NOTES AND MEMORANDA.

THE Labor Association of London has begun the issue of a monthly periodical, entitled Labor Copartnership, the design of which is to record and promote "co-operative production based on the copartnership of the workers." Mr. E. O. Greening, the president of the association, offers a word of welcome in the opening number; and Mr. G. J. Holyoake also contributes a few words. The monthly will contain notes and news of the movement, and will be welcome to all. The subscription price is one penny a number. The central office of the association is at 9 John Street, Adelphi, London, W.C.

Another record of the progress of the same movement is given in Mr. D. F. Schloss's Report on Profit-sharing, made to the Labor Department of the Board of Trade, and noted in our list of current publications. Mr. Schloss's exhaustive inquiry is confined to the United Kingdom, and results in the enumeration of 165 undertakings in which something like profit-sharing has been practised. Of these, 152 are cases in which profit-sharing proper has been tried or is being tried. In 51 cases it no longer exists: in 101 it is still in force. By far the larger part of the experiments are of very recent date. Among the 101 cases in which profit-sharing is still in force, the dates of adoption are given thus:

This makes 85 cases since 1886, and 68 since 1889. Mr. Schloss gives careful details as to each case, and his report is thorough as to British experience up to the present date.

EARLY in the last summer it was announced that Professor Richard T. Ely, of the University of Wisconsin, was threat

ened with something like a trial for economic heresy. It appeared that Mr. O. E. Wells, State superintendent of Public Instruction and ex-officio a regent of the university, had charged Dr. Ely, in the columns of the New York Nation, with encouraging strikes and practising boycotts, with writing books which "abound in sanctimonious and pious cant," and contain "Utopian, impracticable, or pernicious doctrines " partially concealed, and, finally, with differing “as director of the School of Economics" in the university "from Ely, the socialist, only in the adroit and covert method of his advocacy." The regents of the university had then appointed a committee "to carefully investigate the charges made, the effect of Dr. Ely's teachings upon the students, and the whole matter connected therewith," and to report thereon.

Before the investigation was opened, Mr. Wells wrote to the committee, complaining that in preparing for their work they were unduly limiting the field of inquiry; and after their first open meeting he withdrew from the proceeding, and addressed them in a second letter. The Communications of Superintendent Wells to the Investigating Committee give at some length, but in confused form, Mr. Wells's grounds for his general charge of socialism, which is defended by a considerable number of references to Professor Ely's books and published articles. Not far from the same time a statement prepared by Professor Ely was read at Chautauqua, in which he explicitly denied the statements that he had encouraged or assisted strikes or boycotts, declared his disbelief in socialism, and pronounced anarchism to be "of hell," and finally referred with justifiable pride to his list of students at Johns Hopkins University in refutation of the alleged pernicious influence of his teachings. This statement was published in the Chautauqua Assembly Herald of August 15.

Whatever limitation of their field of inquiry the investigating committee may at any time have thought of observing, their report to the Board of Regents, which we have as printed in the Madison Democrat of September 19, takes up all the charges made by Mr. Wells in his original publication, and, to follow their own language, "the result is a complete vindication of Dr. Ely and the teachings and practices of our uni

versity." It is to be said that Mr. Wells had himself admitted a considerable failure of the evidence on which he had rested his charge of complicity with strikes and boycotts, and that the gist of his charge against Professor Ely's books appears to have been materially changed by his statement, repeated in different forms, that "the great reproach of all his writings is that no one can say positively what he thinks or would have his pupils believe." In their general exoneration of Professor Ely's publications and the instruction given by him the committee were confirmed by strong letters received from several leading economists, including the Hon. Carroll D. Wright and President Andrews of Brown University.

