 which require lengthy elucidation, and that must 

 be compressed into a single sentence which ought 

 to be elaborated in an entire article. Then it is 

 necessary to assume certain primary considera- 

 tions ; for, should it be endeavored to begin at the 

 beginning and prove satisfactorily to the writers 

 themselves every step taken, it would end in the 

 construction of a complete scientific treatise which 

 might fiU several volumes. I believe the repre- 

 sentatives of the new school of economics who 

 undertook to prepare a series of articles for 

 Science on a number of economic topics were ful- 

 ly aware of the difficulties of their task, and it is 

 certain that the invitation of the editor of this 

 journal was accepted with hesitation. Neverthe- 

 less, I must be allowed to express satisfaction with 

 the general course of the discussion so far, and I 

 am convinced that the readers of Science have ob- 

 tained new and valuable ideas from the able articles 

 both of Dr. Seligman and of Professor James. How- 

 ever familiar the views so weU set forth in these 

 articles may be to Professor Newcomb, there is no 

 evidence of an acquaintance with them on the part 

 of what might be called the educated American 

 public, and it is unquestionable that they differ in 

 radical particulars from the economic doctrines 

 cim^'ent in our magazine and newspaper literature. 

 As a matter of course, these articles have been 

 scarcely more than suggestive. It was not intended 

 that they should be exhaustive, for that was im- 

 possible within the limits of the assigned space. 



Professor Newcomb's article illustrates vividly 

 the difficulties of a discussion of economic theo- 

 ries in a periodical. He sweeps over an immense 

 field, touching on the development of economic 

 doctrines, on the functions of the state, enlarging 

 a little more on the relations of economics to ethics, 

 and concluding with an irrelevant allusion to the 

 condition of American shipping. 



I should desne a volume — and a large one — to 

 expose all the errors which, in my opinion, are 

 implied in the article of the distinguished mathe- 

 matician of the Johns Hopkins university. I will 

 nevertheless endeavor to set a few of the points 

 involved before the readers of Science in such a 

 manner as to enable them to understand better 

 the nature of the controversy, and to help them to 

 foUow out the argument in their own thoughts. 



First, I must begin with a personal explanation. 

 There seems to be an implication, though doubt- 

 less inadvertent, in the article of my learned col- 

 league, that I am a socialist. True, I believe that 

 the state has its industrial sphere, and that a larger 

 one than many have been inclined to think ; but 

 I hold quite as strenuously that the individual has 



a sphere of economic action which is an equallj'^ 

 important one. I condemn alike that individual- 

 ism which would allow the state no room for in- 

 dustrial activity, and that socialism wliich would 

 absorb in the state the functions of the individual. 

 Doubtless I have written more or less about social- 

 ism, and 1 have attempted to tell the truth about 

 socialists, for I have not believed that the gener- 

 ally accepted lies about them could be of any avail 

 to society. The university of which I have the 

 honor to be a member has adopted for its motto the 

 grand sentence, ' Veritas vos liberabit.' This I ac- 

 cept and have found a source of inspiration. I may 

 go even further. I beheve that the socialists have 

 added to our stock of economic knowledge, and that 

 we have a great deal to learn from them. On the 

 other hand, it is safe to say, that, among those who 

 are known as the new school of political economistSj 

 there is not a single one who could be called an 

 adherent of socialism, pure and simple. It is, I 

 beheve further, safe to assert that pure socialism is. 

 advocated by no teacher of political economy in any 

 American college or university. Professor New- 

 comb finds the present economic discussion — as 

 yet incomplete, be it remembered — disappointing, 

 and because more has not been said about the state, 

 since " the main point in which the new school is 

 supposed to differ from the other is that it looks 

 with more favor upon government intervention in 

 the processes of industry and trade." Of all the 

 articles in this series, only one deals exclusively 

 with the state ; and yet the topics were selected by 

 the writers of these articles. Is not this in itself a 

 sufficient refutation of this popular supposition ? 

 What those who consented to write these articles 

 desired was to place before the readers of Science 

 an outline of their fundamental doctrines. They 

 wished to present then* opinions as they in reality 

 are, not as people might suppose them to be. In 

 my article I ventured the opinion that the radical 

 difference between the old and the new school con- 

 sisted, not in the views held of the state, but in 

 the establishment of a new relation between ethics 

 and economics. Others, possibly the majority, 

 find the main difference in method, about which 

 Professor Smith of Columbia is to contribute an 

 article. It is necessary in all discussion to grasp 

 the fundamental fact that what one believes, and 

 what one is said to believe, are two quite different 

 things. 



Professor Newcomb claims that nothing new has 

 been said in regard to the state, because every one 

 is willing to admit that state intervention is right if 

 it is useful. I am glad that it is admitted that state 

 intervention is considered as merely a question of 

 utility. It is a great deal to have gained that point, 

 and to be able to quote Professor Newcomb in favor 



