« AnteriorContinuar »
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 15—MoRNING SESSION, 9 A. M. Business Meetings:
Election of officers. Appointment of standing committees. Reports and Resolutions, etc.
AFTERNOON SESSION, 2.30 P. M.
Anthropometric Statistics :
28. Dr. E. M. HARTWELL, Director of Physical Training of the Boston Public Schools, Preliminary Report on Anthropometry in the United States.
29. Dr. F. BOAS, late of Clark University, The Theory of Anthropometric Statistics.
30. Professor EDWARD HITCHCOCK, SR., Amherst College, Summary of Anthropometrical Studies in Relation to the Students of Amherst College.
31. Dr. C. J. ENNEBUSKE, Principal Boston Normal School of Gymnastics, An Anthropometrical Study of the Effects of the Gymnastic Training of American Women.
32. Dr. WASHINGTON PORTER, The Generalizing Method in Anthropometric Statistics.
Professor Dunbar being absent on account of sickness, his address of welcome was omitted. In addition to those announced to speak at the opening session, Hon. Carroll D. Wright delivered an address of welcome in behalf of the United States Government. At Tuesday morning's session all the papers were read except those by Dr. Mandello and Mr. Ford, which were presented by title; Mr. Conant's paper was read by Dr. E. R. L. Gould. In the afternoon, Dr. Wines' paper was the only one not read in full.
There was no session on Wednesday on account of the meeting of the American Economic Association that day. On Thursday all of the papers were read by the authors, except the one by Professor Cheysson, for whom Professor H. C. Adams acted as substitute, the one by Professor Körosi, "Remarks on the Scheme for International Classifications of Occupations," read by Dr. Davis R. Dewey; Mr. Gannett's paper, which Dr. E. R. L. Gould read, and Dr. Dike's paper presented by Professor E. W. Bemis, and the following, which were read by title: Hon. J. R. Dodge's paper on "The Cereal Products of the World," Mr. John Hyde's paper, Dr. Gould's paper, and Dr. Körosi's report on a "Population Standard." At Friday afternoon's session, Dr. Hartwell and Dr. Boas read their papers in full; the others were read by title.
The rule which the Institute adopted was to allow one hour for the presentation of each report and the discussion to follow it, and fifteen minutes for the presentation of general papers.
On Friday morning the former officers were re-elected, as follows: President, Sir Rawson W. Rawson, London; Vice-presidents, Professor Emile Levasseur, Paris, and Professor Wilhelm Lexis, Göttingen ; Secretary-General, Signor Luigi Bodio, Rome; Honorary Treasurer, J. B. Martin, Esq., London. The next meeting will be held in 1895, most likely at Brussels.
One of the most enjoyable events of the meeting was the reception tendered the delegates by the faculty of Northwestern University. Through the kindness of Mr. and Mrs. Potter Palmer it was held at their residence.
The following persons, in addition to those who took part in the programs, were registered as attending the sessions either of the Institute or of the Economic Association, or of both associations, members and invited guests of the Institute: Dr. Edward Atkinson, Boston; Professor W. O. Atwater, Smithsonian Institution; Professor Albert S. Bolles, Chief of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Industrial Statistics; Dr. Augusto Bosco, Rome; Mr. Horatio C. Burchard, exDirector of the Mint; Professor Richard T. Ely, University of Wisconsin; Dr. Konrad E. R. Engel, Berlin; Dr. Adolph Ernst, Mr. Weston Flint, Bureau of Education; Mr. Joseph Greenhut, Vienna; Professor Carl Johannes Fuchs, University of Greifswald; Mr. Frederick Hendriks, London; Mr. B. R. Lacy, Professor J. Lawrence Laughlin, University of Chicago; Professor Walther Lotz, University of Munich; Mr. L. G. Powers, Minnesota Commissioner of Labor Statistics; Dr. Phra Suriya, Royal Commissioner of Siam; Professor Isidor Singer, University of Vienna; Mr. W. M. Scott, Hon. Horace G. Wadlin, Massachusetts Commissioner of Statistics.
Members of the American Economic Association and of the American Statistical Association: Professor J. B. Clark, Amherst College; Dr. Charles H. Cooley, University of Michigan; Professor Edward Cummings, Harvard University; Professor Henry W. Farnam, Yale University; Professor Franklin H. Giddings, Bryn Mawr College; Professor John H. Gray, Northwestern University; Dr. D. I. Green, Johns Hopkins University; Dr. Edward M. Hartwell, Boston; Professor J. J. Halsey, Lake Forest University; Mr. F. B. Hawley, New York; Mr. George Henderson, University of Chicago; Professor Frederick C. Hicks, University of Missouri; Mr. William Hill, University of Chicago; Dr. Isaac A. Hourwich, University of Chicago; Mr. Osborne Howes; Professor Charles H. Hull, Cornell University; Mr. George Iles, New York; Professor Edmund J. James, University of Pennsylvania; Professor Jeremiah W. Jenks, Cornell University; Dr. Emory R. Johnson, University of Pennsylvania; Professor Simon N. Patten, University of Pennsylvania; Dr. William Z. Ripley, Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
Dr. Victor Rosewater, Columbia College; Professor Edward A. Ross, Leland Stanford Jr. University; Mr. H. R. Seager, Philadelphia; Professor E. R. A. Seligman, Columbia College; Professor F. M. Taylor, University of Michigan; Professor Graham Taylor, Hartford Theological Seminary; Dr. T. B. Veblen, University of Chicago; Mr. G. A. Weber; Dr. Max West, Minneapolis; Mr. Henry K. White, Mr. Edson L. Whitney, Professor Walter F. Wilcox, Cornell University.