It has been said- we cannot say with how much truth— that this proceeding had its origin in one of those questions as to rival text-books, which are so often the obscure cause of warfare in educational matters in this country. But, whatever its origin, it is evident that behind the whole was a grave question which at last hardly saw the light,- the question as to the freedom of opinion and expression which can be claimed by a teacher who has been selected as qualified for university instruction. Suppose that the committee had found upon inquiry that Dr. Ely is a believer in socialism, a follower of Bellamy, or a corresponding member of the Fabian Society,what then? It is almost to be regretted that the whole case should have gone off upon certain issues of fact, and that the principle involved in the making of the charge originally, and the subsequent investigation of it by the regents, should not have been distinctly brought out as the matter which is, after all, of chief interest. The nearest approach to this subject is made by the committee in the following passage of their report:

[After referring to the great number of topics on which important publications have been issued by members of the University, the committee say,] Without doubt some things may have been written, not only on social economics, but also on history, hypnotism, geology, psychology, education, and law, with which many good people could not agree. We cannot, however, be unmindful of the fact that many of the universally accepted principles of to-day were but a short time ago denounced as visionary, impracticable, and pernicious. As regents of a university with over one hundred instructors, supported by nearly two millions of people who

hold a vast diversity of views regarding the great questions which at present agitate the human mind, we could not for a moment think of recommending the dismissal, or even the criticism, of a teacher, even if some of his opinions should, in some quarters, be regarded as visionary. Such a course would be equivalent to saying that no professor should teach anything which is not accepted by everybody as true. This would cut our curriculum down to very small proportions. We cannot for a moment believe that knowledge has reached its final goal, or that the present condition of society is perfect. We must therefore welcome from our teachers such discussions as shall suggest the means and prepare the way by which knowledge may be extended, present evils be removed, and others prevented. We feel that we would be unworthy the position we hold if we did not believe in progress in all departments of knowledge. In all lines of academic investigation it is of the utmost importance that the investigator should be absolutely free to follow the indications of truth wherever they may lead. Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe the great State University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found.

We are glad that this should go upon the record quantum valeat, but it still appears to us that the occasion was one on which a great State university might safely and usefully have given forth a more certain sound.

Failing this, the University of Wisconsin is to be congratulated on its escape from the task, with which it appeared to be menaced, of drawing the line between economic orthodoxy and economic heresy. Professor Ely is to be congratulated on the enjoyment of a truly uncovenanted mercy in having been made the defendant so greatly to his personal advantage. Job's desire was that his adversary had written a book; but Mr. Wells did far better than this for Professor Ely. As for Mr. Wells, we do not perceive any ground for congratulating him.

ROSCHER'S PROGRAMME OF 1843.

The late Professor Wilhelm Roscher must, beyond question, be regarded as the founder of the historical school of economists, so far as that part can be assigned to any one writer. It was the "Preface" to his Grundriss zu Vorlesungen über die Staatswirthschaft, nach geschichtlicher Methode (Outline of

Lectures on Political Economy, following the Historical Method) which sounded the first clear note of the new movement in academic circles, and inspired its further progress. It is, therefore, justly described by subsequent writers as a sort of manifesto, as a programme not only for Roscher's own scientific activity, but also for the future work of the historical school.

A brief abstract of these significant pages has been given by Professor Cohn in the first volume of his Grundlegung, and by Dr. Ingram in his History. But these omit some points essential to a complete estimate of Roscher's position. The Grundriss itself has never been reprinted. It is difficult to obtain; and it is very evident that not a few of those who have written about Roscher's place in the history of economicsboth among sympathizers and non-sympathizers have failed to give adequate attention to Roscher's own words. It may be worth while, accordingly, to print a translation of the "Preface" as a document, and in the interests of historical accuracy, now that attention is naturally being turned anew to Roscher's achievements.

The Grundriss is an octavo of 150 pages, published by the Dieterich house at Göttingen. It includes an "Introduction" of less than five pages, and four books entitled, "General Part" (including Production, Distribution, and Consumption of Goods, and occupying twenty-two pages); "National Economy," Volkswirthschaft (including a treatment, primarily historical and descriptive, of Agriculture, Industry, Trade, Population, and Poor Law, and occupying seventy-four pages); "State-household," Staatshaushalt (chiefly given up to Taxation and Public Finance, and taking forty-three pages); and a "Bibliography," or Literärgeschichte, of seven pages. Even these bare facts of arrangement are not without their significance. The work is made up of brief paragraphs, much as in Roscher's later treatises, but more compressed, omitting verbs, and often merely indicating the subjects discussed. It is preceded by the celebrated

PREFACE.

The following little work is simply intended for the purposes of the author's lectures. The more the subject-matter of political science