THE Rivista Italiana di Sociologia, whose appearance was referred to in the last issue of this Journal, has now become the sole Italian periodical in its field, its predecessor, the Rivista di Sociologia, having been discontinued. The Rivista Italiana maintains a high level of excellence, and will command the attention of all students of its special subjects.

AMONG the publications of the quarter we note the third volume of Professor Cohn's System der National-oekonomie and the second volume of Professor Nicholson's Principles of Political Economy. Two books of reference on social questions, which have been appearing in parts, are now completed: the Cyclopædia of Social Reforms, edited by Mr. W. D. P. Bliss; and the Handbuch des Socialismus, edited by Messrs. Hugo and Stegman.

DURING the quarter just elapsed the resignation of President Andrews of Brown University, now happily withdrawn, raised once more some questions as to the relations between the governing boards and the administrators and teachers of our universities; and the incident deserves to be put on record, aiding, as it did, to clear the general situation, and finally to uphold the principle of freedom in thought and expression.

On June 17 a committee was appointed by the Corporation of the university to confer with the President regarding "the best interests of the university." Such a conference was held some weeks later; and, as is common with verbal interviews, there proved to be varying recollections of what then passed. But the community was informed of the situation through the publication, in July, of a formal written communication which had been presented by the committee of conference to the

President, and of the letter of resignation which he had sent to the Corporation. The committee's communication stated that the reason for its appointment was dissatisfaction with the President's views on the free coinage of silver, and that it was hoped he would refrain from "promulgating" these views. The ground stated for this request was a fear that the course of the President would prevent an inflow of gifts and legacies, and would deprive the institution of needed pecuniary support; the reference to the loss of gifts and legacies being doubtless meant to indicate that it was in his capacity as administrative head rather than as teacher that the President was requested to refrain from stating his views on the mooted question. On the other hand, the highest appreciation was expressed as to his general services as administrator, and "for him, personally, the warmest admiration and regard."

The case thus stated raised simply and solely the question of the propriety of regulating the expression of opinions on public questions by an academic officer of admitted zeal, ability, and competence for his task. On that question, no distinction could be made between the case of president and professor; nor could any other answer be given than a flat negative. Hence opinions were offered with a freedom that would not have been warranted, had the question been one simply as to the mode in which Brown University was to be administered. A brief memorial, expressing the opinion "that the future influence of American universities and the interests of free thought and free speech under a just sense of responsibility would be promoted by such action on the part of the Corporation as might naturally lead to the withdrawal of the resignation of President Andrews," was signed by the presidents of a number of universities (among them Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Columbia, Wisconsin, Dartmouth), by many professors, and by men of eminence in affairs and in public life. A letter signed by teachers of economics from all parts of the country expressed an earnest hope for such action as would "uphold and affirm, without possibility of misunderstanding, the principle of academic freedom." And an open letter, addressed to the Corporation by a large num

ber of the members of the faculty of the institution, pleaded for the maintenance of "its honorable and priceless traditions of academical freedom."

At the meeting of the Corporation on September 1 resolutions were passed asking President Andrews to withdraw his resignation, and stating that "it was not and is not the purpose of the Corporation in this matter to interfere with or abridge your independence of individual thought or expression." The previous action of the Corporation had "removed the misapprehension that your individual views on this question represent those of the Corporation and the university." President Andrews accordingly, after a brief delay due to other engagements entered on in the mean while, withdrew his resignation.

The sound principle in cases of this sort, we conceive, can be very briefly stated. The utterances of a president or professor, whether in the class-room or out of it, are not matters to which the governing board of an institution of learning must be indifferent. They are evidence of conduct and capacity; but evidence only, to be used with all the other evidence bearing on the competence of the individual for the tasks intrusted to him. In the language of one of the communications addressed to the Corporation of Brown University in this case, "no questions should enter except as to capacity, faithfulness, and general efficiency in the performance of appointed duty." On these qualities the public utterances of an individual may throw light, and are to be considered only in so far as they throw light. It must always be dangerous, and must open the door to abuse of power as well as to misconception of the aim in view, if inquiry is made as to the opinions expressed by an academic officer on disputed public questions; but, if such inquiry is made with a view to secure evidence as to fitness for the appointed tasks, the question becomes simply one of expediency in entering on it and good faith in carrying it out. But where general competence is freely admitted, and only the statement of certain specific opinions is subjected to criticism, the principle of freedom is at stake; and the only sound

policy is that which the Corporation of Brown University followed in the end, and, indeed, may be fairly presumed to have had in mind from the start.

THE Workmen's Compensation Act, passed in the last session of the English Parliament, marks an entirely new departure in social legislation. It provides a method of compensation for accidents which differs alike from the attempts heretofore made in England to enforce employers' liability and from the German scheme of compulsory insurance. The text of the important parts of the act is printed in the Appendix. It may be of service to present here a summary statement of its provisions, together with some memoranda as to the discussion on certain of the points involved.

For every accident in the course of a workman's employment the employer is made liable to pay compensation, provided that the accident is such as to disable the workman for at least two weeks from earning full wages. The civil liability of the employer, nevertheless, for personal negligence or wilful act, remains undisturbed, and a workman may still, if he chooses, take such action as was open to him before this act; while, on the other hand, compensation cannot be obtained for an accident attributable to the workman's own serious and wilful misconduct. The amount of compensation under the act is to be settled by arbitration, either by consent or by the intervention of the county court, within the limits of a scale (set forth in the First Schedule), giving in the case of fatal injury to a man leaving dependants either £150 or three years' wages (whichever sum be the larger), and, in case of disablement, half the weekly wages so long as disability continues. In case of an accident to a workman in the service of a sub-contractor the liability is made to rest on the original "undertaker"; and this not only as to compensation under the act, but also in respect of personal negligence or wilful act independently of it. Thus the doctrine of "common em

ployment" is incidentally abolished. "Contracting out" is permitted only where the Registrar of Friendly Societies certifies that the advantages of a scheme of benefit or insurance, which the employer proposes to substitute for the liability under the act, are not less than those offered by the act; but no scheme is to be certified which contains an obligation on the part of workmen to accept it as a condition of hiring. The act is made to apply only to workmen in railways, factories, mines, quarries, or engineering works, and on building works where there are scaffoldings above thirty feet high or in which machinery is employed. For the present, therefore, neither merchant shipping, agriculture, nor domestic service comes within its scope.

The act raises many points of theoretical and practical interest. The quotations which follow from the speeches of the ministers responsible for the measure will cast some light on the most important issues involved. Those from Mr. Chamberlain, the real author of the act, are especially noteworthy.*

1. The measure proceeds on a principle altogether different from that of the existing Employers' Liability Acts, in that it does not impose penalties upon employers for negligence, but casts upon them the burden of compensation in all cases of accident, without inquiry as to the default of either party except in extreme cases.

Sir M. W. Ridley, the Home Secretary, on introducing the bill, explained that its principle was the same as that of the amendment moved by Mr. Chamberlain to Mr. Asquith's abortive Employers' Liability Bill of 1893, and thus stated it:

:

"The serious results of accidents cannot be held to be adequately met by merely giving the workman a right of action in respect of the negligence of an employer, or of any person for whom he was responsible; and it is felt that the workman or his representatives ought to have a right to compensation at the expense not of the rates or of public charity, but of the industry in which he was engaged."

The quotations are from the reports of the Parliamentary debates in the Times: unless otherwise stated, from the issue of May 4.