MEMORANDUM

several topics is very similar to that given in the present article.” (Econometrica
4 (1), p.39).
This was a rare case of priority conflict in Econometrica or just a touch of it. Staehle
was on his way to become a renowned expert on index numbers. Leontief’s article was
published as quickly as possible; it appeared as article no. 2 in the issue, after the annual
survey of theory always placed first in the issue; in this case it was by Frisch on the
problem of index numbers (Frisch 1936).
The editorial incident had an aftermath sixty years later. In an article by Paul
Samuelson in a book published 1995, he wrote as follows:
“Ragnar Frisch was pretty much autonomous editor of the early issues of
Econometrica. He was interested in everything. Also, he believed in the
superiority of his interpretations of anything and everything. [Indeed, he was so
great a mind that there was much merit in such belief.] When Wassily Leontief
participated in the post-1933 revival of the economic theory of index numbers (à
la Konüs, Staehle and others), Frisch held up publication of the Leontief 1936
contribution until he could publish in the same issue of Econometrica his own
survey article on the subject. Foul play, I say.” (Samuelson 1995, p.23).
Samuelson had great admiration for Frisch but his assertion was utterly false.
Frisch had not held up the publication of Leontief’s paper but on the contrary hastened
it by shortcutting the refereeing process. And he was glad to have his paper published
side by side with Frisch’s article. 224 There was no foul play. 225
1936 and 1937: The two REStat articles
In February 1936 it was again time for submitting applications to the Committee. It
was crucial for Leontief to apply again for a grant that would allow him to complete the
1919 table. The application referred to the Committee’s decision in 1935 to postpone the
decision concerning the grant of an additional appropriation for the completion of the 1919
table. Leontief had solicited the support of Professors Edward Gay, John H. Williams and
William L. Crum who had been briefed and supported the request for a grant to complete
the table.
The application made it clear to the Committee that the postponement had resulted in
the loss of Maynard Heins’ assistance: “The necessity caused by anticipated lack of funds
224 Leontief to Nelson, 20 Nov. 1935.
225 Leontief’s had a longer history; it had been submitted to Journal of Political Economy early in
1934. The editor, Frank Knight, had after refereeing invited a revise and resubmit to which Leontief
did not respond, perhaps because he found the anonymous referee too unappreciative of his ideas.
103