ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

ELEVATORS

passenger elevators, 22 of which make the run to the 21st and 22nd stories, while the others are for local traffic. While not realizing the extreme heights of the direct traction elevator, the plunger hydraulic elevator has been found useful and available for certain classes of service and a notable installation was under operation in the City Investing Building, New York City. Here there are 21 elevators, seven of which run to the 26th floor and have a travel of 368 feet, being the highest plunger elevators ever installed. In this type a deep hole is drilled in the ground to carry the cylinder in which the plunger bearing the car on its upper extremity moves. By valves controlled from the car water under pressure is admitted to or passes from the cylinder permitting the plunger to rise or fall as desired. In 1908 the elevator engineer was ready to meet any demands of the architect and even the proposed 62-story building for the Equitable Life Assurance Company was believed to present no unsolvable elevator problems.

227

ELIOT, CHARLES WILLIAM. President of Harvard University, resigned that position on October 10, 1908, making May 19, 1909, the date on which his resignation should become effective. The resignation was "regretfully ac cepted" at a meeting of the fellows of Harvard College on October 26, 1908, and was announced by the Harvard Board of Overseers on November 4. 1908. Mr. Eliot was born in Boston, on March 20, 1834, prepared for college at the Boston Latin School, and graduated at Harvard in 1853. He was a tutor in mathematics, and studied chemistry at Harvard in 1854-58, was assistant professor of mathematics and chemistry at the Lawrence Scientific School of the university in 1858-63, and continued his study of chemistry in Europe in 1863-65, meanwhile investigating educational systems in that country. In 1865 he became professor of analytical chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and he held that position until 1869, when he became president of Harvard. He began at once thoroughly to reorganize the university, introducing new methods of teaching and securing, as the occasion offered, the best teachers to be had in the country. He introduced at Harvard the elective system, which has greatly improved the university's educational efficiency, and has since been adopted to a greater or less extent by many of the more important American institutions. He is generally considered the foremost American educator of his time.

Mr. Eliot's publications include More Money for the Public Schools (1903); John Gilley (1904); The Happy Life (new edition, 1905), and Four American Leaders (1906).

EMBANKMENT. A large embankment, to protect Fort St. Philip, La., from the flood waters of the Gulf, was being built in 1908 along the marshy ground of the gulf coast. Steel sheet piling was used as a core wall, the piles interlocking and being coated with asphalt to make them watertight, while the joints were filled with cement grout. The piles, which are 19 ft. long, project 5 ft. above the top of the levee and for this height were incased in a reinforced concrete wall 6 ft. high and 12 in.

thick.

EMERSON, EDWIN. An American clergy man, man of letters and United States envoy, died on November 4, 1908. He was born in

EMMANUEL MOVEMENT

New York City in 1822, graduated at Princeton in 1846, and at the Princeton Theological Seminary in 1849. tised law for a time at New Haven, Conn., then With Noah Webster he prac reëntered the Presbyterian ministry, and was castle, Pa. pastor at Dobbs Ferry, N. Y., and in GreenLondon and Paris as secret envoy from the During the Civil War he went to United States. 1870, and then moved to Berlin, returning to He remained in Paris until this country in 1889. In 1897 he went to Japan, where he remained for the rest of his life. EMIGRATION.

EMIGRATION.

See IMMIGRATION AND

EMMANUEL MOVEMENT. This movement, deriving its name from the Emmanuel Church (Episcopal) in Boston, Mass., where, in November, 1906, a "class for the treatment of nervous disorders" was organized, is an outgrowth of the "Emmanuel Church tuberculosis class," which sought the cure of consumptives in the slums without removal from their homes, by approved medical methods "plus discipline, friendship, encouragement and hope." Encouraged by what they deemed the success of this tuberculosis class, the rector, Rev. Elwood Worcester, D.D., Ph.D., and others, after consultation with leading neurologists, determined to begin similar work among the "nervous and morally diseased." Dr. James J. Putnam, of the Harvard Medical School, presided at the preliminary meeting. He is not now, however, associated with the movement and said in a letter to the Boston Herald of November 20th, 1908, "While I have a high respect for the characters and purposes of its founders, I am convinced that the movement is a mistake. is clear that clergymen, without adequate preparation, are assuming responsibilities of a kind that physicians are not qualified to assume until ton physicians, however, Drs. Mumford, Pratt, after years of study and training." Other BosGoldwait and Richard C. Cabot, have agreed to act as an Advisory Committee to the Church, and have expressed an opinion that under certhe fundamental object of the movement detain rules adopted by the Emmanuel clergy serves the support of all physicians and the community generally."

It

The fundamental principle is thus formulated: "The effective cooperation of physician and minister is of value to many sick persons. Since character is an important factor in the cure of many diseased conditions, especially of the nervous system, we believe that any one who can help to guide, strengthen and enlighten the patient by the influence of moral and religious teaching will be of genuine assistance of the case. to the patient and to the physician in charge the physician's request and with his coöperaIn rendering such assistance at tion we believe the clergyman to be entirely the individual that time-honored office of ethupon his own ground, fulfilling in relation to ical and spiritual instruction which in the past he has exercised chiefly at long range to congregations from the pulpit."