THE PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION CONGRESS.
The Proportional Representation Congress, held under the auspices of the World's Congress Auxiliary of the World's Columbian Exposition, met in the Memorial Art Institute in Chicago, August 10, II and 12, 1893. The following was the program of the congress :
THURSDAY, AUGUST 10, 10 A. M.
Proportional Representation, by Professor JOHN R. COMMONS, of the University of Indiana.
Manhood vs. Property Representation, by Mr. JOHN T. WHITE, of Chicago.
FRIDAY, AUGUST II, 10 A. M.
Ticino as an Object Lesson, by Mr. W. D. MCCRACKAN, of Boston. Effective Voting, by Miss CATHERINE H. SPENCE, of Adelaide, South Australia.
The Proxy System as a Means of Real Representation, by Dr. MONTAGUE R. LEVERSON, of Baltimore.
Solution of the Problem of Proportional Representation, by Lieut.Col. T. CURRIE, of Versailles, France.
2 P. M.
Majority Myths, by Mr. ALFRED CRIDGE, of San Francisco. The Gove System, by Mr. Wм. H. GOVE, of Salem, Mass. Proportional Voting in Caucus and Convention, by Dr. L. B. TUCKERMAN, of Cleveland.
SATURDAY, AUGUST 12, 10 A. M. Referendum and Minority Representation, by Mr. W. D. McCRACKAN, of Boston.
Direct Legislation, by Mr. STOUGHTON COOLEY, of Chicago.
Of all the good things accomplished through the means of the Columbian Exposition, few, if any, are of more importance than the calling together of the friends of reform in representation. For more than a generation there have been advocates of proportional representation here and there in the United States, but they have never felt themselves able to effect any organization to promote their reform. That, under such circumstances and in the exceedingly
brief period of time available, there should be brought together so many advocates of proportional representation shows how deeply the reform has taken root.
It was the desire of those having the arrangements in charge that all phases of the subject might be presented, and that after mature deliberation an American League might be formed whose membership should embrace Canada and the United States. Indeed, it was barely hoped that sufficient attendance from abroad might warrant the formation of an international society; but the time was so brief that members of the foreign proportional representation societies could not be got together.
It was also hoped that the deliberations of the congress might result in such harmonious action that the new league could present to the public a single system for their consideration. In this there was partial disappointment, as the committee which drew up the declaration of principles was compelled finally to present two systems. All were agreed that some form of proportional representation was the cure for legislative ills, but many differed in matters of detail. And while it would have shown a greater unity of purpose had one plan been agreed upon, the presentation of two plans may the better harmonize with the various political opinions in different parts of the country.
John R. Commons, Professor of Social Science in the Indiana University, presented in his address proportional representation as a whole. "We are a law-abiding people," he said, "yet the laws are made by a minority of the people, and by an irresponsible oligarchy more dangerous than that our fathers revolted against. The Congress which passed the McKinley bill did not represent the people. There was a Republican majority of three, but according to the popular vote there should have been a Democratic majority of seven. In the succeeding Congress there was supposed to be the most momentous upheaval in the history of American politics. The Democrats had a majority of 119 over all. But had the people been represented this majority would have been only 39. In the present Congress the Democrats have a majority of 79, whereas they should be in a minority of 28; the people's party should have 31 instead of 8; and the Republicans 152 instead of 129. To call our Congress representative is the essence of sarcasm. The same is true of every other lawmaking body in the land. To mention only one State: Indiana elects thirteen Congressmen. According to the popular vote they should stand seven Democrats and six Republicans. According to the gerrymander there were eleven Democrats and only two Republicans. In other words, every Hoosier Democrat whom you meet has an
influence on the legislation of his country equal to that of five and two-fifths Hoosier Republicans.” Professor Commons advocated the Swiss system of representation as a cure for the present misrepresentation. "Proportional representation would bring into legislative assemblies able and experienced men, the true leaders of their parties and the people. In the first place, it would secure all the advantages of the English and Canadian practice of non-residency. The area of choice is widened. Representatives would be selected from an entire State without reference to residence or district lines. A party leader like McKinley or Morrison could no longer be excluded from Congress because he happened to live in a district where his party had the minority, or where a gerrymander had shelved him. So long as his party could command a single quota of votes of the State he would be their repeated choice. He would not be at the mercy of party factions and spoilsmen which happened to hold the balance of power."
Mr. White, in his address on "Manhood vs. Property Representation," pointed out the tendency of Americans to value property more than persons. While in theory we based our representation on persons, in reality property was the thing represented. One of the most persistent of the objections urged against the adoption of proportional representation is that it destroys local representation. Now, what is local representation? What does the Congressman represent who is elected from a particular district? The people of that district might have preferred as their representative a man living in some other district, but they were not given the opportunity of choosing him. Instead of the citizens of the State being allowed to choose anybody they saw fit, the representatives were apportioned among them according to the geographical lines of the State. Instead of men and ideas, the Congressmen represented territory and property. The remedy lay in wiping out the district lines, and allowing the citizen to choose anybody he sees fit to represent him. Mr. White favored the Swiss method of applying proportional representation.
W. D. McCrackan, in his address on "Ticino as an Object Lesson," had the advantage of presenting a supposedly impracticable principle with an actual working example before him. The friction caused in the little Italian canton by the unequal representation of the two factions led to open revolt against the government, and the feeling aroused was only allayed by the adoption of proportional representation. The system introduced has worked so well that two other cantons have adopted it, and it seems on the eve of adoption by the whole Confederation. "The system is that of the Free List, with local variations. Each party establishes its list of candidates, which