A New Municipal Program. Edited by CLINTON ROGERS WOODRUFF. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1919. Pp. x+392. $2.25.

In 1913 the National Municipal League appointed a committee on municipal program. In 1915 this committee submitted a model city charter which was approved by the league. The present volume may be considered as a brief for the model charter and the municipal program which it represents.

Preceding the charter itself are fourteen chapters written by various members of the committee, elaborating, explaining, and defending the conclusions embodied in the document. Among the authors and their contributions are the following: "Experts in Municipal Government and the New Model Charter," by Abbott Lawrence Lowell; "Civil Service and Efficiency," by William Dudley Foulke; "Administrative Organization," by Herman G. James; "The Council," by William Bennett Munro; "The Franchise Policy of the New Municipal Program,' by Delos F. Wilcox; "Financial Provisions of the New Municipal Program," by John A. Fairlie; "City Planning," by M. N. Baker; "Business Management for City Courts," by Herbert Harley.

The editor has been more than ordinarily successful in welding these parts into a coherent whole. The result is a book of reference valuable alike to the student and to the charter draftsman. Avowedly propaganda for the program of the National Municipal League, the book seems well calculated to fulfil its function.

The program itself is too well known among students to justify any attempt at critical comment in so brief a notice as this. But the general reader should perhaps be warned lest he be led by the inclusive title to expect discussions of housing, recreation, education, and other aspects of a complete municipal program which the present volume makes no pretense of treating.

GOUCHER COLLEGE

STUART A. QUEEN

Public Education in the United States: A Study and Interpretation

of American Educational History. By E. P. CUBBERLEY. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1919. Pp. xxv+517. $1.80.

The author announces this book as "an introductory textbook dealing with the larger problems of present day education in the light of their historical development." In it he has broken new ground in

the writing of histories of education. The departure is of interest to sociologists, for whereas practically all former histories of education have dealt largely with educational theory, this volume, while not neglecting the place of theory, gives much space to showing the close interrelationships between educational progress in this country and the social, religious, political, and economic changes which have taken place in our colonial and national periods.

The book makes no pretenses at being abstruse, and there are many points to which the sociologist and economist might add illumination and depth. The only purpose was to use the most available facts and the more or less obvious applications in order to show that education in this country at all times reflects our national history, that it is a part of our national growth, and not an exotic product of European ideas. Certainly, Professor Cubberley is not blind to the influences from Europe. He traces the distinctly English origin of our educational institutions, followed later by the coming of Pestalozzian, Herbartian, and Froebelian contributions. He is not in accord, however, with Professor Judd in believing that our elementary graded school is of Volksschule birth, and an American adoption due to the famous reports of Cousin, Stowe, and others on the schools of Prussia, published in the thirties. On the contrary, he maintains his essential natural-growth theory, holding that the movement toward the graded school was already well under way when these reports reached us. It is not the purpose of this review to mix in a controversy that has little intrinsic importance for the sociologist, and which is taken up elsewhere on the part of Professor Judd. For the student of social relations the value of the book lies in its tendency toward interpreting our national educational development in terms of socio-economic forces, and in advocating the need of developing a body of experts who will better correlate our educational institutions with these forces.

KIMBALL YOUNG

LATTER-DAY SAINTS UNIVERSITY

The Housing of the Unskilled Wage Earner: America's Next Problem. By EDITH ELMER WOOD. New York: Macmillan Co., 1919. Pp. 322. $2.25.

This book is the first thoroughly scientific discussion of the problem dealing with the housing of wage-earners in the United States. The statistical data marshalled by the author in order to indicate the extent of the problem from an economic point of view and the difficulty of

supplying adequate housing facilities with the present prevailing income is bound to throw new light upon the whole discussion of housing reform. What is true of the statistical discussion applies also to the history of the development of the housing movement in the United States and the description of the work of the various agencies that have been active in promoting better housing, both through legislation and through the actual construction of homes.

Perhaps the weakest part of the book is to be found in the discussion of housing reform in European countries. The sections dealing with English and German housing reform, while focused very largely upon the economic aspect of the work of the respective governments, are fairly adequate, but the sections dealing with Belgium, Austria, Italy, and the other European countries show lack of familiarity with the rather considerable literature that has found its way into American libraries in the last eight or ten years.

Although the author emphasizes the need for city planning as a prerequisite of constructive housing reform, one is surprised to find a rather skeptical consideration of tax reform and utter disregard of such matters as public ownership of land, cheap and adequate transportation, and the other aspects of housing control so familiar to the European countries. The whole book seems to focus very largely upon the justification of securing legislation which would grant federal and state aid in the financing of wage-earners' homes.

As a brief in defense of federal and state action it is by far the best work that has so far been produced. It lacks, however, that breadth of vision which is characteristic of the European writers such as Nettlefold, Euwin, Eberstadt, and other writers of similar character.

STATE COMMISSION OF IMMIGRATION AND HOUSING
SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.

CAROL ARONOVICI

RECENT LITERATURE

NOTES AND ABSTRACTS

The Right to Achieve.-Achievement consists of the "trial and error" process and inductive science. By foresight errors were eliminated and inductive science was created. This step placed emphasis on the individual thinker. In economic progress slavery utilized the potential productiveness of human labor through the liberation and more efficient functioning of the slave director. In later ages the steam engine and not humanitarianism enfranchised the slave. Political progress also discloses the achieving function of the individual as shown by European civilization. The right to achieve is limited by the warfare between science and theology, by righteous anger against injustice due to financial and industrial abuses of private ownership, by conservatism, and by the instinct of envy, which leads to the idea that superior ability will acquire power and use it unjustly and cruelly. Justice and democracy are conditions for progress. The right to achieve is the right to modify the present social order and not to destroy it. Respect for achievement is one of the fruits by which we know sound education from spurious, and it is a large part of culture in distinction from kultur. Let us preserve the sacred moral right of the individual to be a free moral agent.-Franklin H. Giddings, The Unpartizan Review, October and December, 1919. C. N.

