to supervision by the Federal Trade Commission, it is now lawful to cooperate in the export trade, thus opening the way to use by American manufacturers of some of the effective joint export methods that have been employed by the exporters of Western European countries, though barring the use of unfair methods of competition.

As the close of the war will find us with a merchant marine capable of providing improved transportation services, and with an improved trade organization to supplant many of the European houses through which American products were sometimes handled in foreign markets, so also will the financial organization for promoting foreign trade somewhat different from what it was prior to 1914. The American branch banks that have been established in foreign countries facilitate the extension of credit to foreign customers, they encourage settlement of bills direct instead of through European banks, and they provide the basis for the intelligent investment of American capital in foreign enterprises. Few trade factors are of greater importance than foreign investments. British, French and German exporters have long realized that trade tends to follow investments with a marked degree of precision. The coming of peace should find the United States in a better position than any of the great European exporting countries to finance foreign enterprises to the advantage alike of American investors, American exporters and the foreign enterprises so financed. Increased investments in foreign enterprises can also do much to stabilize the present disorganized condition of international exchange.

NEED OF A COMPREHENSIVE MERCHANT MARINE POLICY

The prospects of an active sea-going merchant marine are unusually bright, yet there are difficulties that will require solution. It remains a fact that vessel operating costs before the war were higher under the American than under foreign flags. Improved terminal facilities, increased efficiency in vessel operation, the substitution of fuel oil for coal, the protection of new lines from the concerted opposition of existing

lines acting through conference arrangements, the more liberal interpretation of our tonnage measurement rules, and the probable availability of abundant cargoes, should do much to narrow the margin of 5 to 15 per cent. that formerly existed. Yet there is no definite assurance that the entire difference will be overcome. That the difficulty is recognized is seen in the amendment of July 15, 1918, to the shipping act under which on August 7th the President issued a proclamation designed to make it impossible for foreign interests to obtain control of American shipping or shipyards. It is now a criminal offense to sell, mortgage, lease or deliver an American ship to a foreigner without the consent of the Shipping Board, or to make any agreement by which the control of a ship is turned over to a foreign concern.

The possibility of unfavorable operating costs may influence greatly the future shipping policy of the United States. Meanwhile such a policy still remains to be formulated. At present the Shipping Act embodies the policy of Government ownership and operation, although the Act specifically provides that within five years following the close of the war the vessels owned by the government shall be sold or chartered to private American shipping concerns. Simultaneously the government continues to pay subsidies to certain lines under the Mail Contract Act of 1891 and as late as 1917 it amended this Act so as to authorize the payment of increased sums to American vessels of 35,000 tons gross register and a speed of 30 knots per hour when operating to British ports. This amendment of course does not affect the vessels built by the government as they do not approach these specifications. Simultaneously, also, while the government has shown a desire to promote merchant shipping in the future, it placed into the Seaman's Act of 1915 various provisions which increase operating costs without commensurate advantages to the seamen in whose interest they were inserted. Reference is not had to the safety provisions of the Seaman's Act, nor to those which improve crew's quarters or prohibit the enforced servitude of seamen, but to the language requirement which embarrasses American vessels on the Pacific

Ocean where Oriental crews are frequently employed, by requiring that not less than 75 per cent. of the crew of a vessel subject to the Act must be able to understand any order given by the vessel's officers.

We have not adopted a consistent merchant marine policy to date. It still needs to be decided as to how and by whom our merchant ships shall in the future be operated. A three-fold alternative is likely to be the basis for decision: (1) Continued government ownership and operation; (2) sale of the government owned ships to private American ship owners at prices which will not burden them with excessive capital costs, the distinctly war construction costs to be charged off as war expenditures; and (3) the chartering of the government-owned vessels to private American companies at charter rates which will enable them to compete, and yet not entirely preclude the possibility of gradually reimbursing to the government a part of their excessive construction costs.

The adoption of government ownership and operation as a permanent policy has the disadvantage of discouraging private concerns from entering the ocean shipping business on a large scale. It is not likely that government and private operation can flourish side by side. There may also be doubt concerning the efficiency with which government steamship lines would be operated under normal peace conditions when the spur of maximum patriotism which is responsible for the splendid results attained in the prosecution of the war gradually weakens and the spur of private initiative is absent. That the government will dispose of its merchant ships immediately after the war is neither likely nor desirable. The shortage in the world's tonnage practically assures a high level of ocean freights for several years after the war, and it is also likely that a substantial part of the organization of the Emergency Fleet Corporation may remain intact for a while. Under these conditions the government should be able to operate its vessels so as to recover a part of the shipbuilding costs which have risen from $70 and $75 to $200 and $250 per dead-weight ton, and at the same time in the interest of the world's commerce provides a better steam

ship service to competitive markets than was formerly provided by foreign steamship companies. It can also through its own organization assign what vessels it chooses to the transporting of needed materials to war-torn Europe.

When, however, normal conditions return, it is probable that better results can in the long run be attained by adhering to the present provision of the Shipping Act which calls for the ultimate sale or charter of the government's ships to private American shipping concerns. Their cost has been so great that the wiser policy may be to charter rather than to sell them, and if the charter contracts are carefully drawn the continued ownership of these vessels by the government should serve as a direct protection to both shipper and carrier. Such a policy would do less to discourage private capital from entering the shipping industry than government operation. Steamship fleets could consist in part of vessels owned by the companies and partly of ships chartered from the government. The exact compensation to the government would depend in part upon such differences in vessel operating costs of American and competitive foreign vessels as will be disclosed after normal conditions return. The continued ownership of vessels by the government would enable the Shipping Board to specify with precision the exact routes over which improved transportation services are desired as a means of promoting commerce. Defined services would be assured to the markets of the East and West coasts of South America and to Mexico, the West Indies, Central America, Australasia, and the Orient. Yet, if the contracts are efficiently executed the advantages of private initiative will be retained and additional vessels can, in the future, be provided by private capital as has been the practice in all the great maritime countries throughout the world.

Whatever assistance is in this way rendered by the government with its fleet of merchant vessels will be with the full knowledge that it is done in the interest of the whole country. The benefits of ocean shipping and international trade are no longer confined to a few steamship companies and a few pioneer exporters.

THE EVOLUTION OF OUR UNIVERSITIES

By FRANK P. GRAVES

Professor of the History of Education and Dean of the
School of Education.

What is a university? We do not seem to be at all certain how to define such an institution in America. The line between a "college" and a "university" is quite indistinguishable in some of the states of our Union. Some religious denominations modestly found colleges, but others never create anything less than universities, and the difference seems to be largely that "'twixt tweedledum and tweedledee." A man told me the other day that he went to a certain university to fit for college. Both institutions are within the borders of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

But we have generally come to agree that in the United States, though not in England, a university is an institution of higher learning comprising several faculties or divisions. Besides the Arts college, it includes a number of professional schools under the same central administration. It may perhaps be described as a "college of colleges." In this sense, the University of Pennsylvania, which was designated a “university" some years in advance of any other institution in the country, became the first American university in fact, as well as in name, since it had established the earliest departments both of medicine and law.

Yet while long usage may justify this interpretation of the word universitas or "university," the word did not at first imply such a meaning. When the universities began to arise during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the term did not imply a place in which all things were taught, but an organization of all the students and masters. From its historical origin the nature of the medieval university was similar to that of the craft gilds of the times. The term universitas was used of any legal