Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 3.djvu/377

 ECCENTRIC OFFICIAL STATISTICS 363

Mr. Waite who has thoroughly examined the original schedules of both censuses, which statement has never been assailed, it appears that the number used in 1880 as the divisor was not far from the number that would be obtained by aggregating the num- bers reported as the greatest number employed at any one time. As Colonel Wright has no knowledge how far the apparent increase in wages is the result of the difference in methods, in fact does not know that there was not an actual decrease in the average annual earnings, it does not appear that he is justified in quoting these figures as proving anything whatever.

It may be noticed that Colonel Wright quotes average wages at $44 5 instead of $484 as is quoted by Mulhall and nearly ever- one else who quotes census statistics of wages. Colonel Wright quotes the average obtained by dividing the earnings of opera- tives proper by the average number of operatives, thus recogniz- ing the fact that the salaries of officers, firm members, and clerks were not included at the census of 1880. That, though not reported separately, they were included in the aggregate is the only inference to be drawn from the footnote accompanying census tables and referring to the salaries of officers and clerks "Not reported separately in 1880."

While thus recognizing the incomparability of census wage statistics, without calling attention to the falsification of the foot- note, Colonel Wright fails to recognize the incomparability in other respects that seem even more important. In the official communication already quoted he admits, that: "The enumera- tion of establishments in certain lines of industry was more thorough at the Eleventh Census than at the Tenth Census." These are the hand trades with almost exclusively male employe's which, as has been previously shown, were almost entirely neg- lected in the earlier censuses. The comparison of the percentages of females and of children to the total number of employe's which we find in census tables and which were made by Colonel Wright in his Record article, arc therefore grossly misleading.

Equally misleading seems his comparison of the number of children reported at the last two censuses.