THE AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL SOCIETY $S7
other fields of knowledge has so frequently contributed to the advancement of science. Several European nations already possess sociological associa- tions for this purpose, although nowhere, perhaps, is there a greater, more widespread, or more truly scientific interest in the science of society than in the United States.
The proposed conference will take up the following questions, among others :
1. Is there need for an organization of sociologists?
2. Should it be formed now?
3. If needed and formed now, what should be its scope?
4. Ought it to be a separate, independent organization, or should it, at least for the present, form a part or division of some existing association?
The first session of the conference will be held Wednesday afternoon, December 27, 3 130 p. M., at the Johns Hopkins University.
If you cannot attend, it is earnestly requested that you send an expres- sion of opinion on the above questions, together with whatever other suggestions you may care to make. All communications should be addressed to C. W. A. Veditz, George Washington University, Washington, D. C. Respectfully yours,
THOMAS N. CARVER, Harvard University.
FRANKLIN H. GIDDINGS, Columbia University.
SAMUEL M. LINDSAY, University of Pennsylvania.
SIMON N. PATTEN, University of Pennsylvania.
EDWARD A. Ross, University of Nebraska.
ALBION W. SMALL, University of Chicago.
WILLIAM G. SUMNER, Yale University.
LESTER F. WARD, Washington, D. C.
C. W. A. VEDITZ, George Washington University.
In accordance with this invitation, the first meeting of those interested was held in McCoy Hall, at the Johns Hopkins Univer- sity, Wednesday afternoon, December 27, at 3 130 p. M. The meeting was attended by some fifty persons, among whom were a number particularly interested in the practical aspects of sociol- ogy. Professor Davenport, of Hamilton College, acted as chairman of the meeting.
Professor C. W. A. Veditz, of the George Washington Uni- versity, reported that he had received about forty replies to the circular letter of invitation, and that the great majority of these letters were from persons unable to attend the meeting. Among the writers of these replies there was practically a unanimity of
