The changing attitude toward railroad regulation of reformer John H. Reagan tells much about the validity of the objections raised by railroadmen of the 1880's to such regulation. In tracing Reagan's career thus, a question of historiography is raised. Can careful utilization of contemporary attitudes toward business situations compensate for the subjectivity of the historian himself?

The processes whereby technical know-how is translated into business decisions are not widely understood; neither is there much definitive information about the role the engineer historically has played in administration. The data upon which this paper is based suggests that management of modern enterprise has been increasingly dependent upon graduates of engineering schools. The facts and implications are of interest not only to historians, but to businessmen and educators.

These interesting papers and the data they present offer further testimony to the increasing study and understanding of the position of the businessman in our society. In general they focus on two topics: the recruitment of the business executive and the influence of recruitment patterns on the occupational role of the business executive. It would be redundant to attempt to elaborate further the careful and concise conclusions reached by the authors. A more rewarding use of this opportunity for discussion might be to make some examination of these data from an alternative point of view, readdressing them from a somewhat different theoretical position. From such an examination it may be possible to explore further the recruitment process in our business system.

The role of government in the ante-bellum American economy has been boldly redefined in a score of books and articles published during the past decade. Close analysis of state and local sponsorship of enterprise, initiated and supported by the Committee on Research in Economic History, has suggested a thesis that appears to invite a new view of American capitalism in its formative years. Taken together, the works here reviewed form a consistent report of economic endeavor in an almost unfamiliar land. There, the elected public official replaced the individual enterpriser as the key figure in the release of capitalist energy; the public treasury, rather than private saving, became the major source of venture capital; and community purpose outweighed personal ambition in the selection of large goals for local economies. “Mixed” enterprise was the customary organization for important innovations, and government everywhere undertook the role put on it by the people, that of planner, promoter, investor, and regulator.

This study of the chief executives of large corporations over the period from 1900 to 1950 introduces specific evidence both to support and explain the thesis, hitherto vaguely entertained by many students of business, that administration of such corporations is rapidly becoming a profession.

Almost by definition American wool manufacturers and wool growers stood on opposite sides of any question relating to tariffs. Yet the Wool and Woolens Act of 1867 served the interests of both groups and was pushed through Congress and across the desk of a reluctant President by their determined joint efforts. The circumstances surrounding this historic episode of commercial alliance are revealing as to the forces that have shaped American tariff policy and provide an insight into incipient efforts on the part of the businessman to control his environment by co-operative as well as by competitive means.

Accounts of the “birth of the petroleum industry” traditionally have emphasized the discovery and exploitation of early oil fields. Equally important, however, was the growth of a market for the production of those fields. Little information has hitherto been available about Dr. Abraham Gesner and his Kerosene Works. Here was one of the significant origin points for a major industrial development. Gesner's story, interesting in itself, contributes greatly to an understanding of all phases of the early petroleum industry.

Historians have recorded some of the more spectacular failures in American business, but the subject of business failure in itself has not been intensively studied. To lay the groundwork for such a study, the experience of individual firms should be examined in detail and attention should be directed to small as well as large business units. The history of Smith & Griggs provides an example of “discontinuance” which came about not as a result of a single catastrophic event but by a process of long-time attrition involving every phase of the company's operations.