Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 3.djvu/101

 ECCENTRIC OFFICIAL STATISTICS 87

site the estimates of true value for 1860 and 1890, in a table which he presented, the remark : "A comparison cannot be made ; 1860 only includes estimated true value based upon assessed property." Mr. Porter's Record article followed a contribution to that journal in which the author of the present paper had demonstrated the incomparability of census estimates of "true value." Though in this newspaper article Mr. Porter makes this admission, census bulletins for which he was responsible contain the very comparisons which he declares ought not to be made. Bulletin 104, dated August 22, 1891, contains statistics of assessed and true value, in which the earlier estimates of true value are tabulated with those of 1880 and 1890 as the true value of all property. Instead of any word of warning as to the com- parability of the data the following remarks are made :

Should it be found on completion of the inquiry in relation to the true value of all property in the United States, that the same relation exists in 1890 between assessed value and true value as existed in 1880, the absolute wealth of the United States according to the eleventh census may be esti- mated at $62,610,000,000 or nearly $1000 per capita as against $514 per

capita in 1860, $7. 80 per capita in 1870 and $8. 70 per capita in 1880

The final returns showing the absolute wealth of the country will necessarily be among the last publications of the office, as complete data for the calcula- tion are not available until after the inquiries relating to agriculture and manufactures have been finished.

As will be shown, and as is admitted by Mr. Porter, the val- uation of 1860 did not represent the true value of all property and is therefore incomparable with the later valuations which represent what Mr. Porter terms the "absolute wealth" of the country. Candid criticism of census bulletins having been invited, the writer under date of September 12, 1891, called Mr. Porter's attention to the erroneous statements and comparisons of this bulletin and the manner in which the public was being deceived thereby. This however had no effect, for on the 4th of June following Census Bulletin i<)2 contained the same false statements, and only differed from the former bulk-tin in a slight change in the valuation for 1890. Bulletin ,79, issued after Mr. Porter's retirement from the census, which occurred after the attention