Joint Session of the Historical and Economic Associations.

The meeting of the Historical and Economic Associations in Sanders Theatre yesterday afternoon was largely attended. The papers were all scholarly and interesting, and attention was maintained throughout. At the close of the session a reception was given in University Hall.

Professor E. J. James opened the exercises. The following is an abstract of his paper:

"OUR LEGAL TENDER DECISIONS."

The history of the currency is an all-important question in American finance to-day. The legal-tender decisions in the United States illustrate important questions arising under the Constitution, and the power of the executive is shown pre-eminently. The court, if it had had an opportunity to decide upon the constitutionality of the legal-tender laws, before those laws had been passed by Congress, a different decision might have been made. As it was, the laws came to the court with all the prestige of the approval of a co-ordinate branch of the government. The decisions of the court show a marked tendency toward granting increased powers to Congress. In the second decision the court took cognizance of the economic questions involved in the issue of inconvertible notes. In the final decision the court refused to ask itself whether paper currency was economically wise or not, hence the increased majority in favor of the power of Congress to issue paper. The burden of proof lies on those who wish to prove that the legal-tender laws were unconstitutional. It would be idle to try to discover the intentions of those who framed the Constitution. Law cannot inquire into such obscure questions. The words must be interpreted as they are written. The views of the "fathers" were divergent on the question of paper money. Some were against giving the power to Congress, others were in favor, so no clause whatever was inserted, thus leaving the contest to the future. The opinions of Marshall, which followed the formation of the Constitution, were all in favor of according the power to Congress. Later on, Webster and Story agreed with Marshall. The court in its last case has given us a decision that will stand the test of time. The United States government is to have all powers which other governments possess, unless such powers are forbidden by the Constitution.

The next paper was delivered by Dr. Hart. His topic was,

"THE BIOGRAPHY OF A RIVER AND HARBOR BILL."

To write a complete history of an act of Congress was, said Dr. Hart, impossible; he should attempt only to trace the outward life of the River and Harbor Bill of 1887, as an illustration of the methods of Congress and of financial legislation.

He followed the bill from the estimates of the engineers and the Secretary of War through the committee on rivers and harbors, and then into the House. He described the debate and the filibustering, and the trick by which the bill passed without amendment. It was largely increased in the Senate, and finally settled in the conference committee. He then discussed what he called the moral character of the bill. It was not extravagant in comparison with previous bills, but it contained many items which were plainly for local improvements in unknown places. He showed a map on which a red wafer marked each place for which appropriations were made by the bill, and mentioned among others Mispillion Creek, Carrituek Sound, Coanjok Bay, Chefuncte River and Bogue Phalia, and proposed to turn over to the Modern Language Association the Skagit, Nootsack Stelaquamish. Snokomish and Snoqualmie Rivers. Often the improvement was of use to nobody, as in the case of one river which could be carried by a twelve-inch drain. In another case, the Fox and Winconsin Rivers, the government had spent two and a half millions on improvement of use only to a water-power company. He criticised the system of beginning many improvements and completing almost none, and the interference of Congress with the Secretary of War.

In a brief summary he declared that the bill was prepared by a laborious committee and introduced by an honest chairman. It contained some provisions good and useful, and some needless, wasteful and badly applied. There was an opportunity for fair debate in the House. The Senate loaded it with amendments, some of them iniquitous, and the House conferees yielded to them. It was passed because a majority of the members were interested in some specific appropriation which could not be obtained without voting the whole bill. The President refused his signature, and thus the bill was lost. It failed because, while pretending to be for the public good, its real basis was a combination of private and ignoble interests.

Mr. Carroll D. Wright spoke upon

"THE STUDY OF STATISTICS IN AMERICAN COLLEGES.'

He began with an enumeration of the advantages which, Americans who study statistics possess. No European country has yet had the courage to take an industrial census upon the vast scale of the one of 1880 in the United States.

Mr. Wright then gave a description of the various schools and bureaux of statistics in Europe showing the course of study there laid down. America has no parallel to the schools of Europe, although she has better opportunities for this study. Johns Hopkins, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Columbia give courses in statistical science which are valuable. The advantages of theoretical training are incalcuable. Experience with practical situations has shown the need of the study of statistical science as a theory, giving one thereby the ability to use the facts which he has discovered. However the word theory misleads the public. It would be better to banish its use in connection this science. The statistician should have the power to foresee the analysis which facts stimulate. He should comprehend the complete report before he makes up the details. The best way in way in which this object can be obtained is through scientific study and training. The teaching in colleges should embrace the theory, the practice and the analytical treatment of the results secured. Then men in the statistical bureaux would have that scientific knowledge which is valuable in practice. Social science should be taught in our colleges. The development of the human race cannot be considered as an object too insignificant for the study of undergraduates. The United States and the States should create experienced statisticians, that the census might be taken by competent men.

The government should supplement college instruction by administrative training. There is no danger that the demand shall not equal the supply. Men need not fear that training in statistical science will prove to be a wast. A statistican should not be an advocate. He should not thrust forward his preconceived notions.