based upon those definitions, to establish exact classifications. It thus furnishes the propedeutic of a true political science. It supplies, in short, the true logic of constitutional and international law. It enables the constitutional jurist to develop the legitimate powers of his government in strict consonance with the premises and conclusions previously established; and makes it possible for the statesmen in charge of foreign affairs correctly to interpret the complex international world and thus to deduce the respective rights and obligations which flow from the many forms of political life and interstate federations and alliances which are presented to him. Upon this point the writer takes the liberty of quoting a paragraph from a paper published by him several years ago.1 After calling attention to the complexity of modern international life with its federations, alliances, colonies, protectorates, spheres of interest, leases of territory, etc., the writer there said: "It is not difficult to see that, if these various conditions and problems are to receive satisfactory classification and interpretation, and if general principles are to be deduced in accordance with which future complications are to be judged, the essential foundations and characteristics of sovereignty must be examined. We must determine what powers and attributes are essential to the possession of sovereignty; whether its existence is an infallible and necessary test of statehood; to what extent the exercise of its powers may be delegated without parting with its possession; the distinction between governments de facto and governments de jure; whether States may be created by international compact; whether the origin of political authority in general is susceptible of a juristic interpretation; what is the essential character of positive law and whence its validity; and to what extent so-called international law is law at all. . . . All of these are problems for the solution of which recourse must be had to abstract political philosophy."

It is an interesting fact, especially to those of the South, that in this country, John C. Calhoun was the first to apply with accuracy and acumen this modern analytic method to the solution

1"The Value of Political Philosophy" in the Political Science Quarterly for March, 1900.

of the problems involved in our own federal system of government. The accuracy of his analysis and definition of sovereignty cannot be questioned, and the theoretical conclusions which he drew therefrom were obtained by flawless logic. Demonstrating that sovereignty by its very nature means absolute legal omnipotence, and that, as such, it is inalienable and indivisible, he showed that, granting the historical premise that the States were sovereign in 1789, they could not, by a compact between themselves, have transferred this sovereignty, either in whole or in part, to the general government. It is the irrefutable character of this reasoning that has forced most of those who have upheld the sovereignty of the United States since the establishment of the constitution to deny what most of them, previously to Calhoun's time, had admitted, that the States were severally sovereign during the period from 1776 to 1789. Calhoun, thus, whatever we may think of the practical policies which he advocated, deserves beyond question to rank as the founder of the modern school of political philosophers in this country.

Leaving now the discussion of the three fields of Political Philosophy, Constitutional and Administrative Law, and International Law, into which the general study of the State is divisible, we turn to a consideration of the topics embraced within the study of Government, the second of the two great subjects with which Political Science as a university study has to deal. Here the method of study is more descriptive than analytical, more directly practical than speculative. The work resolves itself into an examination of the various existing and historical types of political machinery through which the State operates or has operated, of federal and unitary, centralized and decentralized, absolute and limited, direct and representative, national and colonial, parliamentary and presidential forms of government. These governments are studied not only to discover their morphology or structure, but to ascertain the ways in which they actually operate, the merits and defects which they exhibit, and the circumstances under which, respectively, they may be expected to produce good or bad results. Along with this study of government goes properly the study of political parties, the

forms of organization that they assume, and the forces that operate them. Descending from these general to more particular questions, each specific problem of administration furnishes a topic for special treatment. Thus there are the problems of colonial government and administration, of municipal government, of civil service, of primary elections, of proportional representation, of the referendum, of state or city ownership of public utilities, of the state regulation of the economic, social, and ethical interests of the citizen, and also the larger problems of national policies in the field of world politics. Political Science may never hope to produce an art of statesmanship which will furnish the citizen and the public official with the exact guidance that the chemist, the physicist, or the mathematician furnishes to those in the technological trades, but it may and does furnish information of extreme value-information absolutely indispensable to those who are called upon to play any part either in the formulation or execution of public policies, or in selecting those who do. Academic training cannot make unnecessary a practical experience in politics, but it can furnish the knowledge which renders one able correctly to learn the lesson of that experience and intelligently to apply that lesson when learned.

Properly pursued, Political Science requires the employment of both the historical and the comparative methods. Foreign systems of public jurisprudence and foreign governments and methods of administration require to be studied in order that there may thus be obtained the data upon which the analytical method may be employed, and in order that practical principles of statesmanship and public policy may be safely declared. From the centralized systems of Europe, the sources of administrative efficiency are discovered. From the working of the parliamentary system in England and on the Continent, the merits and defects of our own presidential system are made more evident. From the interpretations which written constitutions have received. abroad, assistance is derived in the construction of our own instruments of government. In this connection, it is to be observed that our own country offers unexampled opportunities for the comparative study of political questions in that we have here of our own forty-six complete systems of government in practical

operation, one federal and forty-five state governments, not to speak of the territories and insular depedencies. It has been said, and with truth, that Aristotle was able to prepare his wonderful work on Politics because he had at hand several hundred distinct Hellenic constitutions and governments to study. In America we are almost as fortunate, having almost a surfeit of material awaiting scholarly, scientific treatment.

Though Political Science, both by the material with which it has to deal, and by the special problems which it has to solve, occupies a field definitely marked off from the other social sciences, and especially from History and Economics, it yet is a subject, the study of which must ever remain closely allied with them. Here again it is hoped that the writer will be pardoned if he reproduce words which he has employed upon a previous occasion. "Of the relation between History and Political Science it has been said by the late Sir John Seeley that politics without history has no root, and that history without politics has no fruit. The connection between economics and politics is, if anything, more intimate. Without the information that the study of economic principles and of economic history affords, the political scientist is unable either to explain many of the processes of political growth or wisely to determine lines of public policy. Upon the other hand, deprived of the knowledge furnished by the scientific study of the mechanism and methods of operation of governments, the economist finds himself insufficiently informed either correctly to analyze past and existing economic conditions or satisfactorily to devise the means by which the truths that he discovers may be made of practical advantage to mankind. And yet, intimate as are these relationships, the field of political science is one that may be clearly distinguished from that of history as well as from that of economics, and the topics which the field includes, in order to be treated adequately, need to be studied as distinct subjects of inquiry. It is true that to a very considerable extent the phenomena dealt with by the historian, the economist, and the political scientist,

2" The American Political Science Association," in the Political Science Quarterly for March, 1904.

respectively are the same, but each examines his material from a different standpoint. The historian has for his especial aim the determination and portrayal of processes and stages of human development. With economic and political interests he is concerned only in so far as it is necessary for him to understand them in order to explain the movements he is studying. So also with the economist. His primary interest is in the ascertainment of the principles that control the production, exchange and consumption of wealth; and he finds it necessary to enter upon political ground only in so far as government has an influence upon economic conditions, either by reason of its cost, the economic security that it gives, or the manner in which it directly interferes, or properly may interfere, in the regulation of the industrial interests of the people. Thus, since neither the historian nor the economist is primarily interested in the study of matters political, it is necessary, in order that these matters may receive adequate scientific treatment, that they should be studied by those whose special interest in them is upon their political side."

This natural and necessary affiliation between history, economics, and politics is well represented in the institution to which the writer belongs. The requirements for obtaining the degree of doctor of philosophy at the Johns Hopkins University prescribe that the student shall take for special study one principal and two subordinate subjects. Almost invariably the student taking one of these three subjects as his principal subject selects the other two for subordinates. Thus, in fact, the three graduate departments, though administratively independent and each under the direction of a different professor, so far as their students are concerned, are almost united into one. In nearly all of the lecture courses and even in the seminaries, the students are intermixed. Furthermore, every fortnight, in what is known as the Historical and Political Science Association of the University, all of the instructors and students of these departments meet together for the reading and discussion of formal papers and for the presentation of reviews of current scientific historical, political, and economic literature. In conclusion of this paper, it may properly be remarked that