New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-01-15
A BARREN SCIENCE.
PROFESSORS INSTRUCTED BY A LAYMAN.


l2mo., PIP. ASS. d. Appleton & Co.
This is something more than q book about the
tariff question Ii is an effort ascertain whether
Professors of political economy have any knowi-
edge of principles applicable to the guidance oil
nations The author describes himself as a
layman 1T should prove that he has clearer
conception of the principles of national economy
and of the laws which govern the creation ana
distribution of wealth, than the Professors who
make most boast of their protested scientihc
knowledge, it would not be very strange. They
ayowedly deal with distractions; with species oil
q economic man. nowhere now eXtant on this
plauet But q practical man, who has been
trained to the facts OF business as e. Is. Blgeiow
was. or 10 the knowledge of human beings which
lawyer and statesman like Governor Hoyt
REQUIRES has at least some information about the
world in which hc lives and the Industries and
trades by which wealth is in fact created Hence IL
comes to pass that such works as the one published
by +. b. Bigelow twenty five years ago, and by the
Ex-Governor of Pennsylvania to-day. have IL them
more of practical application to the needs OF the
world as 1t Is than can be found in the teachings OF
AL the econom sts of the English school The
melting cause of the preparation of this book is
frankly stated by the author in his preface. with
customary dogmatisn, Professor Perry had treated
contemptuOusly some remarks on an economic ques
ton. Governor HOyt says:
The following pages are the result of friendly
challenge to me by an eminent professor OF poutla
- economy in "a New Engand college to investigate
that science. especially its teaching i'll relation 10
protective tariffs The challenge was accompanied
by the confident prediction: " III you pursue III 10
any length YOU Will certainly come to throw over
board with scorp the sylvania notion that the
way to grow rich is TO stop, by law. proltapl"
production: together with the Professors formu-
lated conclusion " Protection, poisonous IN every
root and fibre droops and dies the moment the light
of common sense aud rational INQUIRY falls upon
IT. Iayman though was, could not we'll refuse
to take up the gauntlet thus thrown down by the
Professor.
\ The author docs not disclaim a certain prejudg-
ment in favor of the protective system, but says
That however, was other than the genera!
conviction expressed by DR.. William Roscber the
distinguished Professor of Political Economy at the
University of Leipsc, that " the person who has
only a modest opinion OF the power of his own
reason, and therefore just one OF the reason OF
other men and other times, VIII not believe lhaI
system like the industrial protective system, wnch
the greatest tbeOrZers and practitioners favored toI
centuries. and which governed all highly developed
countries in certain periods OF their national lie.
proceeded entirely from error and deception" Nor,
again, did believe that, III nation Win the quick
and trained commercial instincts OF the Americans
such a system could be founded in mere greed,
jobberv and Congressional lOg-i ollng ii the prac-
tice had been found expedent, some reasons could
be found justifyin9 it.
He begins by stating the pretensions of the So
called science, aud then inquirnG what its Pro-
fessors actually agree in teaching. The issue
between free trade aud protection it is affirmed, is
settled by the principles of the science:
In that science. it is insisted, IS body OF
reasoned truth upon which we may take our stand
in it is q coherent system OF doctrine whlcn cadS us
TO actual verities accessible to all men of average
comprehension equally available TO the professor
or the merchant. the farmer aud the manufacturer
The sfudent and the statesman Surely, II there ne
such q system, the millions of quick. acute ana
trained minds engaged III the wonderful INDUSTRIAL
and commercial enterprises of our own times must
come to some agreement touching drst principles,
and the inevitable consequences flowing from
man at his desk onght TO agree as to tic truth, II
there is ascertained truth IN tue case.
Do the theories of tie so-caled Professors accord
with actual events! In mis- Political Economy
edition of 1873 Professor Perry had described the
doctrine of protection as everywhere in lis
decrepitude" aud affirmed that the centennial of
American independence would probably witness
very little practical vitality i'll it anywhere in the
world.D In 1883, " with somewhat bafled expecta-
ton" be was compelled to note that " the ccnteu-
NAL of independence found it lingering energy OF
evil especially IN :be United States" Governor
Uoyt remarks: EThe Professor might have added,
undar the malign and crude empricism of such
statesmen as Bismarck and Theirs, also in Germany
and France and as If in the very irony OF science,
in Canada and Victoria Other writer's it is noted.
have been not successful in agreeing with tie
facts of the worlds history or even with each
other Colonel Tonens more than sixty years ago
had declared that twenty years hence there will
scarcely exist a donbt respecting any of tue
fundamental principles of the science" But at the
end of twenty years. Professor Senior pointed out
the want of deiniteness in nearly all the principal
terms employed ia the so-cailed science. Professor
Perry himself recently has found il necessary
to abolish the word wealth" outright. and Pro
lessor JevODs does the same with value" Pro-
fcssor Carnes says: " So far from the period OF
controversy having passed, it seems hardly yet to
have begun" In the very definition of the science
its teachers arc unable to agree, as is shown by
many quotations. Professor Perry ahirms that
@anything whatsoever that is salab!e or can he
made so comes within its view ami scientifically 1t
cares nothing whatever for anything else" This
definition which perhaps expresses as well as any
other the conceptions of the school which Professor
Perry represents. is contrasted with those OF lead
ing English economists not greatly to IT'S advan-
tage But in the second chapter similar disagree
rpent among the teachers of the science is traced to
nearly every topic of which it treats. It's Pro-
fessors differ about the motives which govern men.
ard about the instruments by which wealth is
created; they differ about rent aud capital and
cannot agree about who are and who are rot
laborers; they differ about the meaning of value,
and what is money; some affirm that the Nautilus
ian theory is the foundation OF correct science, but
Others that it has nothing to do with the science;
and some affirm that there is a wages fund. but
Others deny that any such fund exists or ever has
existed. Respecting the motives of which the
science takes cognizance Adam Smith considers
men as actuatcd solely by selfishness; Mr. Mill
maintains that the science proceeds on tho supp
sition that man is being who is determined, by
the necessity of his nature, to prefer greater
portion of wealth than q smaller IN all cases,
without any other exception than that constituted
by the two counter motives already specified. Not
that aug political economist aas ecer so absurd as to
supposo that mankind really thus constituted, but
because this is the mode in which science must
necessarily proceed" Professor Perry and other
writer's agree with Mr. Mill in this narrowing of the
so-caled science but even these writers are unable
De-