artisan was the idea
of a separation of the two schools. The fact is that the founder of
the historic school among us, the man who first introduced the idea,
was not Ely, but David A. Wells. Up to the outbreak of the civil
war, Mr. Wells had been a writer on scientific subjects without any
special known leaning toward economies; but after it broke out he
published a most noteworthy pamphlet, setting forth the resources of
our country for carrying on war and paying a debt, in terms so strong
as to command more attention than any similar utterance at the time.
This led to his appointment as Special Commissioner of Revenue,
with the duty of collecting information devising the best methods of
raising revenue. His studies in this line were very exhaustive, and
were carried on by the methods of the historic school of economics.
I was almost annoyed to find that, if any economic question was
presented to him, he rushed off to the experience of some particular
people or nation--it might be Sweden or Australia--instead of going
down to fundamental principles. But I could never get him interested
in this kind of analysis.

One of Professor Ely's early movements resulted in the organization of
the American Economic Association. His original plan was that this
society should have something like a creed to which its members were
expected to subscribe. A discussion of the whole subject appeared
in the pages of "Science," a number of the leading economists of
the country being contributors to it. The outcome of the whole
matter has been a triumph for what most men will now consider reason
and good sense. The Economic Association was scarcely more than
organized when it broke loose from all creeds and admitted into
its ranks investigators of the subject belonging to every class.
I think the last discussion on the question of two schools occurred
at the New York meeting, about 1895, after which the whole matter
was dropped and the association worked together as a unit.

As Professor Ely is still a leader on the stage, I desire to do him
justice in one point. I am able to do so because of what I have
always regarded as one of the best features of the Johns Hopkins
University--the unity of action which pervaded its work. There is
a tendency in such institutions to be divided up into departments,
not only independent of each other, but with little mutual help
or sympathy. Of course every department has the best wishes of
ever