Anthropology and History. The followers of Comte believe that permanent relations between sciences may be established by the logical delimitation of their respective frontiers, and the acceptance of the paramount authority of a general science called sociology. Another view is expressed by Professor Percy Gardner, that sciences will organize themselves as they develop, and each will find its due place. Neither view seems correct. The essential thing is to obtain co-operation between investigators in different fields through the recognition of a common aim and purpose. At present, scholars display an unfortunate cleavage, and this fact is nowhere so fully illustrated as in the arbitrary division between anthropology and history. It is true that there is a difference in method and subject-matter between the two sciences. Roughly speaking, anthropology and history are studies devoted respectively to the investigation of the activities of "non-civilized" and "civilized" human groups. The anthropologist gives a detailed description of the characteristics of a particular group. The historian gives what he personally regards the significant events in the career of a particular nation. The anthropologist is interested mainly in the activities of living human beings, but the historian is almost proud of complete detachment from present-day concerns. The method of anthropology is more truly empirical, while that of history is usually narrative. The recent tendency in history, however, is to deal more with human experience as a whole and to use scientific methods of research. All this tends to make the difference between the two sciences insignificant. Moreover, both have a great deal in common. In the desire to interpret the peculiarities of the ancient peoples and modern savages in terms of modern life, to assimilate their idiosyncrasies to our own thinking, the anthropologist and the historian are alike. Furthermore, both strive for the solution of a common problem, namely, How has man all over the world come to be as he is today? Since the problem is common to both, why do not the historian and anthropologist attack it in hearty co-operation?-F. J. Teggert, Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Method, December, 1919. K. S.

De l'inégalité parmi les hommes (Inequality among Men). Both physical and mental differences among men have been measured with increasing precision of technique and have been found to be distributed in harmony with the curve of normal distribution. While variabilities in social status will be distributed according to the

same general tendency, still the milieu will tend to change the extreme ends of the curve. However, the two extremes, the very superior and the very inferior, will always exist, and in between is the great number of the mediocre. Sociological optimism says: Each man is of the same value and is capable of becoming a hero or demigod with the proper environment; sociological pessimism says: In reality, each individual has his own intellectual or moral mark and the number of men capable of accomplishing great deeds has been, and always will be, limited. These variations among men tend to group themselves according to their inner nature. Groups of different grades of men tend to form a hierarchy of groups. There will be the dominating and there will be the subordinated groups. Within the group will be found further variation resulting in an in-group hierarchy, for the members, while alike, are not identical in qualities. This hierarchical arrangement of various groups forming society, the hierarchical arrangement of individuals forming the group, and the cohesions and oppositions among groups, constitute a set of social facts that refute the claim of sociological optimism, which refuses to recognize any fatality in social antagonisms and which loves to project a day when all hierarchical arrangements will disappear. Sociological pessimism recognizes that, while there are changes, they touch only the surface.-A. Niceforo, Revue international de sociologie, MarsAvril, 1919. D. H. K.

The Ethics of Collective Bargaining (A British_View).-Experience taught British labor the advantage of collective bargaining. Consequently, labor in most leading industries became so well organized that bargaining between the unions and the organizations of the employers came to be the normal and accepted method of labor contract. In many of these trades, however, there would remain a minority of unorganized workers forming non-union shops. Similarly on the side of the employers there were firms which stood for the open-shop policy. But, by the year 1914 (the greatest dividing line in modern history) the idea of the individual labor contract had become obsolete. In the case of skilled and well-organized trades, it has been voluntarily displaced by collective bargaining of groups of employers and employed devising regular and elaborate agreements and joint boards for the adjustment of differences. In the case of more backward trades, the state has already interfered and enacted the Trade Board Act, which in a number of "sweated industries" empowered joint boards, representing capital and labor together with governmental assessors, to fix minimum wages. Neither capital nor labor emerged from the war as it entered. During the war, the process of association and combination have been immensely accelerated in essential industries, due to governmental control of materials and prices. After the war was over, this enforced association could not disappear because business men have learned the benefit of co-operation. A similar stimulus has been given to the organization of labor. Trade unions have grown; some five millions of wage-earners are now unionized. The recommendation of the Whitley Committee in favor of industrial councils and workshop committees equally representative of capital and labor-for the discussion and settlement of all matters affecting the conditions of employment and the general welfare of the trade have been generally accepted by all classes, except the extremists on the "right" of the employers and the "left" of the workers. The idea is to introduce, alike into the national trades, the several industries, and their constituent establishments, a genuine form of representative government, in which capital and labor will have an equal share. This is the first full recognition of the principle that labor is not to be treated as a mere commodity. Throughout the general field of economic activity the spirit of social service has grown as the result of experience in the war.-J. A. Hobson, Standard, November, 1919. K. S.

Liberty and Reform.-Subjectivism and institutionalism are both wrong. The ancient Greek Sophists, the Stoics, Rousseau, and the French Humanitarians all failed because of their subjectivism, that is, they failed to recognize the importance of social institutions through which ideas find expression. Life does not contain within itself the means and agencies of its own furtherance and growth. On the other hand, to institutionalize life is to reduce life to a mechanism and thus to preclude the possibility of its development-a machine cannot progress. What is needed is a