Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 4.djvu/101

 ECCENTRIC OFFICIAL STATISTICS 85

as other employes, were reported indiscriminately and one lump sum given as wages for all." While this does not show that even in these exceptional cases the value of the services of employers and salaries of officers and clerks were included in the lump sum reported as wages, it is an admission that in the more numerous instances only wages proper were included. Yet we find accompanying census tables, and referring to the wages of officers, firm members, and clerks, the footnote, "Not reported separately in 1880." The inference from this has been that, though not reported separately, they were included in the aggregate. This we see by Mr. Steuart's own admission is not true to any considerable extent. For this misleading footnote Mr. Steuart, as the author of the text accompanying these tables, appears to be responsible.

It would seem that even an eminent census official should under- stand that average wages obtained by dividing the earnings of opera- tives proper by the number of operatives plus employers and clerks would give an average below the true average, and not comparable either with the average for all classes or for operatives proper, as obtained at the last census.

While championing the Eleventh Census, Mr. Steuart unwittingly testifies to the worthlessness of the original data. As to this he is corroborated by Colonel Wright. The manufacturing enumeration of the principal cities was at the last census taken from the enumerators of population and intrusted to special agents, while this enumeration for the rural districts was, as formerly, made by the enumerators of population. The better facilities enjoyed by the special agents, who had no other duties to engage their attention, account for the more thorough enumeration of the cities, but as the enumeration of the rural districts in 1890 was made by the same class of officers and in a manner similar to that of 1880, there seems no way to account for the less thorough enumeration of the rural districts at the last census, unless we conclude that these officials were less competent and efficient than the same class of officials at the census of 1880.

This is undoubtedly the case, and may be accounted for by the fact that in 1890 the census office was made part of the political machine, and that appointments were made as rewards for political services. As is invariably the case with the spoils system, this resulted in the appointment of the most unfit class of officials that could possibly be selected.

Regarding this system and its results, General Walker remarked :