The rules provide that the sick are to be reapproval of, a physician, whose report is filed ceived only after examination by, and on the with the church records, and that no person shall be treated or referred to any specialist unless with the approval of a physician; so that it shall rest "wholly with the physicians

of this community [Boston] to decide whether a patient should be referred to a neurologist or other specialist, and which cases, if any, are suitable for treatment by moral and religious education at Emmanuel."

A like movement exists in St. Mark's Church, New York, approved by prominent physicians, and in other localities. Thus the Emmanuelists are to be differentiated from "Christian Scien

tists," "faith curers" and so-called "mental healers" generally by their recognition of the actuality of physical disease and the need of its diagnosis and treatment by medical men. Their pretensions are also more modest, in which regard they are unlike the English Society of Emmanuel, a distinct organization, which, in its official statement of 1906, disclaiming similarity in its aims and practices from those of suggestion or what is called "faith healing," professes to have cured completely, by means of laying on of hands in prayer, cancer and locomotor ataxia, as well as merely functional derangements; whereas Emmanuelism claims that "it is in the field of the

functional neuroses that all its real victories have been won," and while not denying the possibility of graver cures says: "An authentic instance of recovery from organic disease through psychical means is what we are wait ing for." By thus limiting the class of cases treated it is thought to avoid one valid objection to psychotherapeutics, "its employment in diseases which obviously require physical interference, with the result that many patients have died through sheer neglect."

It is also admitted by the Emmanuelists that while "the active agent in all so-called moral recoveries is faith," they "have made the freest use" not only of suggestion but of subsidiary aids, such as electricity, massage and, to some extent, chiefly with alcoholics, hypnotism. They make no claim to special personal powers, explain the nature of the means employed and "avoid all fetiches and material adjuncts as means of suggestion and rely only upon moral, spiritual and rational

means."

Isadore H. Coriat, M.D., one of the collaborators in Religion and Medicine, the movement's official exposition, says that the necessity of thorough neurological, psychological or general medical examination before instituting any form of psychic treatment cannot be too often reiterated, that being the only way to avoid grave errors. This he illustrates by a case of incipient cancer of the stomach causing neurasthenic symptoms and only revealed by chemical examination, and by another wherein hysteria had been treated as an organic disease of the stomach. He expresses disbelief that all socalled functional nervous diseases can be treated by psychotherapeutics.

The Emmanuel Movement, therefore, differs from most eccentric schools of healing, religious and mental, by the character of its promoters, their recognition of physical disease and the efficacy of medical science in its treatment, and by their expressed willingness to subordinate their practice to the direction of medical men. It is avowedly an attempt by clergymen to aid physicians in the field of psychotherapy, rather than to act as independent practitioners, and to cooperate also with the "social workers." How far this aim can be effected, how far it will be preserved, how far the practice of the

clergy, especially if the movement become widespread, will fall within the purview of laws regulating medical practice, are topics not susceptible of discussion here. The problematic character of the work is admitted by Dr. Worcester's own expression: "What will be the outcome of this movement no man can say." EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY. Under the stimulus of President Roosevelt's insistence

Congress enacted in June, 1906, a law making interstate commerce carriers liable for injuries to their employees received during employment. The constitutionality of this law had been upheld by some United States courts and denied by others. Two cases (Houard v. Illinois Central Railroad and Brooks v. Southern Pacific Company) brought to the United States Supreme Court on appeal were decided on January 6, 1908. By a vote of five to four the law was stroyed as defense against liability the ground of contributory negligence by providing that "the fact that the employee may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, where his contributory negligence was slight and that of his employer gross in comparison." The law extended to any employee of an interstate common carrier. The grounds for unfavorable decision of the court were as follows: (1) The power of Congress to regulate commerce between the States does not include power to regulate the relations of employer and employed, i. e., these two powers are separate and distinct. Justices White, Day and Moody were of the opinion that Congress could regulate relations of employer and employed in so far as the latter are engaged in interstate commerce. On this point Justice Peckham was in doubt and Justices Fuller and Brewer noncommittal. (2) That clause of the law extending its provisions to "any employee" was held unconstitutional because it included employees who might not at the time of injury be engaged in interstate traffic. Justices White, Peckham, Fuller, Day and Brewer concurred point. The court held unanimously that the law may properly apply to all persons engaged in interstate commerce. Justice Moody dissented from the second conclusion of the majority on the ground that any court in interpreting and applying the law could discriminate between persons thus employed and those employed only in interstate commerce. The one point of agreement was the negative one that Congress cannot make interstate common riers responsible for injuries to employees not engaged in interstate commerce.

held to be unconstitutional. This law de

on this

car

On February 1, President Roosevelt sent to Congress a vigorous message urging the enactment of a new law drawn to meet the court's objections. Bills were drawn by Senators Knox and La Follette and by Representative John A. Sterling, of Illinois. On April 15 the Sterling bill passed the House by a vote of 302 to 1 (Congressman Littlefield, of Maine), and on the following day it passed the Senate unanimous lv. It was signed by the President April 22. The new law very specifically confines its provisions to interstate carriers by railroad and to common carriers by railroad in Territories, the District of Columbia, the Canal Zone and other territory governed by Congress. It applies to all cases of injury or death due in whole or in part to the acts or negligence of any officers, agents or employees or to the mechanisms of

[graphic]

Courtesy of the "Churchman"

THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE OF 1908

A GROUP OF BISHOPS IN CONFERENCE AT LAMBETH PALACE, REPRESENTING ALL
BRANCHES OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »