U .S. Department of Labor 

William E. Brock, Secretary

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner

September 1985

Bulletin 2235

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First

Hundred ^tears 

of the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics

Joseph R Goldberg and William T. Moye

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
library of Congress Cataloging In Publication Data

Goldberg. Joseph P., 1918-

The first hundred years of the Bureau ofLabor Statistics.

(Bulletin / Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2235) 

Bibliography: p.

Includes index.

1. United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics—History.

I. Moye, William T. II. Tide. III. Series: Bulletin 

(United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics); 2235.

HD8064.2.G65 1985 353.0083 85-11655

ISBN 0-935043-00-4 

ISBN 0-935043-01-2 (pbk.)

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Foreword

T

his volume reports on the first century of a government 

agency whose founders hoped that, by publishing facts 

about economic conditions, the agency would help end 

strife between capital and labor.

The Bureau’s early work included studies of depressions, tariffs, 

immigrants, and alchoholism and many assignments to investigate and 

mediate disputes between labor and management. Most of these functions—especially those involving formulation of policy—passed on to 

other agencies. The Bureau today remains one of the Nation’s principal economic factfinders.

This account of the Bureau’s history is based on 4 years of 

research by two historians, Joseph P. Goldberg and William T. Moye. 

Dr. Goldberg holds degrees in history and economics from the City 

College of New 'York and Columbia University and has written extensively on the maritime industry, collective bargaining, labor law, and 

labor history. He has served as special assistant to the Commissioner 

of Labor Statistics since 1955. Dr. Moye holds degrees from Davidson 

College and the University of North Carolina and has been with the 

U .S. Department of Labor since 1976, specializing in the history of the 

Department and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In conducting their research, Drs. Goldberg and Moye had full 

access to the records of the Bureau and of the Department of Labor 

and also used the collections of the Library of Congress, the National 

Archives, and other public and private institutions. In addition, the 

authors conducted interviews with recent Commissioners and Secretaries of Labor and others familiar with the work of the Bureau. At 

the Archives, Jerry N. Hess and Joseph B. Howerton provided valuable assistance, as did Henry P. Guzda of the Department of Labor 

Historical Office.

m

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Rosalie K. Epstein, the book's editor, worked closely with the 

authors in helping them fashion their voluminous research into a 

book-size manuscript

Several expert readers helped improve the work through 

thoughtful critiques. They included Richard B. Morris, Gouvemeur 

Morris Professor o f History Emeritus, Columbia University; Professor 

Irving Bernstein, Department of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles; Dr. Jonathan Grossman, Historian, U .S. Department of Labor, from 1962 to 1982; Dr. H.M. Douty, author and 

economic consultant; Dr. Herbert C. Morton, Director, Office of 

Scholarly Communications and Technology, American Council of 

Learned Societies; and several members of the staff of the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics.

Book design was supervised by Richard Mathews. Scenobia G. 

Easterly and Elizabeth M. Johnson assisted with manuscript preparation.

In writing the book, Drs. Goldberg and Moye had full freedom to 

interpret events in accordance with their judgments as historians, 

without conformance to an “official” view of institutional history. 

Given the perspective made possible by passing years, the authors 

offer broader evaluations o f the Bureau’s early history than of contemporary events.

Henry Lowenstem 

Associate Commissioner, Office of Publications 

Bureau of Labor Statistics

w

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contents

I. Origins 1

II. Carroll Wright: Setting the Course 6

III. Charles Neill: Studies for Economic and Social Reform 43

IV. Royal Meeker: Statistics in Recession and Wartime 80

V. Ethelbert Stewart: Holding the Fort 114

VI. Isador Lubin: Meeting Emergency Demands 140

VII. Ewan Clague: An Expanding Role

for Economic Indicators 178

VIII. Four Commissioners:

An Economy Going by the Numbers 213

IX. History as Prologue: The Continuing Mission 258

Appendix: BLS Publications 262

Source Notes 265

Index 305

v

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter I.

Origins

W

hen President Chester A. Arthur signed the bill ereating the Bureau of Labor in the Department of the 

Interior on June 27, 1884, it was the culmination of 

almost two decades of advocacy by labor organizations that wanted government help in publicizing and improvin

status of the growing industrial labor force.

Those two decades had seen vast changes in the American economy and society. A truly national economy was developing, epitomized by the transcontinental railroads. Industry was attracting 

increasing numbers of unskilled workers, recruited from among immigrants, freedmen, women, and children, into the urban centers. And, 

with the emergence of the industrial worker, unemployment, slum 

conditions, and labor unrest were on the rise.

The altruistic concerns of social reformers, largely directed 

against slavery in the pre-Civil War period, increasingly focused on 

ameliorating the conditions of American workers—men, women, and 

children. Some of these reformers supported the emerging national 

unions as aids to such amelioration. Further, they challenged the 

prevailing view that the primary role of government was to preserve

1

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

order and protect property and that control of the economy was to be 

left to the captains of industry. They believed that the state should 

have an ethical and educational role, one that was indispensable to 

human progress.

It was in this era of ferment and demands for reform that the 

Bureau of Labor was bom .

The campaign for a national labor agency

The campaign for a national labor agency had begun with the call for a 

Department of Labor at the 1867 convention of the short-lived 

National Labor Union.1 In 1869, in response to the growing strength 

of a labor reform party in the State, Massachusetts established the first 

State bureau of labor statistics. But, under the leadership of labor 

activists, the new agency stirred controversy which almost destroyed 

it. In 1873, the governor appointed as chief Carroll D. Wright, a 

former State legislator who was not associated with the labor reformers, and Wright soon put the bureau on solid ground. Other States 

followed suit, and, within 10 years, 12 more States had established 

labor bureaus.

On the national scene, the Industrial Congress, later renamed the 

Industrial Brotherhood, carried on the fight but did not survive the 

depression years of the mid-1870’s. Then, in 1878, the Knights of 

Labor adopted the preamble of the Brotherhood almost verbatim, 

calling for “the establishment of Bureaus of Labor Statistics’* at the 

various levels of government.2 That same year, a Select Committee of 

the U .S. House of Representatives held hearings on the causes of the 

general depression. In their testimony, Hugh McGregor, later a leader 

in the American Federation of Labor, and George E. McNeill, former 

Deputy Chief of the Massachusetts agency, called for a Federal Bureau 

of Statistics or Ministry of Labor to gather facts and figures.3

From its founding in 1881, the Federation of Organized Trades 

and Labor Unions, later reorganized as the AFL, joined the drive. At 

its first convention, the Federation urged the passage of an act establishing a national Bureau of Labor Statistics. The 1883 convention 

endorsed the creation of a Department of Industry and Statistics to 

collect “such facts as will tend to bring before the United States 

Congress each year the true condition of industry in all its departments.*’4

2

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Origins

In Senate hearings on the relationship of capital and labor in 

1883, union leaders testified in favor of a national Bureau o f Labor 

Statistics. Samuel Gompers, chairman of the legislative committee of 

the Federation, felt that Congress should no longer be able to justify 

its inaction on labor matters by pleading ignorance of workers’ conditions. A national Bureau "would give our legislators an opportunity to 

know, not from mere conjecture, but actually, the condition of our 

industries, our production, and our consumption, and what could be 

done by law to improve both [sic].” He cited the useful role of existing 

State statistical agencies as exemplified by a recent investigation of 

factory working conditions by the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics 

of Labor under the direction of Carroll D. Wright.5

Wright appeared as an expert witness. He administered the Massachusetts Bureau, in his words, "as a scientific office, not as a Bureau 

of agitation or propaganda, but I always take the opportunity to make 

such recommendations and draw such conclusions from our investigations as the facts warrant.” He stressed that the agency should be free 

of political influence. There was need for Federal "investigations into 

all conditions which affect the people, whether in a moral, sanitary, 

educational, or economic sense,” thus adding "to the educational 

forces of the country a sure and efficient auxiliary.” The resultant 

statistical progress of the Nation would indicate "its great progress in 

all other matters.”6

In 1884, backed by the powerful Knights of Labor and the Federation, the establishment of a national Bureau was included in the 

platforms of both parties. In the same year, the House passed a bill 

establishing a Bureau of Labor, but in the Senate, Nelson W. Aldrich 

of Rhode Island secured an amendment putting the Bureau under the 

Department of the Interior. Attempts to ensure that the head of the 

agency would be identified with workers failed.

In the debate on the issue, Representative James H. Hopkins of 

Pennsylvania pointed out, "A great deal of public attention in and out 

of Congress has been given to the American hog and the American 

steer. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is time to give more attention to 

the American man.”7 Hopkins and Senators Henry W. Blair of New 

Hampshire and George F. Hoar of Massachusetts emphasized that the 

primary function of the new agency would be to collect information.

Southerners provided the main opposition. Senator Morgan of 

Alabama attacked "the disposition to pry into the affairs of the people”

3

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

that had given rise to the desire to mount an “inquisition” on labor 

conditions.8 Criticism was also forthcoming in editorials of The New

York Times, which viewed the proposed new agency as “a fine bit of 

Congressional witlessness,” arguing that the work could and should 

be done in some existing agency.9

Overwhelming majorities in both houses approved the establish' 

ment of the Bureau of Labor in the Department of the Interior, and 

the bill was signed by President Arthur on June 27. The statute 

provided for a Commissioner of Labor to be appointed by the President for a 4-year term, whose mission was to “collect information 

upon the subject of labor, its relation to capital, the hours of labor and 

the earnings of laboring men and women, and the means of promoting 

their material, social, intellectual and moral prosperity.”

The new Bureau was a compromise arrangement, providing only 

factfinding authority and limited funds. Labor organizations had 

sought more; opponents had wanted less.

Appointing the first Commissioner

Activation of the new Bureau took an additional 6 months, however, 

as candidates for Commissioner presented themselves and others were 

offered. The process stirred considerable controversy, and the results 

set a permanent stamp on the Bureau.10

Initially, the candidates came from labor organizations. Terence V. 

Powderly, Grand Master Workman of the Knights of Labor, applied to 

Arthur for the position, arguing that the Knights were “the first and 

the only national organization” pressing for the Federal agency and 

the group primarily responsible for the establishment of the various 

State bureaus.11 Through the Knights’ Journal of United Labor,

Powderly urged passage of resolutions supporting his candidacy. At a 

meeting with the President, he presented more than 1,500 petitions 

requesting his appointment.

Considering Powderly too controversial, Arthur looked for other 

candidates associated with labor. He turned to John Jarrett of the Iron 

and Steel Workers but dropped him because of the labor leader’s 

political statements. Then he considered others, such as Miles S. 

Humphreys, a steel puddler who served in the Pennsylvania legislature 

and as Chief of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Statistics. Apparently the 

President even wrote nomination papers for John Fehrenbatch, for4

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Origins

mer General Chief Engineer of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and, at the time, Supervising Inspector of Steamboats for the 

Ohio River District, only to withdraw his name because the Tenure of 

Office Act prohibited the holding of two Federal offices at one time.12

In the meantime, at its 1884 convention, the AFL passed a resolution to "respectfully but eamesdy protest against the attitude assumed 

by President Chester A. Arthur in refusing to appoint a chief of the 

Labor Bureau of Statistics.”13

The New York Times declared that the work “ought to be in the 

hands of some man of a judicial turn of mind who has no interest in 

the results to be shown other than that of presenting the absolute 

truth and such conclusions as spring naturally from the facts and 

figures.”14 The St. Louis Globe Democrat offered a more specific suggestion: “A Bureau of Labor Statistics which the new national institution would do well to take for a model has existed in Massachusetts 

for several years. . . . President Arthur, by the way, might have wisely 

put Colonel Wright in charge of the National Labor Bureau, with 

these inquiries in view on a broad scale.”15

Wright’s name had been presented to Arthur from several 

sources. One report to the President described Wright as “Chief of 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Not a labor man. Excellent statistician, 

but will not especially gratify Labor. Moderate Republican. No political aspirations.”16

Finally, in January 1885, Arthur named Wright. The New York

Times editorialized, “No better appointment could be made, and Mr. 

Wright’s selection in the first place would have been much better than 

the attempt to win the favor of the labor organizations of the country 

by naming for the place someone prominently identified with them.”17

5

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter II.

Carroll Wright: 

Setting the Course

C

arroll D. Wright, the first Commissioner of the agency that 

came to be known as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, had 

little formal training or apparent inclination for labor statistics. Yet, by the turn of the century, he was the most 

widely known and respected social scientist in the Nation, and perhaps in the world. How did he come to play such a prominent role in 

his country’s service? “Because,” his biographer has responded, “to the 

confusion and misinformation surrounding labor reform, Wright 

brought high administrative ability, a nonpartisan interest in facts, and 

a humane idealism that dignified his character and work.”1

Carroll Wright took office in January 1885 as head of the newly 

established Bureau of Labor. He was to lead the agency for the next 20 

years. Over these years, government would play a more active role in 

social and economic affairs in response to the demands of labor, social 

reformers, and the growing Progressive movement, and the services of 

Wright’s Bureau would be increasingly called upon. Although the 

Bureau would undergo several metamorphoses which reflected shifting political forces, Wright’s leadership gave steady direction to its

6

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Wright: Setting the Course

work in "conducting judicious investigations and the fearless publication of the results___ ”

Wright was bom in Dunbarton, New Hampshire, in 1840, the 

son of a Universalist parson and farmer. His early life gave no hint of 

his later career except for its heavy emphasis on religion and civic 

duty. Wright taught school while he studied at academies, and later 

read for the law. During the Civil War, at the age of 22, he enlisted in 

the New Hampshire Volunteers, making a distinguished record and 

receiving his commission as colonel in the fall of 1864. Ill health, 

which was to plague him periodically the rest of his life, cut short his 

service, and he returned to his old neighborhoods in Massachusetts 

and New Hampshire.

Wright established himself as a patent attorney in Boston with a 

residence in Reading, Massachusetts. He had a brief political career, 

winning a seat in the State Senate in 1871 and again in 1872, before 

declining renomination, as was the custom, in 1873. He sought nomination to Congress in 1874,1876, and 1878, failing each time.

In the meantime, in 1873, Governor William B. Washburton 

appointed him Chief of the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of 

Labor, which, under earlier leadership, had become embroiled in controversy. Wright moved quickly to put the Bureau on a solid foundation of objectivity and impartiality, soon making an international 

reputation for himself and the agency.

As Chief, Wright investigated wages and prices, and supervised 

die Massachusetts Census of 1875 and the State section of die 1880 

Federal Census. He also directed studies on such social problems as 

drunkenness, education of youth, and convict labor. He continued as 

head of the Massachusetts Bureau for 15 years, until 1888, a tenure 

which overlapped his Federal appointment for 3 years.

Self-trained, Wright pioneered in the development of the fields of 

economics and sociology in the United States. He contributed 

through statistical reports, papers, lectures, and new professional 

associations to the pragmatic approach to economic thinking, which 

had been limited to the narrower abstractions of classical economics. 

His optimistic view of human prospects made its mark on the direction of economic thought in the United States.2

7

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred years

Wright’s views

A belief in the ability of man to study his situation and to devise ways 

to improve it put Wright in the forefront of the opposition to the 

prevailing doctrines of Social Darwinism. He has been linked to Lester 

Frank Ward, the great pioneer sociologist, in the “frith that mankind 

is intelligent enough, or may become so, to play a constructive part in 

the creation and organization of his social as well as of his physical 

environment.”3

Wright expressed his ethical consciousness in a lecture delivered 

before the Lowell Institute in 1879 in which he attacked John Stuart 

Mill and others of the “old school” as urging, “Love thyself; seek thine 

own advantage; promote thine own welfare; put money in thy purse; 

the welfare of others is not thy business.” In contrast, he spoke 

hopefully of the “new school” which sought “the amelioration of 

unfavorable industrial and social relations wherever found as the surest road to comparatively permanent material prosperity.” The “new” 

would combine “with the old question the old school always asks, 

‘Will it pay?’ another and higher query, ‘Is it right?’” Wright would 

repeat this theme many times.*

Unrest in labor-management relations did not trouble Wright, 

who saw it as the basis of continuing improvement in the human 

condition. But it was the responsibility of government to provide 

information to educate those in the midst of the unrest. In the Eighth

Annual Report of the Massachusetts Bureau (1877), Chief Wright 

explained, “Any means which the Legislature can adopt which will 

add to the information of the people on subjects which concern their 

daily lives are of untold value.. . . To popularize statistics, to put them 

before the masses in a way which shall attract, and yet not deceive, is a 

work every government which cares for its future stability should 

encourage and enlarge.” In his 1886 presidential address to the American Social Science Association, he declared, “With the enlightenment 

of the workers of society, the reforms so much sought for will come as 

a natural consequence.”5

Wright saw the benefits as well as the evils of the factory system. 

He praised the industrialist: “He is something more than a producer, 

he is an instrument of God for the upbuilding of the race.”6 At the 

same time he stated, “The evils of the factory system are sufficient to 

call out all the sentiments of justice and philanthropy which enable us

8

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Wright: Setting the Course

to deal with wrong and oppression; all this I do not dispute, but I 

claim that, with all its faults and attendant evils, the factory system is a 

vast improvement upon the domestic system of industry in almost 

every respect.”7 He wrote, in The Outline of Practical Sociology in 

1899, “Every material improvement by which society is permanently 

benefitted temporarily hurts somebody or disturbs some interest; 

every advance in civilization means the temporary discomfort, inconvenience, and loss, even, to some man or some set of men.” The 

introduction of machines displaced some individuals; however, he 

argued, “Machines not only create new demands in old lines, they also 

create occupations that never existed prior to their introduction.”8 

Thus, society as a whole benefitted.

In 1892, before the Buffalo Liberal Club, Wright declared, “In 

those countries where machinery has been developed to little or no 

purpose, poverty reigns, ignorance is the prevailing condition, and 

civilization consequently far in the rear.” In “The Factory as an Element in Social Life,” he stated, “The modem system of industry gives 

the skilled and intelligent workman an opportunity to rise in the scale 

of employment, in intellectual development, in educational acquirements, in the grade of services rendered, and hence in his social 

standing in his community.”9

His views on the entry of women into the factory system were 

advanced for his time. Although initially he had felt that factory work 

would degrade women and disrupt the family, he later declared that 

the results of various investigations had caused him to change his 

mind. In one statement, he stressed the independence accruing to the 

working woman: “As woman has the power given her to support 

herself, she will be less inclined to seek marriage relations simply for 

the purpose of securing what may seem to be a home and protection. 

The necessity under which many young women live, of looking to 

marriage as a freedom from the bondage of some kinds of labor, tends, 

in my mind, to be the worst form of prostitution that exists. I cannot 

see 'much difference between a woman who sells her whole freedom 

and her soul to a man for life because he furnishes her with certain 

conveniences and one who sells her temporary freedom and her soul 

for a temporary remuneration, except this, that the former may be 

worse than the latter.”10

9

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

He argued that working women had as high a moral standard “as 

any class in the community” and that “regular employment is conducive to regular living.”11

In early expressions of his philosophy, Wright placed great faith 

in the power of the individual to bring about reforms. Increasingly, 

however, at a time of strong opposition to union organization and 

collective action, he supported both, although he did not accept all 

union demands. He threw out as “absurd” the claim on the part “of 

great employers that they can. deal only with individual employees. ...” Rather, “organizations must recognize organizations and the 

committees of the two must meet in friendly spirit for the purpose of 

fairly and honestly discussing the questions under consideration.”12 

And he saw collective bargaining—“a new force comparatively, and 

one which expresses the most important principles of industrial management”—as the means for achieving what legislation or socialist 

revolution or unilateral trade union rules could not do to avoid strikes 

or satisfy strikers.13

While recognizing that strikes were sometimes necessary, Wright 

constantly urged the use of voluntary means to avoid or settle them. 

He favored mediation and conciliation but opposed compulsory arbitration, which he viewed as an indirect means of fixing wages and 

prices by law. Voluntary collective action, then, provided the “practical application of the moral principles of cooperative work.”14

Wright did not believe, however, that resolution of the labormanagement problem could be easily achieved. “The Bureau cannot 

solve the labor question, for it is not solvable; it has contributed and 

can contribute much in the way of general progress. The labor question, like the social problem, must be content to grow towards a 

higher condition along with the universal progress of education and 

broadened civilization. There is no panacea.”15

Wright’s frank expression of his views did not jeopardize his high 

standing with either labor or business interests. During his tenure as 

Commissioner in both Democratic and Republican administrations, 

and after his retirement, he was listened to with respect and was 

sought after as a commentator on the current scene.

10

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Wright: Setting the Course

Laying the foundation

After taking office in 1885, Wright moved quickly to establish professionalism and impartiality in the national Bureau, as he had in Massachusetts. He firmly spelled out the guidelines: Study all social and 

economic conditions; publish the results; and let the people, individually and collectively, assess the facts and act on them. Facts, not 

theories, were the foundation stones for constructive action. And facts 

were to be gained, according to Wright, “only by the most faithful 

application of the statistical method.”16

Staff

He gathered a small force of investigators—capable, well-educated 

men and women who shared his views on the utility of public education for social reform. If, in the early years, some lacked formal training, as did W right himself, others were fresh from European 

universities. The staff reflected Wright’s broad interests and contacts 

with various academic, professional, and reform groups. Several went 

on to careers in other agencies or to academic pursuits, and some 

carried public administration into the territories gained during the 

national expansion of the 1890’s.

Among these first staff members was Oren W. Weaver, who 

served as Chief Clerk from the Bureau’s inception until his death in 

April 1900. Weaver had worked for Wright in Massachusetts, and 

Wright had recommended him for the post of Commissioner of the 

national Bureau. G.W.W. Hanger was Chief Clerk until 1913, when 

he left to become a member of the new Board of Mediation and 

Conciliation. Gustavus A. Weber, first a special agent and then head of 

the division of law and research work, went on to the Institute for 

Government Research, which was to become a part of The Brookings 

Institution. Other early staff members included William F. Willoughby 

and Elgin R.L. Gould. Willoughby, a graduate of Johns Hopkins, 

wrote extensively on foreign labor laws and U .S. factory legislation 

while at the Bureau, and later became Treasurer of Puerto Rico. 

Gould, who spent 5 years in Europe conducting several surveys for 

the Bureau, later played an important role in a number of political and 

social reform movements.

Wright also reached outside for assistance in special projects. 

Caroline L. Hunt conducted the fieldwork for a study of the Italians

11

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred years

in Chicago, and Florence Kelley served as the expert in Chicago 

during an investigation of the slums of large cities.

A t one time, John R. Commons also worked with Wright, on 

Regulation and Restriction of Output (XI Special Report, 1904). Commons later criticized Wright’s method of leadership, writing that he 

had "developed the military organization of privates carrying out the 

detailed orders of their commander.” The agents, he continued, “were 

remarkably accurate in copying figures and making calculations. . . . 

But they had no insight or understanding of what it was all about.”17

But other contemporaries and associates of Wright evaluated his 

influence as broadly leavening in the developing social science field. 

Walter F. Willcox, in writing of the need to give practical assistance 

and experience to students of theoretical statistics, spodighted "the 

group of young men who gathered around Carroll D. Wright” and 

complained that, after Wright’s retirement, no agencies gave the 

“opportunity to get a training in statistics which would qualify one to 

rise to the most important statistical positions.. . . ” And S.N.D. North 

declared of Wright, “His Bureau at Washington has been a university 

for the education of experts in statistics, in sociology, in economics, 

and in industrial studies.”18

Conduct of studies

The principles underlying Wright’s methods for the conduct of original studies were defined and applied early. These were: Firsthand data 

collection, voluntary reporting, and confidentiality of returns.

Wright explained his data collection methods: “The information 

under any investigation is usually collected on properly prepared 

schedules of inquiry in the hands of special agents, by which means 

only the information which pertains to an investigation is secured.” 

The schedule would avoid the collection of “nebulous and rambling 

observations.” Mail collection, though it might be used occasionally, 

was deemed a failure. “With properly instructed special agents, who 

secure exactly the information required, who are on the spot to make 

any explanation to parties from whom data are sought, and who can 

consult the books of accounts at the establishment under investigation, the best and most accurate information can be secured.” The 

completed schedules were then scrutinized under strict supervision to 

ensure internal consistency. The final statistics were carefully checked 

and rechecked, as were the analytical results presented by the staff.19

12

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Wright: Setting the Course

Wright’s British counterpart, Robert Giffen, head of the Bureau 

of Labour Statistics in the Board of Trade, sharply criticized Wright’s 

methods, especially the use of field agents. Questioning the accuracy 

of their direct inquiries, Giffen declared in 1892, “I think I may say 

that there are no persons in the world whom I would trust with the 

kind of inquiries which some of the American agents m ake... .”20 

Cooperation from businessmen was essential to the Bureau, since 

they were virtually the sole source of information on many subjects. 

Wright opposed making reporting mandatory to avoid the appearance 

of adversarial relations between the Bureau and business. And with 

voluntary reporting there were increasingly fewer refusals. Generally, 

agents were received in friendly fashion, even if information was 

refused, and substitutions were made for refusing establishments.

Cooperation was heightened by the businessman’s knowledge 

that the Bureau maintained strict confidentiality regarding the identity 

of reporters. “The Bureau never allows the names of parties furnish' 

ing facts to be given in its reports,” Wright assured respondents.21

Thus, in 1898, he wired a San Francisco businessman: “I pledge 

my word as a government officer that names of your plants and of city 

and State in which located shall be concealed. This will be done for all 

plants. If senator or representative should ask for these names, he 

should not have them.”22 E.R.L. Gould explained to the International 

Statistical Institute in 1891, "Impartiality, fair-dealing, and a respect 

for confidence bestowed have not only disarmed suspicion but engendered even willing cooperation.”23

Wright’s reputation for impartiality and objectivity gave him 

entree to the business community, through organizations such as the 

National Civic Federation and the National Association of Manufacturers. His contacts were helpful in the planning and conduct of 

studies. For example, in developing its studies of production costs, the 

Bureau sought the advice of producers in various industries.2*

Similarly, his labor contacts helped smooth the way for die 

Bureau’s investigators. When Wright found that unions did not 

always cooperate, Gompers urged cooperation. “Let there be light,” 

Gompers wrote, “confident that impartial investigations create numberless sympathizers in our great cause.”25 Moreover, Gompers supported putting the census into the Bureau of Labor, advocated 

publication of a regular bulletin, and suggested topics for investigations.

13

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Wright sought to expand the scope of the Bureau’s coverage by 

joining forces with the State labor agencies. He was one of the founders of the National Association of Officials of the Bureaus of Labor 

Statistics and was its president throughout his term of office. He 

envisioned a nationwide network of collaborating State and Federal 

agents—“ a powerful chain of investigators,” he called it. He planned, 

he said in 1885, to ask Congress to authorize a system whereby the 

Federal Bureau could compensate State agencies for their assistance 

and to allow the Federal Bureau to place agents in States without 

bureaus.26

Although he had little success in carrying out joint studies with 

the States, the State bureaus drew increasingly on the Federal 

Bureau’s experience, so that by 1900 the reports of work in progress 

in the States demonstrated a substantial degree of uniformity in 

inquiries covered.27

Achieving departmental status

While Wright was laying the foundation for his agency, forces were at 

work to expand its power and influence. The Knights of Labor under 

Terence Powderly had been active in the campaign to establish the 

Bureau. Early in 1886, Powderly asked President Cleveland to increase 

the powers of the Bureau and also to have the Commissioner investigate the railroad strike in the Southwest then in progress.28 In April, 

Cleveland sent to Congress the first special message dealing with 

strictly labor matters, recommending that a mediation and arbitration 

commission be grafted onto the existing Bureau. Congress, however, 

adjourned without taking action.

Powderly persevered, and, at the Knights of Labor convention in 

October 1887, he urged establishment of a Department of Labor with 

its Secretary a member of the Cabinet. The next year, he scored a 

partial success. It was again a Presidential election year with labor 

difficulties on the southwestern railroads. In June 1888, Congress 

established a Department of Labor, independent but without Cabinet 

status. A separate statute, the Arbitration Act of 1888, authorized the 

Commissioner of Labor, with two ad hoc commissioners, to act as a 

board of inquiry in railroad disputes.

The growing reputation of the Bureau under Wright had contributed to its rise in status. Reflecting Wright’s concerns, the act estab14

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Wright: Setting the Course

lishing the Department specifically called for studies of the domestic 

and foreign costs of producing goods, national trade and industrial 

activity, the causes and circumstances of strikes, and other special 

topics. The basic functions of the agency were not changed, but, for 

15 years, it was to be more independent.

Any uncertainty regarding Wright’s continuance in the new 

agency was soon dissipated. Although it was reported that the Knights 

of Labor and the Federation would oppose his retention because of his 

opposition to the Knights of Labor, his protectionist views, and his 

Republican associations, in fact, observers in the labor press commented favorably on Commissioner Wright, his staff, and the Bureau’s 

endeavors.

The National Labor Tribune declared, “Inasmuch as Commissioner Wright conducted the Bureau with rare skill, energy, and 

impartiality and not as a politican, there does not seem to be any 

reason why there should be haste in changing.”29

Powderly later wrote that President Cleveland had offered him 

the position but he had refused. At the time, however, in the Journal

of United Labor, Powderly disclaimed all interest in the post of Commissioner. In fact, he declared that the campaign to boom him for the 

job was a conspiracy by his enemies to embarrass him and the 

Knights.30

Wright continued as Commissioner, now head of the Department of Labor. The Act of 1888 authorized 55 clerks and experts for 

the Department and substantially increased its appropriations. Until 

the early 1900’s, Wright presided over the enlarged and independent 

operation largely without challenge.

A sister agency: Bureau of the Census

Wright took a prominent part in the establishment of a permanent 

Bureau of the Census in 1902. Until that time, each decennial census 

was conducted under temporary arrangements by a Superintendent of 

the Census appointed by the President. As early as 1884, during his 

service as Chief of the Massachusetts Bureau, Wright had testified 

before Congress on the benefits to be gained from the creation of a 

permanent census agency. Prominent academicians and Francis A. 

Walker, Superintendent of the 1870 and 1880 censuses, went beyond 

merely proposing a permanent agency; they proposed placing it in

15

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Wright’s Department for greater efficiency and to take it out of the 

political arena.31

Although there was support for a permanent agency, the 1890 

census was still conducted under a temporary arrangement. But the 

impetus for a permanent agency increased in 1890, and the Secretary 

of the Interior recommended establishment of a permanent census 

office. In 1891, the Senate called for a report from the Secretary, and, 

in response, Robert R Porter, then Superintendent of the Census, also 

suggested formation of a permanent agency. In his report, Porter 

included a letter from Wright supporting the idea.32

Widespread dissatisfaction with the conduct of the 1890 census, 

with especially sharp controversy in New Tfork City, focused attention 

on the shortcomings of the periodic temporary arrangements. The 

immediate unhappiness was dissipated when, with the change of 

administrations and the resignation of Porter, Cleveland appointed 

Wright as Superintendent of the Census, a post he held concurrently 

with his leadership of the Department of Labor from 1893 until 

1897.33 "fears later, in a eulogy on Wright, S.N.D. North, first head of 

the permanent Bureau of the Census in the Department of Commerce and Labor, stated that Cleveland appointed Wright “because no 

other available man was so conspicuously fitted” for the task.3*

Calls for legislation continued. In 1892, the House Select Committee on the Eleventh Census held hearings on Porter’s report and, 

in 1893, recommended a permanent Census Bureau, but Congress 

took no action.35

Two years later, the International Statistical Institute suggested 

studying ways to conduct a uniform worldwide census at the end of 

the century, and, in 1896, Congress directed Wright to correspond 

with various experts on the International Institute’s suggestion and to 

report on the best organization for the upcoming 1900 canvass. 

Wright submitted his report with a draft of a bill providing for an 

independent office. He opposed putting the work in the Department 

of the Interior because the Secretary changed with each administration and appointments were subject to political pressures. In his view, 

the proposed office could include the activities of the Division of 

Statistics in the Department of Agriculture and of his Department of 

Labor, but he opposed such a transfer. When pressed on the question, 

he responded, “Personally, I should dislike very much to be put in 

charge of census duties.” But he did admit that, from an administrative

16

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Wright: Setting the Course

point of view, “the work of the Department of Labor and that of the 

Census Office could be carried along together.”36

Bills were introduced, one drawn by Wright for an independent 

agency and one to place census work in the Wright-led Department of 

Labor. The House Committee on Appropriations, in February 1897, 

favorably reported the bill putting the work in the Labor Department, 

characterizing that agency as “admirably equipped for statistical 

work.”37 However, Congress took no action that session.

During the next session, Senator Henry M. Teller of Colorado 

commented, “The Census Office ought to be a bureau under some 

Department, and the Department of Labor is the proper place for this 

work.” Then he offered an amendment putting the work in the 

Department of Labor, “out of which ought to grow in that Department a statistical force, and that Department ought to become the 

statistical department of this Government.”38

Senator Henry C. Lodge of Massachusetts stated that he preferred that the Census Office be separate and independent but, “if it is 

to go anywhere,” the Department of Labor was the natural choice. He 

opposed “jumbling it, with public lands, Indians, Pacific railroads, and 

every other kind of thing, into a department already absolutely heterogeneous and overloaded.”39

Senator William B. Allison of Iowa favored putting the work in 

Interior. He pointed out that the Secretary of the Interior was a 

Cabinet officer. Moreover, in his view, it would not be fair to the 

Department of Labor as it would interfere with the work of that 

agency and the Department officials did not want the new work.40

Some Senators opposed the idea of a permanent Census Bureau 

as an extravagance.

In a compromise, in 1899, a Census Bureau was attached to the 

Department of the Interior specifically to conduct the 1900 census. In 

1902, a permanent Census Bureau was formed and, a year later, transferred to the new Department of Commerce and Labor.41

In regard to Wright’s statement that, “Personally, I should dislike 

very much to be put in charge of census duties,” there is little but 

inference from surrounding events to explain his view. It may have 

been that, in serving 4 years as Superintendent of the Census while he 

was also Commissioner of Labor, he had had his fill of the administrative burdens and political pressures such a position would bring.

17

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

The Department of Commerce and Labor

The depression conditions of the 1890’s led business interests to 

advocate a Cabinet-level department to further the growth of industry 

and foreign and domestic commerce. The National Association of 

Manufacturers, organized in 1895, had as a principal goal the formation of a Department of Commerce and Industry which would 

include the hitherto independent Department of Labor along with 

other agencies.42 To counter the growing NAM drive, Gompers proposed a Cabinet-level Department of Labor for “a direct representative 

in the councils of the President.”43

Congress also launched an initiative, creating the U .S. Industrial 

Commission in 1898 to investigate the Nation’s many social and economic problems, including the growing role of corporate trusts, rising 

labor unrest bordering on class warfare, agricultural discontent, the 

vast influx of immigrants, and intensified competition in foreign markets. The commission reported in 1901 but produced little of significance.

The succession to the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt in September 1901 brought into office an energetic and innovative leader 

who was prepared to meet the problems of the day through increased 

governmental activity. He sought to bridge the contending positions 

of business and labor, and in 1901, in his first State of the Union 

message, he recommended the creation of a Department of Commerce 

and Labor with power to investigate corporate earnings and to guard 

the rights of the workingman.

Roosevelt’s enthusiasm for such a department, along with his 

party’s control of Congress, made the matter a foregone conclusion, 

but the Democratic minority fought hard. Proponents of the bill, 

including Senator Marcus A. Hanna of Ohio, prominent in the 

National Civic Federation, saw no conflict between the interests of 

capital and labor and insisted that the concerns of labor would be well 

represented in such a department. All sides in the congressional 

debate praised Wright, and proponents urged that his role and that of 

his agency would only gain if transferred to the new department. The 

AFL and the unaffiliated railroad unions opposed the merger and 

supported instead the establishment of a Cabinet-level Department of 

Labor. Among labor groups, only the almost defunct Knights of Labor 

favored the merger.44

18

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Wright: Setting the Course

At the 1901AFL convention, Gompers had argued that, on many 

questions of national importance, the Cabinet was deprived of labor 

representation and had to act without receiving advice on the workers’ viewpoint. In January 1902, he wrote Senator William P. Frye of 

Maine, the President pro tempore of the Senate, that the proposed 

dual department would “minimize the importance of labor’s interests 

and minimize the present Department of Labor. Against such a procedure, in the name of American labor, I enter my most solemn protest.”45

At hearings on the bill, Thomas F. Tracy, an AFL representative, 

did not oppose a Department of Commerce but asked for a separate 

Department of Labor. H.R. Fuller, of the railroad brotherhoods, 

declared that a businessman “is not capable to speak for labor, even 

though he felt honestly disposed to do so.” Andrew Furuseth, of the 

Seamen’s Union, stated that the value of the existing department lay 

“in the absolute reliability of the information it furnishes. We do not 

believe it could remain that under the condition that is proposed.”4^

But the Federation and the brotherhoods did not give Wright 

and the Department of Labor their unqualified approval. Tracy 

expressed some reservations. “While they are not all that we would 

desire, while the Department is limited to a great extent and we would 

like to see the scope of the Department enlarged, the statistics and 

reports that are gathered in the Department of Labor are very beneficial and are very useful to the members of organized labor and are 

looked at very carefully and closely on many occasions.”47

At these same hearings, businessmen presented their reasons for 

establishing a Department of Commerce. Theodore C. Search, of the 

National Association of Manufacturers, said the role of the agency 

would be “to assist in every feasible way in the extension of the export 

trade of our manufacturers.” L.W. Noyes explained, “I can conceive of 

no other permanent and sure relief to this constandy recurring danger 

[depression] than the cultivation, establishment, and maintenance of 

foreign markets for our surplus, and labor will profit more by this 

department, through this means, than any other class of individuals.”48

In the congressional debates, it was argued that the proposed 

organization would promote a more harmonious administration that 

would make for greater efficiency and service. Further, the new 

arrangement would provide increased facilities for the Commissioner

19

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

of Labor. Indeed, the House report contended, under the new setup 

the Bureau would increase the scope of its activities and be more 

worthy of elevation to Cabinet status.

Southern Democrats constituted the major opposition. Their 

main point was that business and labor interests “naturally conflict. 

One wants what he can get, and the other wants to keep what he has, 

and, consequendy, the two will always be in natural conflict.” Further, 

the proposed grouping would place the labor agency “in an overshadowed and subordinate position.” The minority on the House Committee reported that they feared “that distrust and suspicion will result in 

friction or create such relations as would seriously impair the usefulness and efficiency of the Department.”49

Senator Hanna retorted that it would be unwise to recognize 

separate interests, “to divide this industrial question by raising the 

issue that one part of it is labor and the other part capital. Those 

interests are identical and mutual.” Similar views were expressed in 

the House.50

The position of Wright and the Department on the legislation is 

difficult to determine. Senator Nelson stated his opinion that the 

opposition to the bill was “inspired from die inside of the Department 

of Labor.” Yet Senator Lodge stated that, while he had not recently 

asked Wright, “I have certainly understood in the past that he favored 

that scheme.” During the debate, Wright himself wrote, “I have 

declined to give any expression upon the proposed bill creating a 

Department of Commerce and Labor. This is in accordance with my 

long-continued practice of not making public statements relative to 

pending legislation, especially when that legislation bears upon this 

Department.”51

The controversy was partially resolved by changing the agency’s 

name to the Department of Commerce and Labor. President 

Roosevelt signed the bill on February 14, 1903, and named George B. 

Cortelyou the first Secretary. The Department of Labor became once 

more the Bureau of Labor, 1 of 18 agencies in the new Department. In 

1904, it accounted for only 100 of the Department’s 9,210 employees 

and about 1.5 percent of its appropriations.52

In his message to Congress in December 1904, Roosevelt reaffirmed the role of the Bureau of Labor in the new Department of 

Commerce and Labor, giving official recognition and praise to the 

developmental work of the Bureau under Carroll Wright. Further,

20

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Wright: Setting the Course

Roosevelt in effect proposed a quasi-policy status for the Bureau’s 

ongoing factual studies, requesting that the Bureau provide Congress 

with information on the labor laws of the various States and be given 

“the means to investigate and report to die Congress upon the labor 

conditions in the manufacturing and mining regions throughout the 

country, both as to wages, as to hours of labor, as to the labor of 

women and children, and as to the effect in the various labor centers 

of immigration from abroad.”53

This description of the scope of the Bureau’s responsibilities 

coincided with Wright’s formulation. Under the broad statutory 

authority, Wright held, “The Commissioner can undertake any investigation which in his judgment relates to die welfare of the working 

people of the country, and which can be carried out with the means 

and force at his disposal.”5^ And in practice, Wright and the Bureau 

initiated most of the studies that were undertaken, although customarily the Commissioner sought either congressional or, later, departmental approval. But increasingly, there were demands from 

Congress, the White House, and, later, from social reform groups for 

specific studies even as the broad social studies of the early years 

continued.

The Bureau’s work

During the 20 years of Wright’s direction, the Bureau’s investigations ranged widely over economic and social developments in the 

United States and also, for comparative purposes, in other industrial 

nations. Initially, studies were broadly conceived and directed at social 

issues such as marriage and divorce, temperance, and laboring women 

and children, but, with periodic economic depressions and a growing 

industrial labor force, the Bureau was called upon increasingly to deal 

with more strictly economic issues such as wages, hours of work, 

prices, and the cost of living. In addition, with the growth of unions 

and formal collective bargaining arrangements, the Bureau’s reports 

and articles increasingly reflected these developments.

The Bureau’s studies placed Wright and the agency in the forefront of the movement to develop quantitative methods for studying 

social and economic problems. Statistical concepts and techniques 

were developed and refined, although they remained rough hewn, 

reflecting the early stage of development of statistical methods.

21

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

The Bureau produced an impressive range and volume of studies 

considering the limited resources available. Publications during 

Wright’s tenure included 20 annual reports, 12 special reports, several 

miscellaneous reports, and, for 9 years, the bimonthly Bulletin. But 

the failure of appropriations to keep pace with the demands on the 

agency posed a number of administrative problems, and Wright had to 

drop work he might otherwise have continued. While appropriations 

rose every year from 1885 to 1893, they did not approach the level of

Table 1. Appropriations for Bureau of Labor, 1885-1905

(in thousands)

Fiscal year ended

June 30 —

Total1 Salaries

1885 $25 $25

1886 40 25

1887 96 53

1888 114 53

1889 139 85

1890 144 85

1891 150 86

1892 170 101

1893 192 101

1894 159 101

1895 170 101

1896 166 101

1897 172 101

1898 180 103

1899 173 103

1900 173 103

1901 177 103

1902 178 103

1903 184 106

1904 184 106

1905 184 106

'Includes salaries, per diem, rent, library, contingencies, and special and 

deficiency appropriations, but not allocations for printing and binding.

SOURCES: National Archives Record Group 257, Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 

Appropriations Ledger, 1887-1903. Legislative, Executive, and Judicial 

Appropriations.

22

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Wright: Setting the Course

1893 during the rest of his term. Table 1 shows the annual funding by 

fiscal year during Wright’s tenure.

In 1892, Wright could say that Congress “has been very liberal.” 

The Department, he continued, “has met with the most generous 

confidence on the part of Congress and of the President and been 

aided in all reasonable ways in bringing its work to a high standard of 

excellence.”55 By 1896, however, congressional demands had grown 

beyond the Bureau’s resources and Wright asked for more funds, 

declaring, WI am now struggling under two investigations Congress has 

ordered, and to carry out the third one, which Congress has already 

ordered, I have not force enough.” Little improvement had occurred 

by 1902, when Wright testified, “I have not asked for any increase of 

special agents since the office was established, and I may say further 

that there has been no increase in the salary appropriations since 1892. 

It was then $101,000, and it is now $102,000. That is the only increase 

in 10 years in the salary list of my Department.”56

The first report: Industrial D epressions

The Bureau’s first annual report (1886) was on industrial depressions. 

The study originated in concern over the depressed conditions of the 

mid-1880’s and the accompanying labor unrest, particularly in the 

railroad industry. The report surveyed depressions from 1830 on, 

covering the United States, Great Britain, France, Belgium, and Germany through information obtained directly by 20 Bureau agents in 

the United States and Europe. Workers’ wages and living costs in the 

foreign industrialized countries were included. The ongoing depression was analyzed in terms of “alleged causes,” and a catalog of “suggested rem edies” was presented. Among the remedies, Wright 

suggested that capital and labor “treat with the other through representatives” in disputes, and that “the party which declines resort to 

conciliatory methods of arbitration [is] morally responsible for all 

effects growing out of the contest.” The report noted the advantages 

of mechanization, although asserting that in the short run the displacement of labor contributed to “crippling the consuming power of 

the community.”57

The study was a test case, as Wright later described it, conducted 

under the “critical watchfulness of friend and foe, and with the idea 

prevailing among labor organizations that the duty of the new office 

was in the nature of propagandism, and not of the educational func23

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

tions of gathering and publishing facts.” Wright pointed to the successful conclusion and acceptance of the report. He saw it as 

innovative in bringing out for “the first time, the relation of nations to 

each other as producers and the various influences bearing upon 

discontent.”58

Gompers cited figures from the report at the 1887 AFL convention, referring to “one of the most important facts with which the 

labor movement has to grapple. The displacement of labor by machinery in the past few years has exceeded that of any like period in our 

history.”59

A leading contemporary economist found in this first report “a 

mass of information of very considerable value,” while noting two 

mild criticisms: The subject was too broad and diverse and the statistics were not sufficiently analyzed.60

In his conclusions, Wright emphasized overproduction/underconsumption and speculative investment. Later, such students of the 

business cycle as Alvin H. Hansen praised Wright’s comments on the 

relation between investment—notably in canals and railroads—and 

business fluctuations. Hansen referred to Wright’s “penetrating 

insight into the changing character of modem industry.”61

The persistent depression of the early 1890*s gave rise to another 

important Bureau study, which looked into whether machines were 

depressing wages and causing widespread unemployment. In 1894, a 

joint resolution of Congress called on the Commissioner to investigate 

the effect of machinery on costs of production, productivity, wages, 

and employment, including comparisons with manual labor. The 

study took almost 4 years of difficult work. Agents observed current 

machine methods for an article’s production and then, with greater 

difficulty, attempted to secure information on the “hand” production 

of the same article. The report provided information on the production time required and the total costs under the two methods.

In carefully qualified conclusions, Wright suggested the benefits 

contributed by the introduction of machinery to rising wages and 

broadened employment opportunities. “The general tendency of 

wages since the introduction of power machinery and the employment of women and children in its operation has been upward, but it 

will be difficult to decide positively whether such increase is due 

absolutely to the use of machinery, or to a higher standard of living, or 

to the increased productivity of labor supplemented by machinery, or

24

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Wright: Setting the Course

to all these causes combined, or to other causes.” He found further 

that “there has been a larger increase in the number of persons 

required for the production of the articles considered, in order to 

meet present demands, than would have been necessary to meet the 

limited demands under the hand-labor system.”62

Strike investigations and industrial relations studies

Turbulence on the railroads, an industry crucial to the economic 

development of the country, led to both congressional and Bureau 

investigations. For an early Bureau study, Strikes and Lockouts (1887), 

Bureau agents collected information on the Missouri and Wabash 

strike of 1885 and the Southwest strike of 1886, and Wright offered 

the material to the congressional committee investigating the disturbances. Later, Wright devoted an entire annual report to railway labor, 

the first U .S. study to deal with labor turnover.63

Further studies on strikes and lockouts were published in 1894 

and 1901, presenting exhaustive treatments of strikes during the 19th 

century. The 1887 and 1894 reports included estimates of the losses to 

management and labor because of lost worktime. A union periodical 

expressed the criticism in 1895 that “statistics of losses sustained 

through strikes by labor are carefully noted, but no estimates are given 

of the gains made by labor,” and called on the Commissioner of Labor 

to “so far forget himself as to do a litde statistical work from an 

employee’s rather than employer’s standpoint.”64

The 1901 report contained additional information, including 

results of strikes ordered by unions as against those not so ordered. 

This time, the same union periodical welcomed the report for showing that “the United States Government says that only 36.19 percent 

of all strikes in 20 years failed, and that most of the wages lost in 

strikes is subsequently made up by extra work, and that with the 

increase in labor unions, has come an increase in successful strikes.”65 

In 1904, with President Roosevelt’s encouragement, Wright 

investigated violence in Colorado mining areas. Drawn-out labor disturbances had caused the governor to call out the State militia, and 

the Western Federation of Miners demanded Federal intervention. 

Wright’s lengthy report covered some 25 years and 13 strikes in the 

region and contained an account of the violations of civil law and 

constitutional rights of the State’s striking miners.66

25

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

The Bureau studied many other aspects of industrial relations in 

addition to the causes and effects of strikes. From the mid'1890’s on, it 

published extensively on new developments in collective bargaining 

and State and foreign social legislation and practices such as accident 

prevention; workmen’s compensation; insurance against sickness, 

accidents, old age, and invalidity; and union welfare and benefit plans.

One of the most innovative studies was the special report, Regulation and Restriction of Output, published in 1904. Conducted under 

the direction of John R. Commons, the study covered union management relations in the United States and England, particularly in the 

building trades and in the iron and steel, cigar, boot and shoe, and coal 

industries. It discussed both employers’ objectives of stable conditions, 

fair prices, and fair wages, and workers’ efforts, working through 

unions, to improve wages, working conditions, and skills. It pointed 

out the restrictive practices of employers, unions, and nonunion 

workers.67

Wright’s role in dispute settlement

On several occasions, Wright was called upon in his capacity as Commissioner of Labor to participate in the settlement of disputes. The 

railroad strikes of the 1880’s had led to passage of the Arbitration Act 

of 1888. In addition to providing for voluntary arbitration, it empowered the President to establish committees of three, with the Commissioner of Labor as Chairman, to investigate disputes threatening 

interstate commerce, make recommendations, and publish a report. In 

1894, President Cleveland appointed Wright to the investigating commission on the Pullman strike, and its reports and recommendations 

bore the imprint of Wright’s growing awareness of the importance of 

labor organizations in balancing employer domination to achieve stability and continuity through agreement.

The strike began in May 1894, when the recently organized 

workers at the Pullman factory near Chicago walked out, primarily 

because town officials insisted on maintaining rent levels on the company-owned homes despite wage reductions and layoffs following the 

depression of 1893. The American Railway Union led by Eugene V. 

Debs, which had advised against the strike, sought arbitration. When 

Pullman refused, the union voted to boycott Pullman sleeping cars. 

The general managers of the railroads retaliated by importing strikebreakers. Management also began to attach mail cars to the sleepers so

26

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Wright: Setting the Course

that refusal to service the Pullmans would constitute interference with 

the mails. The managers thus painted the strike as a fight between 

anarchy and law and sought Federal Government intervention.

President Cleveland and Attorney General Richard Olney 

obtained an injunction against the strikers, and regular troops were 

sent in to enforce it. In July, after the strike was broken, the President 

invoked the Arbitration Act of 1888 and appointed an investigating 

commission consisting of Wright, John D. Keman of New 'York, and 

Nicholas E. Worthington of Illinois. The commission took extensive 

testimony in Chicago and Washington before reporting in November.68

Samuel Gompers, along with Debs and others, appeared before 

the commission. Gompers stated his views on strikes when Wright 

asked him whether sympathetic strike action, such as that in the 

Pullman strike, was justifiable when it could “paralyze, to any degree, 

the commercial industry of the country.” Gompers replied, “I believe 

that labor has the righ t... to endeavor to improve its condition.. . . If 

industry or commerce is incidentally injured, it is not their fault; the 

better course and the most reasonable course would be for employers 

to grant the reasonable requests labor usually makes and thus avert 

the disaster of commerce or industry that you have mentioned.” The 

social losses of widespread unemployment, both persistent and intermittent, were greater than disadvantages from strikes, he insisted, 

citing Wright’s earlier reports. He opposed legislation for arbitration, 

fearing it would lead to compulsory arbitration, with labor at a disadvantage.69

In its recommendations, the Wright-chaired commission cited the 

quasi-public nature of railroad corporations as permitting the exercise 

of congressional authority over strikes. It urged employers to recognize unions, stressing that their interests were reciprocal, though not 

identical. It proposed a permanent commission to investigate and 

make recommendations in disputes having a major impact on the 

public, with enforcement by the courts. And it advised that “yellow 

dog” contracts be outlawed.70

Gompers praised the commission’s report as trailblazing in an era 

of employer opposition to union organization, although he implicitly 

disagreed about special legislation for mediation and arbitration in the 

railroad industry, which the railroad unions supported. He wrote, 

“Whatever may be the ultimate result of United States interference

27

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

between the railroad managers and the road laborers of this country, 

we have confidence that none today will refuse to bestow a generous 

meed of praise on Carroll D. Wright and his companion commission* 

ers for their lucid and conscientious report on the Chicago strike of 

1894. ”71

The commission’s recommendations became the basis for legislation dealing with railroad disputes that had a major impact on the 

public. Wright helped draft and publicly supported the pertinent bills 

under congressional consideration between 18^5 and 1898.72 Addressing the charge that the proposed measures contemplated compulsory 

arbitration, he pointed out that they sought, first, conciliation or 

mediation. Only if these failed to bring about agreement was there 

provision for seeking a board of arbitration, with the award final only 

“if the parties coming before it agree it shall be.”73

In the congressional debates in 1897, Representative Constantine 

Erdman introduced a letter from Wright stating, “Instead of contemplating involuntary servitude, the bill, it seems to me, places labor and 

capital on an equality as to the enforcement of contracts.” Citing 

protections against yellow dog contracts and blacklists, Wright 

explained, “Practically, this is a bill of rights that the workingman, so 

far as railways are concerned, can not claim at present.”74 But Wright 

did not leave any illusions about this being a panacea: “The bill, 

should it become a law, will not solve any phase of the labor problem, 

nor prevent strikes entirely, but it will do much to steady the forces 

involved and afford a powerful and even effective balance wheel in 

interstate controversies.”75

The resulting Erdman Act of 1898 revised the 1888 statute by 

providing for voluntary arbitration and establishing a board of mediation and conciliation composed of the Commissioner of Labor and the 

Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Operations of 

the board were limited since it could function only on the request of 

the parties, nor did the act include provisions for investigatory committees as found in the earlier act. Yellow dog contracts were prohibited, a provision later voided by the Supreme Court. The arbitration 

provisions of the act were never utilized, but the board of mediation 

was called upon later; Wright’s successor, Charles P. Neill, was very 

actively engaged.

Wright also figured prominently in the anthracite coal strike of 

1902, in which he emerged as Roosevelt’s labor adviser. Roosevelt’s

28

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Wright: Setting the Course

handling of this strike contrasted with Cleveland’s actions in the 

Pullman strike, introducing the Roosevelt policies of seeking to 

reduce the impact of strikes, of recognizing the right of unions to 

organize, and of urging the public airing of issues. Wright and 

Gompers helped to ensure impartiality on the part of the Federal 

Government in the investigation of the strike, the dispute-resolving 

machinery, and the findings and recommendations.

The miners had walked out in May when the operators refused 

to negotiate a new contract. Wright acted as intermediary between 

Roosevelt and Gompers in discussions of means of settling the strike. 

In June, Roosevelt directed Wright to investigate the situation, and the 

Commissioner prepared a report and recommendations for settling 

the dispute. Although pleased to have the factfinding report, the Mine 

Workers criticized Wright for not visiting the fields and attacked some 

of his suggestions. The strike dragged on into the fall.76

Frustrated and running out of patience, Roosevelt called the 

parties to meet with him. Subsequently, with the miners willing to 

accept arbitration, Roosevelt prevailed on the mine operators to cooperate, and he appointed a commission. Wright acted initially as 

recorder, later as a member of the commission and as umpire in the 

continuing conciliation process. His earlier recommendations were 

apparent in the commission’s report settling the strike.

Roosevelt’s appointment of Wright to explore the anthracite dispute was welcomed, with one expression that: “No man in this country—and probably there is no man living—has more persistently and 

intelligently applied himself to the study of labor problems and their 

remedy than has Colonel Wright.” Later, however, as permanent 

umpire of disputes under the board of conciliation established by the 

commission’s award, he was criticized by the United Mine Workers 

and Gompers for unfavorable awards.77

Studies on working women and children

Wright’s early and continuing concern about the impact of changing 

industrial developments on the family, and particularly on the employment of women and children, was reflected in a series of landmark 

studies. He had conducted the survey Working Girls in Boston in 1884, 

before leaving Massachusetts. In 1888, the new national Bureau issued 

Working Women in Large Cities, which covered 17,000 “shop girls”

29

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

engaged in light manual or mechanical work in factories and stores, 

representing about 7 percent of such employment in 22 cities.

Notably, the survey was conducted in large measure by women 

agents o f the Department, evidence also of the changing role of 

women. O f these agents, Wright’s report said, “The result of the work 

of the agents must bear testimony to the efficiency of the women 

employed by the Department, and to the fact that they are capable of 

taking up difficult and laborious work. They have stood on an equality 

in all respects with the male force of the Department, and have been 

compensated equally with them.”78

The study reported on the wages, expenditures, health, moral 

standards, work environment, family backgrounds, and marital status 

of the women. Commenting on the new opportunities and earnings of 

women, Wright observed, “A generation ago women were allowed to 

enter but few occupations. Now there are hundreds of vocations in 

which they can find employment The present report names 343 

industries in which they have been found actively engaged.. . . By the 

progress or change in industrial conditions, the limit to the employment of women has been removed or at least greatly extended, and 

their opportunities for earning wages correspondingly increased and 

the wages themselves greatly enhanced. . . . " H e noted, however, that 

women were willing to work for lower wages than men.79

Depression conditions in the 1890’s raised the question of 

whether women and children were replacing men, and Wright 

received congressional authorization for a study of industrial establishments. In pointing out the need for the study, he noted the doubling 

of the number of women in gainful employment since the 1870 census 

and the “serious economical and ethical question as to the reasons for 

such a vast increase.”80

The scope o f the 1895-96 survey was characterized as covering 

“specifically the employment and wages of women and children in 

comparison with the employment of men in like occupations, how far 

women and children are superseding men, and the relative efficiency 

of men, women, and children when employed in doing like work.” 

Agents visited over a thousand establishments, mainly in manufacturing industries, in 30 States. Current data were collected for almost

150.000 men and women employed during the survey period, while 

information for some week at least 10 years earlier was collected for

100.000 workers. The published tables provided information on the

30

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Wright: Setting the Course

occupations, hours worked, and comparative earnings of men, 

women, and children of “the same grade of efficiency,” and the reasons usually given for the employment of women and girls. The data 

confirmed the continued rapid increase of women in manufacturing 

employment. Comparisons of average earnings of men, women, and 

children in the same occupation and grade of efficiency showed that 

men earned over 50 percent more than women, and that children 

earned substantially less than adult workers.

One academician criticized the report, arguing that its emphasis 

on manufacturing created a downward bias in reflecting the employment of women and girls, since the vast majority were employed in 

nonmanufacturing industries. Such coverage, the sociologist contended, would have shown a much greater increase in the employment of women and girls.81

In the early years of the new century, Wright directed another of 

the landmark studies on the employment of children, Child Labor in

the United States (Bulletin 52, 1904). Hannah R. Sewall and Edith 

Parsons investigated conditions for children under 16 years of age 

through visits with employers, parents, and youth.

Wright also gave considerable attention to the training of youth. 

He explained the growing need: “Training in trade schools in the 

United States is intended to supply the place of the old-time apprenticeship, which has nearly disappeared under the conditions of present-day industry.” He had studied vocational education back in 

Massachusetts and, in fact, participated in surveys there after leaving 

the Bureau. While he was Commissioner, two of the Bureau’s annual 

reports focused on industrial schools.82

Urban and ethnic studies

Several Bureau studies reported on problems of the burgeoning urban 

centers. One of these was conducted during the depression of the 

early 1890’s, when Congress directed the Bureau to study the slums of 

the major cities. Wright noted the reasons for the study: “The popular 

idea is that the slums of cities are populated almost entirely by foreigners, and by foreigners of a class not desirable as industrial factors and 

who do not assimilate with our people.” He added, “The alleged 

tendency of colored people to crowd into cities becomes a part of this 

wide subject and emphasizes the necessity of the investigation. ”83 In 

1894, the Bureau issued The Slums of Baltimore, Chicago, New York,

31

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

and Philadelphia> which gave figures on nativity, illiteracy, occupations, earnings, and health and presented information on liquor, 

saloons, and arrests.

O n the liquor issue, Wright had stated earlier, “'fou cannot discuss the labor question from either the ethical or economical side 

without consideration o f the temperance question.”84 He was a member of the “Committee o f Fifty," a group of prominent citizens headed 

by Seth Low studying the liquor problem, and planned a major 

Bureau study to supplement the committee’s work. In 1897, the 

Bureau’s Economic Aspects of the Liquor Problem reported on production and consumption, traffic, revenues, and the practices of employers in the liquor industry.

In The Housing of the Working People (1895), the Bureau 

presented data on sanitary laws, building regulations, public intervention, and model buildings in the United States and Europe. The role 

of building and loan associations, cooperative methods for saving, and 

home financing available to wage earners also were subjects of Bureau 

studies.

In the late 1890*s, Wright turned his attention to other municipal 

problems. One report dealt with public ownership of public utilities, 

which was favored by reformers. The report, Wright stated, was 

intended to provide clarification, not “material for local contention." 

In 1899, at the direction o f Congress, the Bureau began the a n n u a l 

series, “Statistics o f Cities," which surveyed conditions in cities with a 

population o f at least 30,000. This work occupied a disproportionate 

amount of the Bureau’s time, and, when the Bureau of the Census was 

established, Wright succeeded in having the work transferred. Even 

so, Wright claimed a constructive influence for the data. “The annual 

publication of these statistics. . . has stimulated many cities to reform 

their methods o f accounting, and this. . . has already had most beneficial results."85

Ethnic studies of the condition of Negroes and of newly arrived 

immigrant groups were among Wright’s important contribution» 

Wright’s interest in the status o f Negroes under the conditions o f 

Reconstruction and migration to the cities had been evident in his 

study o f Negroes as part of the Massachusetts Census of 1875. He had 

sought to conduct a major study of Negro labor when the Bureau was 

established, but had failed to receive authorization.86 However, in the 

late 1890’s, he provided assistance for and published a number o f

32

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Wright: Setting the Course

regional studies of the condition of blacks in cities and agricultural

areas. W.E.B. Du Bois was notable among the black sociologists conducting the studies, contributing three of the nine articles published

in the Bureau’s Bulletin between 1897 and 1903.

In 1901, when Representative Leonidas F. Livingston of Georgia

introduced a bill appropriating funds for Negro studies in the Department, Wright explained that he certainly had no objections and that

in fact, the Bureau had been conducting such work for several years:

“Professor Du Bois, whom I presume you know, has done excellent

work along this line, and I hope to be able to continue him.”87

However, after the relocation of the Bureau to the new Department of

Commerce and Labor, Wright noted obstacles. In August 1903, he

wrote Du Bois, “I do not believe it will be possible for us in the near

future to take up the question of the Lowndes County Negroes. This

is a financial question with us at the present time." 88

Apparently Wright finally found a means of funding a major

study of Negroes after he left office. He headed the Department of

Economics and Sociology at the newly formed Carnegie Institution

which, in 1906, added a division called The Negro in Slavery and

Freedom.89

About the time Wright launched the black studies in the Bureau,

he also directed investigations of the Italian community. The 1890’s

had witnessed an increased influx of Italians into the cities and also a

rise in violence, to an extent set off by “native" fear of the so-called

“mafia.” In fact, the whole issue of immigration and importation of

contract labor continued to arouse considerable passion.90 The Italians

in Chicago: A Social and Economic Study (1897), based on materials

collected by Caroline L. Hunt under Wight’s supervision, presented

the general economic conditions of the Italian community. It also

provided data on literacy, nativity, diet, size of family, weekly earnings,

and unemployment and gave some comparisons with the earlier study

of slum conditions. An 1897 Bulletin article, “The Padrone System

and Padrone Banks,” also dealt with the Italian community.

Many of the subjects of these early Bureau studies were later to

come under the jurisdiction of other government agencies. The Census Bureau took up the statistics of cities; savings and loan associations

came under the Bureau of Corporations in the new Department of

Commerce and Labor; and women and children were to be repre33

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

sented by their own agencies in the Cabinet-level Department of 

Labor before too long.

Tariff studies and price and wage statistics

The enactment of the McKinley tariff in 1890 gave rise to several 

Bureau studies and stimulated groundbreaking work in the development of statistical methods and data on wages, prices, and the cost of 

living. In 1891, to determine the effect of the new tariff law, the Senate 

Committee on Finance, headed by Nelson W. Aldrich of Rhode 

Island, called on Wright to collect data on prices, wages, and hours of 

work, and hired Roland R Falkner of the University of Pennsylvania 

to analyze the material. There was the “constant demand from legislators and economic students for reliable statistics in regard to the 

course of prices and wages in the United States,” for, the committee 

report stated, “Without them it has been impossible to judge even 

with approximate accuracy of the progress of the people of the country and the changes which have taken place from time to time in their 

condition.”91

Wright’s activities had already anticipated the need. The Act of 

1888 elevating the Bureau to departmental status had specifically called 

for studies of “the cost of producing articles at the time dutiable in the 

United States” and “the effect of the customs laws.” 92 Bureau studies 

of the cost of production in the iron and steel, coal, textile, and glass 

industries in the United States and abroad were already well underway. Along with wage data for workers in these industries, cost-ofliving and budget information was collected. The term “cost of living” 

referred to family expenditures, and thus the study sought to reflect 

the standard of living supported by the actual levels of family income. 

In all, 8,544 families were covered. O f these, 2,562 were viewed as 

“normal” families, defined as families consisting of a husband and wife, 

up to five children under the age of 15, and without other dependents 

or boarders.

Two reports prepared by the Bureau for the Aldrich Committee 

became landmark sources of data on prices and wages. Some wholesale 

price data were assembled for the preceding half century; for the 28 

months preceding September 1891, prices were collected for 218 articles in 7 cities. Retail price collection was limited to the 28-month 

period, covering 215 commodities, including 67 food items, in 70 

localities. Wage data were also assembled for the preceding half cen34

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Wright: Setting the Course

tury in 22 industries; for the 28-month period, the data covered 20 

general occupations in 70 localities and specialized occupations in 32 

localities.

Falkner’s methodological innovations related to weighting and 

indexing the price and wage data. Indexing techniques, although 

known, had not been used to any extent in analyzing economic phenomena. To weight the wholesale and retail price indexes, Falkner 

used the family expenditure patterns developed in the Bureau’s cost of 

production studies, supplemented by additional budgets developed for 

the Senate committee. The wage indexes, however, were based on 

unweighted data.93

The academic community was generally pleased with the recognition accorded professional statistical and economic analysis by the 

Aldrich Committee, although some found fault with Falkner’s methods. The Quarterly Journal of Economics referred to the wholesale 

price statistics as a “monument of thorough and skillful statistical 

work” and a “careful and complete investigation of the course of 

prices.” Frank W. Taussig wrote, “The skill and judgment of Commissioner Wright have yielded results whose importance and interest to 

the economist can hardly be overstated. ...” Yet Richmond MayoSmith criticized Falkner’s method for risking distortion in the general 

wholesale price index by placing “undue emphasis upon certain kinds 

of commodities” in order to utilize family expenditures as weights.94

Frederick C. Waite said of the two reports, “Together they constitute the most valuable contribution to the history of American economic conditions that has yet appeared.” However, Waite criticized 

Wright and Falkner for making “a series of fallacious deductions.” 

Waite complained that the wage index was based on too few occupations and too few returns—and all of them collected in the Northeast. 

He further alleged problems in the methodology in that Falkner 

should have used a multiyear base instead of the single year 1860 and 

that he should have weighted the wage data in making the index.95 

And, in further comment, some critics did not see that the reports 

would resolve the disputes surrounding the tariff question.

The work on wholesale prices, begun for the Aldrich Committee, 

was developed further by Falkner and the Bureau in 1900 and thereafter. They directed their efforts towards overcoming the undue representation of consumer goods arising from the use of the weights 

determined from the family expenditure studies. In 1900, in revising

35

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

his indexes, Falkner maintained the weighting system based on family 

expenditures, but sought to improve the price representation of specific commodities. However, criticism of his use of family expenditure 

weights continued; Taussig commented that these were better suited 

to retail prices.96

The Bureau’s own Wholesale Price Index, covering 1890 to 1901, 

appeared in 1902, marking the Bureau's entry into the field of current 

economic measures. Although the Bureau sought to link its effort as 

much as possible to the earlier work, the index of 1902 was based on 

an entirely new survey and concept. Because a weighting system based 

on national consumption patterns was not deemed feasible, and 

weighting by family expenditures was held to miss too many manufactured items, the Bureau used “a large number of representative staple 

articles, selecting them in such a manner as to make them, to a large 

extent, weight themselves."97 A subsequent revision in 1914, however, 

turned to computing the weights “from the aggregate values of commodities exchanged year by year,” utilizing the 1909 Census of Manufactures.98

To lay the groundwork for an index of retail prices, the Bureau 

conducted a massive survey of family expenditures during 1901-03, 10 

years after the Aldrich study. Unlike the earlier surveys, which had 

covered workers’ families in specific industries and areas, the new 

survey aimed to be representative of the conditions of workers in the 

whole country. Special agents of the Bureau visited 25,440 families of 

wage earners and of salaried workers earning up to $1,200 a year in 

the principal industrial centers in 33 States. Native—including 

Negro—and foreign-bom families were included, without reference to 

industry. The agents recorded one year’s expenditures on food, rent, 

principal and interest on homes, fuel, lighting, clothing, furniture, 

insurance, taxes, books and newspapers, and other personal expenditures. They also obtained information on earnings of family members.

Detailed data on income and expenditures of 2,500 families provided a basis for determining the relative expenditures, or weights, for 

the principal items entering into the cost of living. In particular, 

weights were determined for the principal articles of food consumed.

The Bureau also obtained information on prices for the period 

1890 to 1903 from 800 retail merchants for the same items and localities as those reflected in the budgets of the expenditure survey. This

36

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Wright: Setting the Course

was the first known collection of retail price data covering a period as 

long as 3 years.

With the expenditure and price data, the Bureau prepared its first 

weighted retail price index: “Relative Retail Price of Food, Weighted 

According to the Average Family Consumption, 1890 to 1902 (base of 

1890-1899).” It provided monthly quotations of 30 principal items of 

food and summarized them in terms of “average price of the article” 

and “relative price,” presenting these as averages and as weighted by 

consumption. Coverage was soon expanded to over 1,000 retail establishments in 40 States. The index was maintained through 1907."

Wage data were collected as part of the same set of surveys. 

Previously, the agency’s wage work had been sporadic and for specific 

purposes. In releasing the results of the study in 1904, in Wages and

Hours of Labor, the Bureau explained that it had undertaken “a very 

painstaking and complete investigation which would result in thoroughly representative figures for a period of years [1890 to 1903] and 

which would serve as the basis for the regular annual collection and 

presentation of data from the establishments covered.”

The study covered 519 occupations, “only the important and 

distinctive occupations which are considered representative of each 

industry,” in 3,475 establishments in 67 manufacturing and mechanical industries. The voluminous data included actual and relative wages 

and hours by occupation; relative wages by industry; and relative 

wages and hours for all industries covered, weighted according to 

census data for aggregate wages in each industry. The new series 

appeared formally in 1905, as “Wages and Hours of Labor in Manufacturing Industries, 1890 to 1904,” but covered fewer industries and 

occupations than the original study.100

The wage and retail price survey results were placed in juxtaposition in an article in the Bureau’s Bulletin in July 1904, with the 

observation that, “taking 1903, it is seen that hourly wages were 16.3 

percent above the average of 1890-1899, while retail prices of food 

were 10.3; making the increase in purchasing power of the hourly 

wage, 5.4 percent.”

There were sharp reactions to this conclusion from labor organizations, politicians, and academicians, coming as it did at a time of 

industrial unrest and strikes due to layoffs, wage reductions, and 

reduced purchasing power following the panic of 1903—and the Presidential campaign of 1904. Representative William S. Cowherd of

37

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Missouri, of the Democratic Congressional Committee, attacked the 

Bureau's results and charged Wright with veiling the truth by manipulating figures to meet party necessities. The Journal of the United 

Mine Workers complained o f methodological problems, arguing that 

the Bureau should show not only the daily wage but also the number 

of days worked. The Official Journal of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen castigated Wright and the wage and costof-living figures, alleging that the summary “appears to have been 

edited solely for political purposes and, to that end, has so many 

misleading statements that, as a bulletin concerning labor matters, it is 

entirely unworthy and inaccurate.’’101

The Machinists’ Monthly Journal o f the International Association 

of Machinists roundly attacked the figures: “It will take more than the 

figures given by the Honorable Carroll D. Wright in the July Bulletin

of the Bureau of Labor to convince the housewives of the nation that 

wages have increased in proportion to the increase in prices.”102 

Ernest Howard wrote in the Political Science Quarterly, “The effort 

made by the Bureau of Labor to find an approximate compensation for 

the rise o f retail prices in the wage increase among certain classes of 

labor, most highly organized and aggressive, cannot be accepted as 

representative of the general labor experience.”103

More moderate views came from two other sources. Wesley C. 

Mitchell spoke favorably o f the improvements in wage data under 

Wright, especially in classified wage tables and index numbers. Later, 

he upheld the “high character” o f the Bureau's index numbers, specifically in contrast to a Census report that showed different trends. 

Nevertheless, even Mitchell warned of shortcomings. The new tables, 

he said, had met “with more favor than they merit” because they 

continued Falkner’s “most serious error”—lack of an adequate system 

of weights. The National Civic Federation gave a balanced perspective 

on the issue under the caption “Statistics That Do Not Apply.” Commenting that “partisan motives, sharply accentuated by a Presidential 

campaign, have caused both attack and defense of these data,” it 

pointed out that the Bureau had not intended that the observations 

apply to the immediate situation. The statistics “share the fault, perhaps inevitable, of all governmental statistics. They may enlighten in 

retrospect, but as to the immediate present, they are out of date.”10*

38

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Wright: Setting the Course

International influences

Wright’s interest in developments abroad was apparent early in his 

career. As Chief of the Massachusetts Bureau, he visited England in 

1881 to collect material for a factory study. Later, as Commissioner of 

the Federal Bureau, he sent members of his staff to Europe and 

obtained the services of experts studying abroad to collect information 

for studies.

Wright’s reputation and his example, as well as the example of the 

State bureaus, influenced the rise of labor agencies in the European 

countries. At an Industrial Remuneration Conference in London in 

January 1885, several speakers pointed to the American experiments. 

Charles Bradlaugh, M.R, maintained “there could not be any fair 

arbitration satisfactory to the men until we had bureaux of the statistics of labour similar to those which had existed for 17 years in 

Massachusetts, which had been established in Connecticut, and in 

which an experiment had been made to some extent in Washington.” 

Sir Rawson Rawson, President of the Royal Statistical Society, hoped 

the conference would impress the government with the importance of 

following the example of “the American government or the government of Massachusetts.”105

The influence of the U .S. agency was formally recognized in a 

resolution of the 1891 convention of the International Statistical Institute in Vienna, which expressed the desire “that the governments may 

be willing to create Bureaus of Labor on the plan of those of the 

United States, where these offices do not exist, either creating a distinct Bureau or utilizing the organization of existing bureaus of statistics.” National bureaus of labor statistics were established in quick 

succession during the 1890*s and early 1900’s in France (1891), Britain 

(1893), Spain (1894), Belgium (1895), Austria (1898), Germany, Italy, 

and Sweden (1902), and Norway (1903). Other countries, like Denmark (1895) and the Netherlands (1895), established central statistical 

offices which also collected statistics on labor.106

During hearings before the British Royal Commission on Labour 

in 1892, Elgin R.L. Gould, a special agent of Wright’s agency, was 

called upon to testify. Gould had been in Europe to attend a session of 

the International Statistical Institute and to collect information for 

several Bureau studies, and he gave a thorough picture of the philosophy and organization of the agency under Wright. One outcome of

39

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

the commission’s activities was the prompt establishment of the new 

British Labour Department.107

Shortly after its establishment, the British agency exerted a reciprocal influence on its American counterpart when it began publication 

of the monthly Labour Gazette, which Wright used as an example to 

justify congressional authorization of a similar publication. In a letter 

to Representative Lawrence E. McGann, Wright endorsed the House 

bill providing for a bulletin, “especially as foreign Governments are 

now doing precisely what your bill aims to accomplish. The English 

Department of Labor, which was established only recently, is now 

publishing, very successfully and with great acceptance to the industrial interests of the country, a labor gazette.”108 Congress approved 

publication of a bulletin in 1895.

Wright was active in the early international efforts of economists, 

social reformers, and government labor officials to provide a bridge 

between trade union concerns, particularly about working conditions, 

and national government approaches to labor policy. The first conference held under such informal welfare reform auspices was the Congress for International Labor Legislation in Brussels in 1897. Wright 

and W.F. Willoughby of the Bureau staff attended these first discussions of international cooperation “in the formulation of labor standards and uniform presentation of reports and statistics regarding 

enforcement. ”109

In 1900, Wright attended the Congress of Baris, an outgrowth of 

the Brussels meetings. From the Baris conference developed the International Labour Office, established at Basel in 1901, and the International Association for Labor Legislation, which first met at Basel that 

same year. The next year, Wright helped organize an American section 

of the International Association. From 1903 to 1909, the Bureau 

carried $200 in its budget to support the work of the Labour Office, 

which received generally greater support from European governments.110

The Commissioner also belonged to the International Statistical 

Institute and the International Institute of Sociology. He was made an 

honorary member of the Royal Statistical Society of Great Britain and 

the Imperial Academy of Science of Russia, and a corresponding 

member of the Institute of France. In 1906, the Italian government 

honored him and, in 1907, France bestowed on him the Cross of the 

Legion of Honor for his work in improving industrial conditions.

40

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Wright: Setting the Course

Wright’s other activities

While at the Bureau and after he left, Wright was active in many 

pursuits. He served as president of the American Social Science Association (1885-1888), the International Association of Governmental 

Labor Officials (1885-1905), and the American Statistical Association 

(1897-1909). He also served as president of the American Association 

for the Advancement of Science (1903) and was active in the Washington Academy of Sciences. He was also president of the Association for 

the Promotion of Profit Sharing, a short-lived group established in 

1893 to promote industrial partnership between employers and workers through profit sharing.

Shortly before leaving the Bureau, he was superintendent of the 

Department of Social Economy at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition, 

St. Louis World’s Fair (1904). He also served on the Massachusetts 

Committee on Relations Between Employer and Employee, whose 

report favored profit sharing, arbitration, child labor restrictions, 

workmen’s compensation, and revision of the laws on injunctions.111

From 1895 to 1904, Wright was honorary professor of social 

economics at the Catholic University of America—where he met the 

young professor of political economy, Charles P. Neill, who was to 

succeed him as Commissioner of Labor Statistics. For some of the 

period he also lectured at Columbian University, later to become 

George Washington University. He served on the board of trustees of 

the newly established Carnegie Institution of Washington and, in 

1904, became head of its new department of economics and sociology. 

Meanwhile, in 1902, he had become the first president of Clark College, charged with organizing the undergraduate program for the innovative institution.

After leaving the Bureau, he served as chairman of the Massachusetts Commission on Industrial and Technical Education. At the same 

time, he helped found and served as president of the National Society 

for the Promotion of Industrial Education and was active on several 

committees of the National Civic Federation.112

Retirement

Carroll Wright retired from government service at the end of January 

1905—the 20th anniversary of his joining the new Bureau of Labor in

41

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

the Department of the Interior. Near the close of his tenure, Wright 

reaffirmed his view of the agency’s role: “To my mind, all the facts 

which have so far been gathered and published by the Bureau bear, 

either directly or indirecdy, upon the industrial and humanitarian 

advance of the age, and are all essential in any intelligent discussion of 

what is popularly known as the ‘labor question.’” He stressed that 

labor statistics should relate to the ‘‘material, social, intellectual, and 

moral prosperity of society itself,” rather than solely to narrow fields. 

In response to those who called on the Bureau to become “the instrument of propagandism” in the interest of reform, Wright replied, 

“Whenever the head of the Bureau of Labor attempts to turn its 

efforts in the direction of sustaining or of defeating any public measure, its usefulness will be past and its days will be few.” He continued: 

“It is only by the fearless publication of the facts, without regard to the 

influence those facts may have upon any party’s position or any partisan’s views, that it can justify its continued existence, and its future 

usefulness will depend upon the nonpartisan character of its personnel.”113

Wright died in February 1909 at the age of 69.

42

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter III.

Charles Neill: 

Studies for Economic 

and Social Reform

O

n December 12, 1904, President Roosevelt appointed 

Charles P. Neill to succeed Carroll Wright as Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor, effective February 1, 1905. 

The active role already emerging for the Bureau under 

Wright in the early years of the Roosevelt administration intensified 

under Neill as Roosevelt increasingly used the Bureau to further the 

reform efforts of the Progressive movement. In 1908, the President 

wrote, “Already our Bureau of Labor, for the past 20 years of necessity 

largely a statistical bureau, is practically a Department of Sociology, 

aiming not only to secure exact information about industrial conditions but to discover remedies for industrial evils.”1

As a major figure in the conservative wing of the Progressive 

movement, Roosevelt was concerned with the social problems of the 

working population brought on by the increasing industrialization of 

the economy and the growth of large-scale enterprises. This concern 

reflected both a sincere interest in reducing the ill effects of industrialization and a desire to forestall the possible alternatives of social instability and radicalism. In relations between capital and labor, neither 

“government of plutocracy” nor of “mob” was to be controlling.2

43

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Roosevelt regularly expressed his concern with labor problems in 

his annual messages to Congress. His policy, innovative for the times, 

was for limited government involvement in labor-management relations to protect the interests of the public. He saw unions and their 

federations as accomplishing "very great good.. . when managed with 

forethought and when they combine insistence upon their own rights 

with law-abiding respect for the rights of others.“ The role of the 

Department of Commerce and Labor was to secure fair treatment for 

both labor and capital.3

For Roosevelt, the Bureau of Labor's investigatory activities and 

reports were of great value in furthering his goals. In his 1904 message 

to Congress, he called attention to the positive role of government 

accomplished “merely by giving publicity to certain conditions," and 

praised the Bureau of Labor for doing excellent work of this kind “in 

many different directions."4

The Bureau retained its broadened role even after Taft took office 

in 1909. Thus in 1911, in describing the Bureau's activities, Neill 

wrote of “the practical nature of the work which the Federal Government is trying to do to assist in exposing conditions which are dangerous to the life and health of wage-earners and to furnish the basis for 

sound legislation for the improvement of these conditions."5

Demands for legislation mounted during the early years of the 

century as the growing strength of labor unions was challenged by the 

concerted action of large corporations. Responding to gains by the 

American Federation of Labor and especially the United Mine Workers, the National Association of Manufacturers and the Citizens' 

Industrial Association launched a vigorous campaign for the open 

shop. At the same time, the United States Steel Corporation drove 

the remnants of the iron and steel workers’ union from its plants.

In defense against these antiunion moves, the AFL increased its 

political activities. In 1906, it presented “Labor’s Bill of Grievances," 

calling labor’s principal demands to the attention of the President and 

the leaders of the House and Senate. Among the demands were 

legislation for an 8-hour workday, elimination of the competition of 

convict labor, relief from the mounting flow of immigration, exemption of unions from the antitrust laws, and relief from injunctions, 

which were increasingly sought by employers to prevent union action 

in labor disputes.

44

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Neill: Studies for Economic and Social Reform

In the factories and mines, a militant new union, the Industrial 

Workers of the World, emerged to challenge the AFL from the left. 

Originating in western mining areas, the IWW took up the cause of 

the unorganized and unskilled, largely immigrant, work force in the 

factories of the East. Confrontations of workers, strikebreakers, 

police, and militia often erupted into violence.

In the turmoil of the times, Neill, as Roosevelt’s ally in reform 

efforts, became embroiled in considerable controversy. Although the 

Commissioner forcefully defended his agency against charges of partisanship, declaring that it sought objectivity and balance, his experience 

provided something of an object lesson, warning of the hazards of 

being closely identified with particular government policies.

The second Commissioner

Charles Patrick Neill was bom in Rock Island, Illinois, in 1865 and 

was reared in Austin, Texas. He attended the University of Notre 

Dame and the University of Texas before graduating summa cum 

laude from Georgetown University in 1891. He then became an 

instructor at Notre Dame. In 1895, he returned to the East Coast to 

finish his doctorate at Johns Hopkins, receiving the Ph.D. in 1897. In 

the meantime, he served as an instructor at Catholic University in 

Washington, D.C. He was appointed Professor of Political Economy 

in 1900, a post he held until he came to the Bureau of Labor in 1905. 

It was at Catholic University that Neill met Carroll Wright, who was 

teaching there while serving as Commissioner of Labor.

Before the House Committee on Agriculture in 1906, Neill 

briefly summarized his early years: “I was engaged in business as a clerk 

from the time I was 10 years old to 20, including occupation as a 

newsboy, a clerk, and other things. I have been a student from the 

time I was 20 until I was 30, and a teacher from that time on.” He had 

also worked at the University of Chicago setdement house at the gate 

of the stockyards.6

Neill was active in charitable organizations in Washington before 

his entry into government service, and was associated with the “new 

era” of professionalism in welfare work in that city. In 1900, President 

McKinley appointed him to the newly created Board of Charities for 

the District of Columbia, which chose him as its vice president.7

45

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Neill also participated in the educational activities of the District’s 

Civic Center, which sponsored studies of housing conditions, especially of alley dwellings, and of sanitary conditions in the schools, and 

which played an important role in the enactment of child labor and 

compulsory education laws—causes in which he was prominent as 

Commissioner.8

Neill first came to Roosevelt’s attention in 1902, when Carroll 

Wright recommended him for a post on the staff of the commission 

set up to mediate the anthracite coal strike. Roosevelt commented in 

his autobiography, “The strike, by the way, brought me into contact 

with more than one man who was afterward a valued friend and 

fellow-worker. On the suggestion of Carroll Wright, I appointed as 

assistant recorder to the Commission Charles R Neill, whom I afterward made Labor Commissioner to succeed Wright himself.. . . ” 9 In 

1903, Roosevelt appointed Neill to the new Board of Conciliation and 

Arbitration for the anthracite industry, where he served first as 

accountant and later as umpire, replacing Wright.

W hen Roosevelt was looking for a new Commissioner of Labor, a 

number of influential men supported Neill for the position. One of 

them, Edward A. Moseley of the Interstate Commerce Commission, 

wrote Marshall Cushing of the National Association of Manufacturers, “I believe he is the sort of man that should be appointed to a 

position of that kind not only because he is a political economist, but 

will be able to hold the balance with a steady hand.” The Review of

Reviews, while commenting that it would be difficult to fill Wright’s 

place in government and academic reputation, remarked, “The new 

Commissioner brings good credentials for his work.”10

Neill’s views

Neill’s early writings and speeches reflected the view that the betterment of society could come only from the moral improvement of the 

individual. He saw the task of the social worker as one of developing 

the psychic fortitude of the poor: “We may say what we will about 

environment. The struggle of the poor is the struggle of the interior 

psychical forces against external environment. Any society is only as 

strong as the individual members make it.”11

By the time he became Commissioner, he had broadened his 

view: “It is true poverty is perfectly compatible with sanctity, but

46

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Neill: Studies for Economic and Social Reform

when this happens it is the unusual. Those of you who have seen 

something of low standards of living amid poor material surroundings 

know how almost impossible it is to bring up children with decent 

moral standards. To raise the standards of living, both material and 

moral, we must begin with the food, clothing, and shelter. . . . There 

are certain possibilities in higher standards of living which the individual cannot attain by himself. This requires State action. There must be 

certain united action to allow the individual to reach the highest 

standard of living possible.”12

Neill emphasized the collective social conscience, especially after 

becoming Commissioner. In a 1906 article, “Child Labor in the 

National Capital,” he summarized his ideas as follows: “Whose is the 

responsibility? For whom do these children work? The truth is these 

child victims are working for us. They are working for me, and they 

are working for you. We enjoy cheaper products because the rights of 

children are outraged in order to furnish cheap labor. We cannot turn 

around and lay the blame entirely on the greed of the employer. 

Whatever shameful conditions of child labor exist, it is due just as 

much to a lack of conscience in the community at large as it is to any 

greed on the part of particular employers.”13

Neill did not agree with those who believed that capital and labor 

were “necessary allies and natural friends.” On the contrary, he argued 

that industrial disputes were inherent in the very nature of the economic system. However, he stated, “That strife may be tempered and 

kept within reasonable limits. . . . The best hope of industrial peace 

between these two groups lies in educating each to the realization that 

antagonistic interests can be compromised and treaties of peace 

arranged better before than after a test of strength has been made by 

an appeal to force. ”14

He saw unions as an avenue for tempering the conflict. “We must 

either develop a satisfactory process by which, through some form of 

trade unionism and collective bargaining, the burdens of industry shall 

be lightened and the wealth constantly created by the joint toil of 

brain and arm shall be more widely distributed amongst those who 

cooperate in its production, or we shall find ourselves face to face with 

the menace of Socialism in one form or another.”15

47

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

The Bureau’s investigative work

During his first year in office, Neill concentrated on completing stud' 

ies Wright had begun. But the President soon asked him to undertake 

several major new investigations on issues of immediate concern.

Packinghouse conditions

For over a decade, reformers had been demanding Federal legislation 

to require the accurate labeling of preserved foods, beverages, and 

drugs. Germany and other European countries had roundly condemned American preserved meat and packinghouse products. Veterans of the Spanish-American War remembered none too fondly the 

“embalmed beef* of the quartermaster. Such legislation had passed the 

House only to die in the Senate, and Roosevelt urged its adoption in 

his message to Congress in December 1905.16

Early in 1906, Upton Sinclair published The Jungle, which 

exposed the unsanitary practices of the Chicago packers and stirred 

public indignation. Roosevelt called for action. The Bureau of Animal 

Industry of the Department of Agriculture, which maintained a staff 

of inspectors at the stockyards, immediately launched an investigation. 

The President directed Neill to make an independent inquiry: “I want 

to get at the bottom of this matter and be absolutely certain of our 

facts when the investigation is through.” Neill, along with James Bronson Reynolds, a reformer from New York City, spent 2Vz weeks 

gathering information and then submitted a report to Roosevelt, who 

praised him for his work. In addition, not satisfied with the report of 

the Animal Industry Bureau, Roosevelt asked Neill to revise it.17

Based on these reports, Roosevelt ordered the Department of 

Agriculture to prepare a bill establishing more stringent meat inspection procedures. Senator Albert J. Beveridge introduced the proposal 

in May. The so-called Beveridge Amendment quickly passed the Senate, where the packers made no fight. The press reported that the 

packers “were willing to agree to almost any kind of legislation” to 

prevent publication of the Neill-Reynolds report.18

However, Representative James W. Wadsworth of New York, 

Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, mounted a vigorous 

opposition in the House. Thereupon, Roosevelt released both reports. 

As he transmitted the Neill-Reynolds report, he declared, “The conditions shown by even this short inspection to exist in the Chicago

48

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Neill: Studies for Economic and Social Reform

stockyards are revolting. It is imperatively necessary in the interest of 

health and decency that they should be radically changed. Under the 

existing law it is wholly impossible to secure satisfactory results.” The 

Neill-Reynolds report had described the poor lighting and ventilation 

facilities; the “indifference to matters of cleanliness and sanitation” 

demonstrated by the privies provided for men and women; and the 

uncleanliness in handling products.19

The packers retorted in congressional hearings that their procedures were sanitary and wholesome but that they would favor more 

efficient and expanded inspection. Nevertheless, their defenders in the 

House treated Neill harshly when he came to testify, prompting him 

to complain, “I feel like a witness under cross-examination whose 

testimony is trying to be broken down.”20

In the meantime, the press reported vigorous activities at the 

packinghouses where “carpenters and plumbers and kalsominers by 

the score are at work on alterations.” Nevertheless, a great outcry 

continued in both American and foreign newspapers. On June 19, 

Congress agreed to a meat inspection bill, and the President signed it 

on June 30, the same day he signed the Pure Food Law.21

Violations of the 8-hour law

At the same time that Roosevelt ordered Neill into Chicago on the 

meatpacking investigation, he asked the Commissioner to investigate 

alleged abuses of the law limiting contractors on Federal Government 

work to an 8-hour day for their laborers and mechanics. The AFL 

charged that contractors disregarded the 8-hour law with impunity. In 

response, Roosevelt wrote to Frank Morrison, Secretary of the AFL: 

“At our interview yesterday, I requested you to bring to my attention 

any specific cases of violation of the 8-hour law. . . . I shall at once 

forward them to Mr. Neill, of the Labor Bureau, and direct him to 

investigate them and report direct to m e.. . . My belief is that you will 

find that with Commissioner Neill personally supervising the enforcement of the law all complaints will be met.”22

After a thorough inquiry, Neill reported to the President in 

August that the law was rarely obeyed. In September, referring to the 

Neill memorandum, Roosevelt issued executive orders putting into 

effect the Commissioner’s suggestions for improving notification and 

enforcement procedures. Roosevelt asked Neill to continue his review 

of enforcement by the contracting agencies and the courts. A year

49

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

later, Neill reported that most contractors continued to have their 

employees work 10 hours a day.23

The Butchers' Journal of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and 

Butcher Workmen declared, “Charles P. Neill, National Commissioner of Labor, has come out flat-footed against the greedy and grasping contractors on government work and in a letter to President 

Roosevelt he shows up the contractors in their true light and condemns their persistent efforts to violate the 8-hour law on all government work.”24

The Machinists' Monthly Journal of the International Association 

of Machinists thought politics to be at the root of the President’s 

action: “Whether the sudden feverish desire on the part of the Federal 

authorities to see that the provisions of the 8-hour law are strictly 

enforced has anything to do with the recent decision of the organized 

forces of labor to enter the political field can best be determined by 

the workers themselves.”25

Immigration laws

Immigration laws figured prominently among labor’s grievances, 

because the unions viewed existing laws as providing draftees for 

business to restrain wages and prevent unionization. Roosevelt frequently called on Neill to conduct inquiries, and the issue occasionally 

found Neill, who supported restriction of immigration, at odds with 

his superior, Secretary of Commerce and Labor Oscar Straus, a 

founder of the Immigrants* Protective League and a proponent of an 

open immigration policy.

In June 1906, Roosevelt asked Neill to prepare confidential 

reports on the immigration situation, with the assistance of the Commissioner General of Immigration. Neill also surveyed conditions surrounding Japanese immigration into the San Francisco area.26

Roosevelt also called on Neill, as well as Straus, when the actions 

of the State of South Carolina under the Immigration Act of 1903 

were questioned. The act had made it unlawful to pay for the transportation of aliens or to assist or encourage the importation of aliens 

by advertising in foreign countries or otherwise. The ban on advertising, however, did not apply to State governments, and South Carolina 

established a Department of Agriculture, Commerce, and Immigration 

to encourage immigration into the State. The State Commissioner 

induced several hundred aliens to migrate, with the understanding

50

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Neill: Studies for Economic and Social Reform

that their passage would be paid from a fund made up of a State 

appropriation and individual and corporate contributions. Organized 

labor charged that mill owners supplied the funds, thereby skirting 

the letter of the law in hope of obtaining cheap labor.

When the Solicitor of the Department of Commerce and Labor 

upheld South Carolina, Roosevelt called on Straus to review the 

matter thoroughly, because “many of the people most affected sin' 

cerely believe that it is the end of any effort to stop the importation of 

laborers under contract in the Southern States, and that this means 

further damage to laborers in the Northern States.” Roosevelt also 

advised Straus that he was consulting with Neill, who had “exceptional advantages in the way of keeping in touch with the labor people 

and of knowing their feelings as well as their interests.”27

The Immigration Act of 1907 was intended to close the loophole. 

However, a conference called by the President on the interpretation 

of the act produced divergent views. Straus commented in his diary, 

“Commissioner Neill gave a narrow view of the whole situation 

which, however, the President did not adopt.” Roosevelt then 

appointed a committee, with Neill as a member, to study immigration 

into the South and directed that all reports of violations of contract 

labor laws should be filed with the Commissioner.28

The 1907 act also created a commission to study the whole 

question of immigration, and the President appointed Neill to it. Neill 

wrote later, “When the Immigration Commission was created in the 

spring of 1907,1 was, against my personal wishes, drafted into service. 

I had a good deal to do with the planning of the work of the Commission in the beginning, and during the entire period of its existence, I 

was in close touch with its work.” He helped direct the statistical work 

and the southern investigation and supervised the general work in 

Washington, at least in the earlier years of the commission. A number 

of Bureau personnel worked with the commission as well, including 

Fred C. Croxton, who served as its chief statistician.29

The new act also set up a Division of Information within the 

Bureau of Immigration. Terence Powderly, former leader of the 

Knights of Labor, was appointed Chief of the Division, whose function was to distribute immigrants to sections of the country where 

there were jobs available. Originally, the AFL had viewed this function as permitting “workmen lawfully coming to the United States... 

a more intelligent choice of location in which to seek employment...

51

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

and if administered fairly [as] calculated to be of least injury to 

labor.*30

In a period of widespread unemployment, however, the activities 

of the Division of Information in helping immigrants find jobs came in 

for much criticism. The AFL argued that the Department of Commerce and Labor should devote its energies solely to meeting the 

problem of the domestic unemployed. Neill reaffirmed an earlier view 

that “it is useless to talk about any plan to distribute immigrants, other 

then the single plan of offering higher wages in the places that want 

them than they are getting in the places that they are now or in 

offering them opportunities to take up land that make the opportunities actual and really within their reach.*31

In September 1909, Neill wrote President Taft, calling his attention to union charges that immigrants were being used to break the 

unions: “. . . the immigration figures are rapidly mounting up to what 

they were during the high tide of immigration 2 years ago, and the 

labor organizations are convinced that a number of the large corporations are determined to take advantage of the abundance of labor and 

the incoming immigrants to break the power of the unions before 

there is a full return to prosperity and such a scarcity of labor as would 

give an advantage to the organizations.*32

Neill also expressed concern about the influx of Orientals into 

Hawaii. A major section of the third report of the Commissioner of 

Labor on Hawaii (1906) was entitled “Orientalization of Laboring Population and Its Results.* Neill wrote that “as long as Oriental labor is 

available, it will be practically impossible to build up a typical American commonwealth.* Besides, he continued, pointing to the plantation regimen, “It will always be impossible to secure any body of selfrespecting Caucasian laborers who will work under those conditions.* 

Neill reported in 1911 that competition had increased between American and Japanese workers, and that the territorial government and 

businessmen had attempted to attract Caucasian labor from the mainland, with only slight success.33

Strike investigations

In the festering industrial unrest of the period, Neill and the Bureau 

were called upon to investigate many labor disputes, particularly in the 

steel, mining, and textile industries, which were later viewed as 

landmarks in the history of industrial relations. The Bureau’s reports

52

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Neill: Studies for Economic and Social Reform

on these disputes were comprehensive. In addition to noting the 

immediate causes of the dispute, they discussed the new developments 

on the labor scene—the role of immigrant labor, the rise of the IWW, 

and the growth of the open shop and company unions. Further, they 

dealt with the corporate structure of the industry, its business practices, and the impact of new technology on the work force.

Steel was one of the most strife-ridden industries. In 1909, Neill 

was asked to investigate a strike called by unorganized workers, many 

of them recent immigrants, at the Pressed Steel Car Company of 

McKee’s Rock, Pennsylvania, when the company altered the wage 

system and refused to post rates of pay. The workers* other grievances 

included the compulsory use of company stores, extortion by foremen, and a speedup of work. Moreover, the Austrian consul complained that employment agencies were importing immigrants as 

strikebreakers. The IWW gave advice and direction to the strikers, 

marking its entry into the East.34

The AFL noted Neill’s report on the strike when it directed its 

executive board to obtain the report “for the purpose of framing 

national legislation for the proper supervision of the employment 

agencies.”35

At the same time, when the United States Steel Corporation 

announced that all its plants would operate on an open shop basis, the 

Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers struck in 

protest at a company subsidiary, the American Sheet and Tin Plate 

Company, the only remaining unionized mill of U .S. Steel. During 

the unsuccessful year-long strike, the AFL provided organizing support and presented grievances to President Taft and Congress, calling 

for an investigation of the activities of U .S. Steel.

Neill reported to Taft on the “bitterness in labor circles” aroused 

by the company positions in the two steel strikes. He suggested to Taft 

that, to avoid increasing bitterness, a study of labor conditions in the 

steel industry be undertaken and announced immediately. Taft replied 

that he had no objection to such a study, “but I do not wish it 

advertised. . . . I am not in favor of grandstand performances in 

advance.”36

In February 1910, another walkout by several thousand unorganized workers at the Bethlehem Steel Company over the extension of 

overtime and Sunday work prompted the Secretary of Commerce and 

Labor to direct the Bureau to investigate. Ethelbert Stewart of the

53

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Bureau's staff led the study. He reported that at least half the com' 

pany’s workers were required to work 12 or more hours a day, with 

no premium for overtime or Sunday work, and that a 7-day workweek 

was common. No grievance procedure was available to the unorganized workers, he reported, and “time-bonus” payments stimulated a 

speedup in work.37

The Machinists' Monthly Journal described die report as providing “reliable information founded upon exact data, carefully and scientifically collected,” and called on the union’s members to give all 

possible publicity to the facts in the report. Charles Schwab, Bethlehem Steel’s president, protested that the report was unfair in failing to 

clarify that these conditions existed throughout the American steel 

industry. Following a meeting with Schwab and the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, Neill affirmed that the “shocking” conditions prevailed in the industry generally, but that U .S. Steel had recently 

ordered Sunday work reduced to a minimum.38

A month after the publication of the report on Bethlehem Steel, 

the Senate authorized the Bureau to examine working conditions in 

the iron and steel industry. The Bureau's 4-volume study, published 

over a 2-year span, was based on information obtained through personal visits and mail questionnaires to plants employing about 90 

percent of the industry’s workers, the majority of whom were recent 

immigrants. The study covered wages, hours of work, and accidents. It 

reported continued 6- and 7-day workweeks of 12-hour days: Onethird of the 150,000 workers in blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling 

mills were working 7 days a week, and one-fifth were working 84 

hours or more a week. The report questioned the need for Sunday 

work in view of the recent action of U .S. Steel in abolishing most 

Sunday work. The report also called attention to the dilution of skills 

in the industry as mechanical developments spread, adding to the 

already large proportion of unskilled workers.39

In commenting on the study, the Machinists' Journal stated, 

“Gratifying in the extreme and profitable in every way is the report... 

because of the additional light it throws upon the terrible conditions 

under which men have to work in that industry.” Pointing out the 

inadequacy of craft unions for dealing with the employers, the Journal

continued, “There is only one remedy and that is thorough and 

perfect organization. Not the organization of a little aristocracy composed of the less than one-twentieth of these workers who receive fifty

54

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Neill: Studies for Economic and Social Reform

cents an hour and over, but the complete organization of every 

worker in the industry along the broadest, the most liberal and democratic lines imaginable___w4°

Gompers cited excerpts from the report to reply to “public opinion” that labor was well-treated in the industry. Later, in his autobiography, he wrote, “Dr. Neill performed a very comprehensive and 

valuable piece of work which caused the officials of the steel corporations to ‘cuss’ him and gnash their teeth.”"*1

The Bureau continued to focus considerable attention on the 

outbreaks of industrial violence characteristic of the period. A congressional resolution of June 1911 called on the Bureau to investigate 

conditions in Westmoreland County, near Pittsburgh, where a strike 

had been going on in the bituminous coal mines for over a year. The 

Bureau reported that union efforts at organization had been blocked 

by the mine operators for two decades and that the introduction of 

machinery had increased the number of unskilled jobs for which 

immigrants were employed.1*2

One of the most dramatic industrial disputes of the period began 

in the textile mills of Lawrence, Massachusetts, in January 1912. The 

immediate cause of the strike was a reduction in earnings announced 

by the American Woolen Company in response to a new State law 

reducing the limit on working hours for women and children from 56 

to 54 hours a week. The strike was marked by violent confrontations 

between strikers and the police and militia. Although Congress held 

hearings, the Bureau conducted its own investigation and prepared a 

report, which commented on the strike “started by a few unskilled 

non-English-speaking employees” that developed into an organized 

action of 20,000 workers led by the IWW. It noted that wage increases 

were obtained.43

Friends of President Taft objected to giving publicity to the poor 

wages and working conditions in the highly protected textile industry 

for fear of exposing the weakness of the argument that high tariffs 

kept American wages high. However, the Senate called for the Bureau 

report, and published it as a Senate Document.44

The widespread industrial unrest prompted concerned citizens to 

petition Taft to form a commission to make a thorough investigation 

of laboring conditions in the country. In a message to Congress, Taft 

supported the idea, explaining that recent investigations had been 

“fragmentary, incomplete, and at best only partially representative.”

55

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

The country needed, he said, a comprehensive, nationwide study. 

Neill expressed a similar view in congressional testimony, stating that 

the Bureau was too small to undertake such a task. But Taft delayed in 

making appointments and Woodrow Wilson subsequently named the 

members—after Neill had left the government and the Department of 

Labor had been established.45

Neill’s mediation activities

Although the President and Congress called upon Neill for many 

tasks, mediation of labor disputes proved to be his major and most 

absorbing public work. As Commissioner, he helped settle some 60 

railway controversies, and his involvement in railroad labor relations 

extended into World War I, when he served on the first Railway Board 

of Adjustment.

The Erdman Act of 1898 had provided for a board of mediation 

for railroad disputes, with the Commissioner of Labor as a member, 

but the act’s procedures had been asked for only once during Wright’s 

tenure. In December 1906, the Southern Pacific Railroad Company 

applied to the board when it found itself threatened by a jurisdictional 

dispute between two railway unions. Although one of the unions was 

skeptical at first about the board’s role, it viewed the final result 

favorably, finding that “Mr. Neill applied himself with such diligence 

to the task of bringing about an adjustment that he was soon familiar 

with every detail of the controversy. He was absolutely fair to all 

interested.”46 Within a month, the unions agreed to an arbitration 

panel. This success, coupled with the broadening scope of railroad 

collective bargaining agreements, spurred use of the act’s machinery.

Neill noted that, in the beginning, the companies viewed him 

with some suspicion since they presumed him to be pro-labor because 

of his position. But, he said, “After the first case or two, why, they 

became convinced of my fair-mindedness.” He further explained, 

“There is no occasion to charge either side, as a rule, with unfairness. 

. . . It is human nature to want to be fair. But it is also human nature to 

be self-centered. Therefore, each side has an entirely different conception of what is fair.”47

His colleague on the mediation board, Judge Martin A. Knapp, 

chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission, stated that the 

function of the mediators “is to aid a friendly settlement. . . . For this

56

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Neill: Studies for Economic and Social Reform

reason, it has been the conception of those who have acted in this 

capacity that their duty is not to determine what setdement they think 

ought to be made, but to find out what setdement can be made.”48

As originally viewed, the Erdman Act provided a tool for dealing 

with disputes between a single railroad and its operating employees, 

but the railroad brotherhoods turned to concerted action, in which 

they organized and negotiated with management on a broader regional 

basis. This greatly complicated procedures and took considerably 

more of Knapp’s and Neill’s time while threatening a more extensive 

public impact if mediation failed.

In addition, legislation was proposed in 1912 to extend coverage 

under the Erdman Act to coal companies in interstate commerce and 

to railway shop craft workers. Widening the board's scope would 

make further demands on the time of the Commissioner of Labor.

Thus, in his report for 1912, the Secretary of Commerce and 

Labor stated that the Commissioner needed some relief and recommended an independent board of conciliation and arbitration, to be 

named by the President and confirmed by the Senate. This reflected 

Neill’s concern that, if the Erdman Act were expanded or if he and 

Knapp were to undertake cases not properly falling under the letter of 

the act, “It would be absolutely necessary to create some other 

machinery.”49 And in testimony before Congress that year, Neill 

emphasized that the suggested expansion would require a new mechanism, declaring, “It has been impossible for me to give proper attention to this work and even begin to perform my legitimate duties in 

the Bureau of Labor. . . . I might add that I would not, under any 

conditions, be willing to continue to attempt to carry on the work 

under this act and the work of the Bureau of Labor both.”50

Early in 1913, under the pressure of disputes on eastern railroads, 

Knapp and Neill worked with a committee from the National Civic 

Federation and representatives of the major railroads and the railroad 

brotherhoods to develop a plan for a separate, permanent board of 

mediation. Within the year, Congress passed the Newlands Act, 

which set up a separate Board of Mediation and Conciliation. From 

that time on, Commissioners of the Bureau were no longer occupied 

with the time-consuming task of mediating labor disputes.

57

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Work in industrial safety and health

Under Neill, the Bureau was a leading force in the movement to 

improve industrial safety and health conditions. In 1908, the Bureau 

highlighted the lack of information on industrial accidents by publish' 

ing an article by Frederick L. Hoffman, a consulting statistician for the 

Prudential Insurance Company, in which he wrote, “Thus far, no 

national investigation of the subject of industrial accidents has been 

made to determine the true accident risk in industry, and the statistical data extant are more or less fragmentary and of only approximate 

value.”51 To fill some of the gaps, the Bureau published reports on 

railway employee accidents, fatal accidents in coal mining, and accident experience in other countries.

In addition, Bureau staff developed information on occupational 

accidents as part of larger studies. Lucian W. Chaney, the Bureau's 

expert on accident prevention, prepared Employment of Women in the

Metal Trades, a study of accidents to machine operators, as volume XI 

of the Bureau’s massive study on working women and children. In 

1912, the Bureau published Chaney’s Accidents and Accident Prevention as volume IV of its report on working conditions in the iron and 

steel industry. Chaney had taken 2 years to collect the data. This 

publication was the first in a continuing annual series on industrial 

accidents in iron and steel.

Both Neill and Chaney played important roles in the early years 

of the National Safety Council. At the First Cooperative Safety Congress in 1912, both were appointed to the Committee on Permanent 

Organization, whose function was “to organize and to create a permanent body devoted to the promotion of safety and to human life.” The 

next year, Neill delivered a paper in which he advocated that the 

National Council for Industrial Safety become a clearinghouse that 

would circulate information about accidents and maintain a roster of 

lecturers. In the speech he declared, “I doubt if there is a commercial 

nation today, laying any claim to an elementary civilization, that has 

been maiming and mangling and killing those who attempt to earn 

their bread in the sweat of their faces with as little apparent regret and 

as little thought as we do in the industrial centers of the United 

States.”52

The Bureau’s interest in industrial hygiene paralleled its concern 

with industrial accidents. In 1908, the Bureau published an article on

58

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Neill: Studies for Economic and Social Reform

the subject by George M. Kober, professor at the Georgetown University Medical School. In the same year, an article by Hoffman, “Mortality from Consumption in Dusty Trades," gave impetus to the fight 

against tuberculosis.

The Bureau also gave increased attention to the problem of exposure to industrial poisons. As late as 1908, the report of the Lucerne 

Conference of the International Association for Labor Legislation 

included the following comment on the state of protective legislation 

in the United States: “The protection of the worker from industrial 

poisons and dust has hitherto made little progress in the United 

States. No material on the subject was available and the American 

Section could do nothing except bring to the notice of the Governments of the various States the petition of the International Association requesting the compulsory notification by doctors of cases of 

industrial poisoning.”53

In 1904, when the president of the International Association had 

written Secretary Cortelyou, head of the Department of Commerce 

and Labor, about a conference to consider, among other things, the 

use of white phosphorus in the production of matches, Cortelyou 

replied, “I have the honor to state that the Federal Government has 

no jurisdiction in such matters. They belong definitely and specifically 

to the several States."5^ Subsequently, in September 1906, Germany, 

Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and the Netherlands signed a convention on the prohibition of the use of white 

phosphorus in the manufacture of matches. In December 1908, the 

British Parliament passed the White Phosphorus Matches Prohibition 

Act.

Neill and the Bureau were instrumental in arousing American 

concern over phosphorus poisoning. In 1909, the Bureau cooperated 

with the American Association for Labor Legislation in a study of the 

effects of white phosphorus in match production. John B. Andrews, 

secretary of the association, summed up the results: “The investigation 

of 15 of our 16 match factories during the year 1909 proved conclusively that, in spite of modem methods and precautions, phosphorus 

poisoning not only occurs in this country but exists in a form so 

serious as to warrant legislative action to eliminate the disease."55

The Secretary of Commerce and Labor wrote Neill, “While this 

report will no doubt make some stir, I am satisfied that the truth of 

this condition ought to be known, especially since we seem to be

59

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

behind other countries in giving attention to so serious a condition. If 

the matter is to be published, kindly urge it as much as possible in 

order that it may receive attention as early as conditions admit of.”56

After publication of the report, legislation was introduced to ban 

phosphorus matches from interstate commerce. The campaign sought 

to encourage production of matches by the more modem sesquisulphide process, but this faced three problems: The Diamond 

Match Company (also known as the "match trust”) held the patent on 

the process; the technology was more expensive; and the match industry was localized and not easily subject to Federal regulation under the 

commerce clause. Therefore, supporters of the legislation argued the 

need for a heavy tax to discourage use of phosphorus by eliminating 

the economic incentive. In his 1910 message to Congress, President 

Taft recommended such an approach.57

In the meantime, Diamond moved to sell rights to other companies who wished to use the sesquisulphide process. In January 1911, it 

relinquished the patent to three trustees: Neill, E.R.A. Seligman of 

Columbia University, and Jackson Ralston, an attorney for the American Federation of Labor. O n January 27, the trustees surrendered the 

patent.

Since the industry could not be forced to adopt the new process, 

efforts to tax phosphorus matches continued. Finally, in 1912, Congress passed a law that provided for the tax, ending the phosphorus 

poisoning problem so far as matches were concerned, but not in other 

industries.58

The Bureau also focused considerable attention on the problem 

of lead poisoning, beginning with three articles in the Bulletin in July 

1911. Based on personal investigation of 22 factories, Alice Hamilton, 

later a professor at Harvard Medical School, wrote on the white-lead 

industry in the United States. John Andrews wrote on deaths from 

industrial lead poisoning reported in New 'fork State in 1909 and 

1910. And Sir Thomas Oliver, leader of the British crusade against the 

employment of women in white-lead processes, contributed an article 

on lead poisoning and lead processes in European countries. In 1913, 

the Bureau published Hamilton’s tentative findings on the effects of 

lead in the painters’ trade.

Neill’s activities included participation both at home and abroad 

in efforts to establish occupational health standards. The American 

Association for Labor Legislation, of which he was a member, took

60

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Neill: Studies for Economic and Social Reform

several steps in the field of occupational health in addition to the work 

on phosphorus, such as organizing the National Commission on 

Industrial Hygiene (1908) and calling the First National Conference 

on Industrial Diseases (1910). The conference wrote a Memorial to the 

President which recommended some greatly expanded national 

efforts.59

Industrial education

The Bureau had published studies on industrial education in 1892 and 

1902, but in 1908 there was intensified interest from the AFL, which 

corresponded with educators, academicians, and social workers on the 

subject. In that year, a committee was formed which included Neill, 

union officials, and representatives of public interest groups. At the 

committee’s request, the Bureau conducted another study.

The AFL termed the Bureau’s effort, published in 1910, the 

“most comprehensive study of the whole subject... that has ever been 

made in the United States.” The study provided support for legislative 

proposals by the AFL for Federal aid to the States for industrial 

education on the basis that, as Gompers wrote, “Industrial education, 

like academic education, is becoming a public function and. . . should 

be paid for by public funds.”60 Legislation did not come until 1917, 

however.

Social insurance

The Bureau’s educational work in the field of social insurance also 

began under Wright, who, as early as 1893, had published a study of 

compulsory insurance in Germany. Under Neill, the Bureau continued to provide information on European and also American practices. 

In 1908, a study by Lindley D. Clark reported on U .S. employers’ 

legal liability for injuries to their employees, and the Bureau’s annual 

report for that year consisted of a study of workmen’s insurance and 

benefit funds in the United States. A companion report published in 

1909 dealt with workmen’s insurance and compensation systems in 

Europe.

It was in the field of workmen’s compensation that the Bureau 

exercised, for 8 years, a statutory administrative function. In May 

1908, Congress passed a law providing compensation for injuries to

61

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

certain artisans and laborers employed by the Federal Government, 

the first workmen’s compensation act in the United States. Administration of the law was assigned to the Department of Commerce and 

Labor, and the Secretary turned over most of these duties to the 

Bureau, including the examination and approval of claims. The coverage of the act was later widened so that by 1913 the compensation 

system covered about 95,000 civilian government employees. The 

Bureau retained this responsibility until 1916, when Congress established the Federal Employees* Compensation Board.

A sidelight on the compensation system the Bureau administered 

is provided by a 1913 magazine article by a former Bureau employee. 

He noted, first, that the Government treated its employees badly: 

“The economic and social value of the welfare work of large corporations need not be exaggerated, but it is a sad fact that the Federal 

Government has done less of it (outside the Isthmian Canal) than 

many of the soulless corporations.” Second, he noted that, although 

the Federal act was the first compensation law in this country, several 

States had subsequently enacted programs that were far superior. 

Further, he charged that the Bureau had done little to implement 

improvements.61

The Federal Government’s efforts to establish a pension system 

for its employees led to several Bureau studies. In examining various 

proposals, the Senate asked the Bureau for information on domestic 

and foreign retirement plans. In response, the Bureau prepared a 

study of 219 municipal retirement systems and 22 railroad programs. 

The Bureau also commissioned a report by an outside expert on civil 

service retirement programs in Great Britain, New Zealand, and Australia.

The study on working women and children

During 1907, with much encouragement from the AFL and welfare 

reform organizations, Neill and the Bureau embarked on a massive 

study of the working conditions of women and children. The investigation joined two campaigns, one for limitation of child labor and the 

other to improve the conditions of the increasing number of working 

women.

62

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Neill: Studies for Economic and Social Reform

In his annual messages for 1904 and 1905, Roosevelt had pressed 

for such a study, with special emphasis on child labor and its regular 

tion by the States.

Social reformers from Chicago pushed for an investigation of 

women’s working conditions, and Mary McDowell and Jane Addams 

met with Roosevelt in 1905 to ask for a study. Several women’s 

organizations took up the cause and drew up a proposed bill. In 

January 1906, Neill wrote to Sophonisba Breckinridge of Chicago, 

“The President is very much in earnest in this matter and has said to 

me since you were here that he is quite anxious to do anything he can 

to help secure the investigation.”62

In the appropriations hearings on the study, the Commissioner 

stated, “If there were conditions of prime importance affecting the 

family life and morals and citizenship, due to industrial conditions, the 

national government has just as much interest in finding that out as it 

has in finding out what is the total amount in savings banks or what is 

the general increase of street railways, or nine hundred and ninetynine other things for which large sums of money are expended in the 

Census. Here are matters. . . of tremendous sociological importance.”63

The movement toward the study proceeded at the same time that 

proposals were introduced in Congress to limit child labor. A bill 

introduced by Senator Albert J. Beveridge prohibited the interstate 

transportation of the products of factories or mines employing children under 14 years of age. A bill proposed by Senator Henry C. 

Lodge applied only to the District of Columbia.

Neill, who had been campaigning for a child labor law in the 

District, wrote to the President, arguing; that, “If Congress has the 

power to pass legislation of this kind, some bill embodying the principle of the Lodge or the Beveridge Bill should be passed. . . . Child 

labor is indefensible from any view point whatever, and is a blot on 

the civilization that tolerates it.” Either bill, he explained, “would serve 

both to protect the markets of any State from being made the dumping ground for the products of child labor in other less advanced 

States, and would assure to the manufacturers of more progressive 

States a protection against the competition of child labor States in 

outside markets.”64 Neither bill won committee approval. However, 

Congress finally passed a bill applying only to the District of Columbia

63

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

which prohibited the employment of youth under 16, with some 

exceptions. Roosevelt signed the limited measure in May 1908.

There was even opposition to the conduct of a study. Congressional opponents questioned whether the national government had 

the authority to investigate, contending that Congress lacked authority to legislate on the subject.65

Another set of arguments was directed at limiting the scope of 

the study. Neill was asked, MIs not all this information that you can 

gather already to be had right here in the Census Bureau—the number of women and children employed and the average wages they 

receive per annum?”66

Supporters of the measure responded that the Census Bureau 

could provide some numbers but not the "thorough investigation as to 

the effects of the employment o f women and children upon their 

health and upon the social conditions of the people.”67

In January 1907, Congress directed the Secretary of Commerce 

and Labor to conduct the investigation, later stipulating that the Census Bureau should do the work. With continuing uncertainty over the 

status and conduct of the investigation, the National Civic Federation 

established a commission of its own, made up of representatives of 

manufacturers and the AFL, to investigate the extent and menace of 

child labor, expressing concern that "it would be most unfortunate to 

have the result of the investigation be a lot of misleading figures and 

exaggerated statements of conditions which would simply serve as 

socialist propaganda.”68

Roosevelt wrote to Secretary Straus that the Bureau of Labor 

should have the work: “I cannot too strongly state that in my judgment the investigation will be shorn of a very large part of the good 

results we have a right to expect from it, if it is not confided to the 

Bureau of Labor.”69 Straus then wrote, “Both the Director of the 

Census and the Commissioner of Labor agree with me thoroughly” 

that the investigation should be carried out by the Bureau of Labor. In 

the end, the Bureau of Labor was permitted to conduct the study.70 

For each of two consecutive years, the Bureau received $150,000 for 

the investigation.

Eager to have the cooperation of employers, Neill assured the 

National Association of Manufacturers, as he had Congress, that there 

were no preconceived notions guiding the conduct of the study and 

that its purpose was solely to gather facts. The study would take into

64

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Neill: Studies for Economic and Social Reform

account the conditions and practices of the “best class of manufacturers” and avoid the misrepresentation that would result from describing only the worst conditions. “There is no desire to discover the

harrowing or unearth the sensational---- * “When the important facts

have all been brought out, there will be found to be evils to be 

corrected,” Neill went on to say. “I believe that then it will be found 

that the members of this association are just as ready as any body of 

men in the country to see that justice is done.”71

The AFL and representatives of welfare organizations offered 

their assistance in the investigation, and the National Child Labor 

Committee provided the Bureau with the material it had collected 

over a period of 3 years. As the investigation proceeded, AFL representatives met with Neill to suggest setting up a division in the Bureau 

to deal specifically with the conditions of working women and children.72

The Bureau encountered many problems in the conduct of the 

study. Although Bureau agents took great care to verify the ages of 

children under 16, as reported by children and mill officers, there 

were difficulties in obtaining age information in the southern mills, 

and frequently, it was reported, working children were hidden from 

Bureau agents.73 In addition, there were complaints by mill operators 

about the time required to respond to the questions of the agents.

Neill's designation of a southerner to conduct the study of the 

textile mills was challenged very early by the study’s supporters. 

McDowell wrote Neill, “I saw Miss Addams. . . and from her learned 

that the cotton industry had been assigned to a southerner. . . . I did 

hope so much that you were going to be free to give a body of facts 

that would stand the test of criticism, but already I hear rumors that 

the cotton industry investigation is discredited. This may be unfair, 

but natural.”74 Then, when the study finally was published, Neill was 

attacked from the other side as having slandered the South.

Work on the study began in 1907 and continued through 1909. 

The inquiry was substantially confined to States east of the Mississippi, partly because the social and industrial problems dealt with were 

found mainly in the East, and partly because of the limitations of time 

and money. One aspect of the study dealt with employment of women 

and children in the four industries in which they made up a significant 

proportion of the work force—cotton, glass, men’s readymade garments, and silk—and also with employment of women in stores and

65

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

factories, in the metal trades, and in laundries. Two studies dealt with 

child labor problems, focusing on the reasons for leaving school and 

on the relationship between employment and juvenile delinquency. 

Three studies gave historical accounts of child labor legislation, 

women in industry, and trade unionism among women. Three reports 

dealt with health questions: Infant mortality in Fall River, causes of 

death among cotton-mill operatives, and hookworm disease, particularly in the southern cotton-mill communities. The remaining studies 

included a survey of family budgets of cotton-mill workers, the connection between occupation and criminality among women, and State 

enforcement of labor laws and factory inspection laws. In all, 19 

volumes of studies were published.

Among the leading findings of this landmark report was the 

disparity between the North and the South in the employment of 

children. In the textile mills of the South, where the legal age limit 

was 12, there were many children at work; there were far fewer in 

New England. However, in Pennsylvania, although the age limit was 

16, enforcement was lax, and a large number of children were at work 

in the silk mills.

The study showed that, in a substantial number of cases, children’s earnings were essential to meet pressing necessity. But in many 

other cases, both in the South and elsewhere, families would not have 

suffered hardship if child labor were forbidden. The report concluded 

that, to a considerable extent, child labor seemed to be due “to indifference or active hostility to the schools on the part of both parents 

and children.**75

Another finding concerned the growing substitution of women 

for men in industry. The report brought out the paradox that “a 

process of substitution has been going on by which men have been 

gradually taking the leading role in industries formerly carried on 

chiefly in the home and considered distinctly feminine, such as spinning and weaving and garment making and knitting. As the women 

have been more or less dispossessed in their specialities, they have 

either gone into work formerly considered men’s, such as the printing 

trade, or entered newly established industries which had not been 

definitely taken over by either sex. In both cases they are usually 

found doing the least skilled or poorest paid work.**76

Among the many pioneering aspects of the study was the development of new techniques for analyzing economic and social phenom66

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Neill: Studies for Economic and Social Reform

ena. The first standard budgets prepared by the Bureau were 

developed for the purpose of evaluating the living conditions of the 

cotton-mill workers in Fall River and the South in 1908-09. Actual 

weekly earnings and expenditures for a year were obtained for representative cotton-mill families. From these the Bureau prepared standard budgets for a “fair standard of living,” including some allowance 

for comfort, and a “minimum standard of living of bare essentials,” on 

which families were living and apparently maintaining physical efficiency.

Commissioner Neill noted: “These standards, it should be 

emphasized, are the standards found to be actually prevailing among 

cotton-mill families of the several communities studied, and are not 

standards fixed by the judgment either of the investigators or of the 

Bureau of Labor.”77

The diet of the Federal prison in Atlanta was compared with the 

expenditures for food of the cotton-mill families. The comparison 

indicated that—for both Fall River and southern families—at least half 

had expenditures at a standard less than the prison diet.78

The study results influenced the establishment of the Children’s 

Bureau, achieved in 1912 after several years of effort by supporters. 

Neill had favored its establishment as a separate agency rather than 

have his Bureau assume the added responsibilities. The intensive studies required of a Children’s Bureau would not duplicate the work of 

the Bureau of Labor, he said.

Pressure also developed to make special provision for women’s 

studies. The AFL, for example, called for a special unit in the Bureau 

of Labor—to be headed by a woman—that would conduct studies 

relating to the condition of women in the United States. The Bureau 

established such a section in 1911 under the direction of Marie L. 

Obenauer, who published a series of studies on hours and earnings of 

women in selected industries in Chicago, the District of Columbia, 

Maryland, California, and Wisconsin.

Controversy over the study findings

In 1912, during congressional debate on the establishment of the 

Children’s Bureau, southern Senators charged that the study on 

women and children presented an unfair picture of southern conditions. In addition, a former Bureau agent charged that Neill had 

suppressed his survey of conditions in southern mills. The agent’s

67

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

report, which he later published on his own, held that conditions 

under industrialization, even if not very good, represented an 

improvement over the conditions in the rural areas from which the 

mill workers had migrated.79

Although the Bureau had not published the agent’s study, Senator Lee S. Overman of North Carolina referred to sections of it as 

presenting an “obscene and. . . scandalous” picture of southern rural 

conditions. A month later, the Senator criticized as “odious” the 

Bureau’s report on family budgets of cotton-mill workers. A Washington newspaper had reported die study under the headline, “Southern 

Mills Bad as Prisons (Bureau of Labor Report)—Families ill fed, poorly 

clad, and ignored by every class of society—children all drudges.”80

Neill responded to these criticisms, both as they occurred and 

later. To charges that he had been unfair to the South, Neill replied, “I 

designedly placed this under charge of special agent Walter B. Palmer, 

himself bom , reared, and educated in the South and known to me to 

be southern in every respect.” Furthermore, Neill said, he had 

directed that the southerners on the project staff were to be assigned 

to the cotton textile study.

The Commissioner also pointed out that the study covered virtually all the best mills as well as the worst, stating, “I desired to be able 

to point out that good conditions could be maintained on a commercial and practical basis by the fact that they did exist in mills that were 

being profitably conducted.” He stated further that he had been so 

anxious to avoid any appearance of focusing attention on the South 

that he had hoped to present the data by State, without dividing them 

by region, but that clear differences between the northern and southern States in age limits, working hours, and the ethnic composition of 

the work force required presentation by region.81

Neill summed up: The agents “were not sent south to write up 

sensational material any more than they were sent north to do so.... 

If the results were sensational, it was due to the facts and not to any 

desire on the part of the Bureau to make them sensational.”82

There was much support for the conduct and findings of the 

investigation. In the Senate, William E. Borah of Idaho, sponsor of the 

Children’s Bureau proposal, contested Overman: “But the fact 

remains that a vast amount of the facts were based upon real investigations and brought forth a number of things which were startling to 

the country. I do not know whether there are things in them that are

68

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Neill: Studies for Economic and Social Reform

untrue or not; but I know from investigations of my own, which have 

resulted since I took charge of this measure, a great many of those 

things reported to be true are true.”83

The Survey commented on the first publications, “No greater 

service could be done the various movements against child labor, 

against the night employment of women, against unsanitary shop 

conditions and for higher wages, better hours, more conserving methods of work, than to secure a wide distribution and reading of these 

encyclopedic books.”84

Warren M. Persons, in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, 

wrote, “The first three volumes issued by the Bureau of Labor on 

Woman and Child Wage-Earners in the United States set a very high 

standard of excellence for the series. . . . The investigations seem to 

have been as careful as they were extensive.”85

Gompers, in his report to the 1911 AFL convention, declared, 

“The results of this investigation have fully justified the action of the 

American Federation of Labor in behalf of such an inquiry being 

made.”86

The National Child Labor Committee also took some pride of 

sponsorship: “We may fairly claim a large share of responsibility. . . . 

We promoted the bill which secured the appropriation for this investigation and have placed all our available information at the disposal of 

the United States Bureau of Labor.”87

But criticism of Neill’s conduct of the study persisted and reappeared when President Taft asked Congress to reconfirm Neill as 

Commissioner in 1913.

The Bureau’s statistical work

Neill continually sought to improve the quality of the Bureau’s statistical work. One of his first activities upon becoming Commissioner was 

to visit the Bureau’s agents in the field. He had heard, he said, “serious 

charges affecting the integrity” of their work, and reports of “a large 

degree of loafing and considerable drinking.” “I made a trip through 

the country visiting practically every agent in the field and made 

inquiries in proper quarters concerning the character of their work.”88 

Collection of data on prices and wages was the primary activity of 

the field agents; for this, it was essential to be assured of the representativeness of the stores selected for obtaining prices and of the estab69

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

lishments selected for obtaining wages. The stores were to be those 

patronized by workers. In his trips to the field, Neill visited many 

stores to be sure the selection had been the proper one.

As a check on the validity of the agents' work, Neill decided to 

switch the territories and industries to which they were assigned. The 

agents protested that this would undermine the value of the personal 

relationships they had established with store proprietors and of their 

familiarity with the characteristics of the industry. Neill felt that certainty of the quality of the primary material collected overshadowed 

these considerations, and he went ahead with the reassignments.

Neill sought to take the Bureau’s price and wage reports out of 

the climate of political campaigns. These reports had been published 

in alternate years, a pattern which had placed them “at the beginning 

of a political campaign and. .. a subject of discussion in the campaign. 

This led to attacks upon the report and the charge that it was prepared for political purposes, and attempts were made to discredit the 

integrity of the work.” He decided to change the time of publication 

to nonelection years. “In this way we felt that it received consideration 

as a serious scientific study and would not be subject to the charge of 

being a political document."89

In 1908, Neill undertook an extensive revision and reorganization 

of the Bureau’s statistical work. He halted the collection of data on 

retail prices and wages, partly because of the heavy demands on the 

Bureau’s resources arising from the study on women and children, but 

also because he felt there were serious shortcomings in the concepts 

and techniques. Collection of retail price data was resumed in 1911 

and wage data in 1912; information for the missing years was gathered 

retroactively. In the interim, Fred C. Croxton developed new techniques for data collection and supervised the reorganization of the 

field staff. 90

When retail price collection was resumed, the new series covered 

39 cities in 32 States, generally the cities with the largest population in 

each region, representing two-fifths of the urban population and onefifth of the total population. One innovation was the arrangement 

whereby retail merchants furnished price information by mail directly 

to the Bureau each month. Retail dealers selected were those selling 

largely to the families of American, English, Irish, German, and Scandinavian wage earners. Neighborhood stores predominated; few 

downtown stores were included, no cut-rate stores were priced, and

70

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Neill: Studies for Economic and Social Reform

chain stores were included only where they were so numerous as to be 

an important factor in the city’s trade. The grade of articles quoted 

was that sold in each city in the stores patronized by wage earners.

The Bureau cautioned that it had not “attempted to quote prices 

for an article of identical grade throughout the 39 cities. For almost 

every article, this would be absolutely impossible, as the grade varies 

not only from city to city but also from firm to firm within the same 

city, and the grade even varies to some extent from month to month 

within the same store.”91

The Bureau presented “Relative Retail Prices of Food” for the 15 

leading food items, representing approximately two-thirds of the 

expenditure for food by the average workingman’s family. The relatives were presented in two forms—a simple average of the relative 

prices for the 15 items, and as indexes weighted according to the 

workingmen’s expenditure patterns in 1901.

As Neill summarized the results of the reorganization of retail 

price collection, the information was secured from “a larger number of 

stores, is therefore more representative, is submitted monthly, and is 

more accurate, and what is more the collection of this field data from a 

large number of stores is now carried on at probably one-third or 

possibly one-fourth the cost of the former work.”92

Regular publication of wage data was not resumed until after 

Neill left office. But in March 1913 he described the new data collection system. One of the changes was to have the agents specialize in 

certain industries, whereas formerly they had covered many. Also, 

they were to become more familiar with the nature of the work in the 

various occupations. “Under the new system which we devised, the 

agents are required to make a careful study of systems and occupations 

in the industries to which they were assigned.” Neill went on to point 

out, “The importance of this is suggested by the fact that... methods 

of production in the United States frequently change, so that, while 

the name remains, the real character of the occupation has undergone 

radical change, and this fact should be reflected in the reports on these 

occupations.”93

The series on industry wages and hours launched in 1913 

reflected the improvements developed under Neill, including the 

application of statistical techniques for weighting and for constructing 

indexes. Further, successive reports on individual industries were 

made more comparable through provision of data for identical estab71

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

lishments and well-defined occupations, with weights based on the 

number of workers at each rate. Similarly, the work on union scales of 

wages in seven industries was systematized. The studies covered the 

cities included in the Bureau's survey of food prices, with indexes for 

wages and hours derived by weighting each city by the number of 

union employees in the city.

Wholesale price collection, begun under Wright in 1902, was 

maintained throughout Neill’s term. The Bureau priced about 250 

articles on an annual basis, generally in the New ’fork market. At this 

time the wholesale index was not weighted, in the technical sense. 

Rather, the Bureau simply priced aa large number of representative 

staple articles, selected in such a manner as to make them to a large 

extent weight themselves." The quotations were collected partly from 

the standard trade journals and partly from different firms, or from 

chambers of commerce, by correspondence. The same source was 

used year after year so as to maintain the same standard.

Strikes and Lockouts was published as the Bureau’s 1907 annual 

report. It provided data for the 1901-05 period on the number of 

employees involved in each strike, the duration of the strike, and the 

cause. It also indicated how the settlement was reached—whether by 

joint agreement or arbitration—and included a summary of the preceding 25 years. As with price and wage data, collection of strike 

statistics was suspended in 1908, and no further information on 

strikes was collected until 1914.

There were several efforts during this period to reorganize and 

coordinate statistical work on a broader scale, both within the Department o f Commerce and Labor and throughout the Federal establishment. In connection with one such effort—the Interdepartmental 

Statistical Committee set up by executive order in 1908—Neill 

pointed out in answer to the committee’s survey that, within the same 

Department, both the Bureau of Labor and the Bureau of Statistics 

published wholesale prices—even of the same commodities. He concluded, “The subject of wholesale prices, however, cannot be classed 

within the province of the Bureau of Labor; logically, it should be 

transferred to the Bureau of Statistics, provided a sufficient force be 

given that Bureau to keep this annual investigation at its present 

standard, or better, to extend and improve it."94

72

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Neill: Studies for Economic and Social Reform

The committee took no action on Neill’s suggestion. Nor did 

other attempts to coordinate the government’s statistical work come 

to fruition during Neill’s tenure.

Administration

Neill continued most of the top leadership from Wright’s administration, including Chief Clerk G.W.W. Hanger, Charles Verrill, and 

Gustavus Weber. Ethelbert Stewart continued as one of the principal 

members of the field staff.

Neill had to deal with several personnel problems during his 

tenure. No retirement system was yet in force for Federal workers, 

and the Bureau found itself with a large number of elderly employees. 

Neill explained, “The Bureau has been, and still is, hampered in its 

work by having a number of employees who have been long in the 

service and reached an age when their usefulness in the work of the 

Bureau is considerably impaired.”95 A t the same time, the Bureau lost 

some of its best staff members because of low salaries.

In 1908, in line with a govemmentwide directive to improve 

efficiency, the Bureau moved to put its personnel system on a merit 

basis and instituted efficiency ratings for its employees. On the basis of 

these, Neill made a number of promotions and demotions, which led 

some employees to charge him with unfairness and discrimination. 

The Secretary of Commerce and Labor found the charges to be 

groundless, but they came up again 5 years later at Neill’s reconfirmation hearing.96

Sufficient funding was a chronic problem. The many special studies the President and Congress called for, along with the reluctance of 

Congress to provide additional funds, strained the Bureau’s resources. 

Regular appropriations remained at close to the same level during 

Neill’s 8 years; extra funds were granted only for the largest studies. 

(See table 2.) As noted earlier, Neill suspended some of the Bureau’s 

regular data collection programs partly because of the demands of 

other, more pressing work.

73

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Table 2. Appropriations for Bureau of Labor, 1906-13

(in thousands)

Fiscal year ended

June 30 —

Total1 Salaries

1906 $184 $106

1907 173 107

1908 2323 107

1909 2323 107

1910 173 107

1911 176 107

1912 3191 103

1913 4270 103

'Includes salarie», per diem and etc., library, and medical examinations, but 

not allocations for printing and binding.

in clud es $150,000 for die study on working women and children.

^Includes a deficiency appropriation o f $20,000 for special work.

^Includes $100,000 for die Industrial Commission.

SOURCES: National Archives Record Group 257, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

Appropriations Ledger, 1887-1903. Legislative, Executive, and Judicial 

Appropriations.

The Bureau revised its publications program at about the time it 

introduced its revised price and wage series. Neill had already halted 

publication of the voluminous annual and special reports, relying on 

the bimonthly Bulletin to present more timely information. Since 

1895, the Bulletin had presented original work, digests of State 

reports, summaries and digests of foreign labor conditions and statist^ 

cal papers, and summaries of current legislation and court decisions. 

Under the new plan, the Bureau produced the Bulletin at irregular 

intervals, with each issue devoted to one of nine subject areas.

International activities

Neill continued Wright’s interest and participation in international 

activities. In 1910, he served as the delegate of the U .S. Government 

to the Paris International Conference on Unemployment and as a 

delegate of the American Association for Labor Legislation to the 

Lugano Conference of the International Association. In that year as 

well, the annual U .S. appropriation for the unofficial International

74

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Neill: Studies for Economic and Social Reform

Labor Office, carried in the Bureau budget, was increased from $200 

to $1,000.

In 1912, Neill presented a paper at the International Conference 

on Unemployment. The same year, President Taft appointed him a 

government representative to the Fifth International Congress of 

Chambers of Commerce and Commercial and Industrial Associations.

Reconfirmation

Neill’s second term as Commissioner expired on Feb. 1, 1913, in the 

midst of the transition from the Taft to the Wilson administration. 

Taft had sent Neill’s name to the Senate for reconfirmation in January, 

but Democratic capture of the White House and Congress had 

prompted partisan debate over all Taft appointments. The influence of 

southern Democrats in the Senate created an additional obstacle for 

Neill, as his study of working conditions for women and children in 

the South remained a sore point.

On March 4, his last day in office, Taft reluctantly signed the bill 

creating the new Department of Labor. On March 8, President Wilson 

sent Neill’s nomination forward. With reconfirmation before the Senate, two former Bureau employees submitted “Summary of Charges 

Preferred Against Charles P. Neill” in the name of “a large majority of 

the employees of the Bureau of Labor (irrespective of party affiliation).” They called for a “thorough and impartial investigation by the 

U .S. Senate,” explaining that “such an investigation will show extravagance, maladministration, woeful waste of public funds, lack of executive ability, evasion of the Civil Service law, cruelty and injustice to 

the employees of said Bureau—especially towards Democrats and old 

soldiers.”97

At about the same time, another former employee wrote to the 

new Secretary of Labor, William B. Wilson, charging that the previous 

Secretary had not satisfactorily answered his earlier allegations against 

Neill. The protestor concluded, “Neill has been the most daringly 

incompetent public official that has ever been foisted upon an unsuspecting labor contingent or an ambitious President.”98

When President Wilson sent die nomination forward in March, 

Senator Benjamin R. Tillman of South Carolina wrote the Secretary 

that his appointment of Neill “would be a very unwise one to make,” 

citing Neill’s alleged bias against the South. Overman joined Tillman

75

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

in opposition. To this allegation, they added die charge that Neill had 

demoted or fired Democrats and replaced them with Republicans."

A t Neill’s insistence, Secretary Wilson launched a full investigation. A. Warner Parker, Law Officer of the Bureau of Immigration, 

conducted the inquiry, holding hearings and making independent 

studies. The complainants, along with Neill and the supervisory staff 

of the Bureau, testified fully.

The investigation again completely absolved Neill. Parker found 

no basis for the charge o f unfairness to the South. Nor did he find 

political partisanship in the staff demotions, pointing out that no 

“cruelty and injustice” had been involved but that Neill had carried 

out a plan under a Presidential Order. Further, Parker stated that the 

Bureau had devoted more time and thought to carrying out the reclassification than was generally true in government

The charge of maladministration had specified that investigations 

had been started “at great expense and then abandoned.” One of the 

studies referred to was a report on Negroes in Lowndes County, 

Alabama, by W.E.B. Du Bois. Parker stated that the project had not 

been abandoned and that Neill viewed the work as “a report of great 

value.” However, Parker stated, it “contained many of Professor Du 

Bois’ personal opinions and also other matter not suitable for a government publication. . . . Press of other work in the Bureau has 

prevented either Dr. Neill or his chief editor from reviewing the work 

and editing out the objectionable parts.”

As to charges that Neill had been away from his office an excessive amount of time, Parker found them exaggerated, noting that 

Neill’s absence arose from the statutory procedures for railroad mediation under the Erdman Act. Further, in regard to Neill’s administration of the Bureau, Parker wrote, “I was in a position to witness his 

remarkable familiarity with details, evidenced by the manner in which 

he could promptly respond to each and every call upon him for 

records, data, and information.”

Thus, Parker concluded, “In closing this report, the evidence 

accompanying which I feel fully vindicates Dr. Neill of every charge 

preferred directly or impliedly in the papers turned over to me, I wish 

to add that Dr. Neill welcomed the investigation.”100

Neill received many expressions of support during the reconfirmation proceedings. In January, the Executive Council of the AFL 

resolved that “Hon. Chas. P. Neill has served faithfully and ably in the

76

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Neill: Studies for Economic and Social Reform

capacity as Commissioner of Labor, and that his reappointment be 

strongly urged.” The railway brotherhoods also urged Neill’s confirmation.101

The Washington Times declared, “To defeat Dr. Neill’s confirmation now would be equivalent to telling the sweat shop employers of 

the country that they have nothing to fear.”102 Alexander J. McKelway 

of the National Child Labor Committee wired the President: “Failure 

to confirm Neill would alienate the countless friends of the reform of 

child labor and woman labor abuses in the nation.”103

Neill also received support because of his activities in railroad 

mediation under the Erdman Act, especially because his commission 

had expired in the middle of mediation proceedings involving the 

eastern roads. Before leaving office, Taft had written Senator Borah, 

pointing out that since February 1 Neill had been powerless to perform his Erdman functions. The President concluded, “The failure to 

confirm him may very well carry responsibility for serious consequences.”104 Ralph M. Easley of the National Civic Federation telegraphed Secretary Wilson: “The Federation never makes political 

recommendations but it felt that the public exigencies required the 

reappointment of Dr. Neill. His experience and tact in handling the 

railroad problems is required at the present time as never before.”105

Not all of Neill’s opposition came from the South. In a letter to 

President Wilson, a Massachusetts manufacturer wrote, “He has evidently felt it necessary to suppress all reports that do not agree with 

his preconceived ideas concerning labor conditions.”106

President Wilson fought for his nominee. On March 21, he wrote 

Tillman, apparently basing his comments on Parker’s preliminary 

report. “Whatever mistakes Dr. Neill may have made in judgment, he 

was certainly not guilty of the charges preferred against him.” Wilson 

continued, “Circumstances have arisen which make it extremely desirable that I would appoint Dr. Neill in recess in order to make use of 

his services in arbitrating a pending controversy between the railroad 

switchmen and the 20 odd railroads that center in Chicago.” The next 

day, the President made the appointment.107

Tillman had already dropped serious opposition, awaiting only a 

face-to-face meeting with the Commissioner to confirm his new position. He had “learned the kind of work he is doing and the kind of 

people who are attacking him,” Tillman said. Also, the Senator 

explained somewhat enigmatically, “I learned this morning that he was

77

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

bom in Texas and is southern to the backbone in his prejudices and 

feelings.”108 On May 1, the Senate voted to consent to the appointment.

Resignation

Two weeks after his reconiirmation, however, Neill tendered his resignation and took a position with the American Smelting and Refining 

Company to organize and conduct their labor department. In his 

letters of resignation to the President and the Secretary, Neill wrote 

that it was uimpossible for me to make the financial sacrifice required 

to continue in the Government.” He took the step, he said, “with 

extreme regret and only because my personal affairs at this time 

require it.”109

Secretary Wilson received the letter with “a deep sense of loss.” 

He commented, “^tbur wide experience and sound judgment of industrial affairs would have been of great value to me in organizing the 

Department of Labor and directing its initial efforts in the proper 

channels.”110

It was a testimonial to the nonpartisan character of the work of 

the Commissioner and the Bureau that, particularly in the face of the 

charges, the new Democratic administration was prepared to have 

Neill continue his service. Although the Bureau assumed its role in 

the new Department of Labor without his leadership, in many ways 

Neill had prepared it for its new functions.

Later years

Neill’s career following his resignation was a full one, including many 

activities he had begun as Commissioner. Among these were mediation in the coal and railroad industries and work on the Railway Board 

of Adjustment.

Neill’s work at the American Smelting and Refining Company 

has been described in the company’s history: “Following the longestablished Guggenheim policy of engaging the best qualified experts, 

C.P. Neill, who had been Labor Commissioner under the Theodore 

Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson administrations, was engaged to direct the 

welfare and safety work. He was made chairman of the Labor Committee with Franklin Guiterman and William Loeb, Jr., as associ78

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Neill: Studies for Economic and Social Reform

ates.”111 Neill resigned from the company in 1915 to become manager 

of the Bureau of Information of the Southeastern Railways, a post he 

held until his retirement in 1939.

Neill remained active in National Civic Federation projects 

directed at labor-management cooperation, mediation, and arbitration. 

When the Federation undertook a survey of industrial and social 

conditions, it named Neill as a member of both the Committee on 

Plan and Scope and the Child Labor Committee.112 During the railroad and coal strikes of 1922, he was involved in Federation activities 

to bring the parties together. In October 1922, as part of the settlement of the coal strike, President Harding appointed Neill to a commission to investigate both the bituminous and anthracite industries 

and report to Congress.113

Neill continued his work as umpire for the Anthracite Board of 

Conciliation until 1928. At the 50th anniversary dinner of the Board, 

J.B. Warriner, of the Lehigh Navigation Coal Company and long-time 

operator member of the Board, recalled, “Charles P. Neill, the first 

long-term umpire, was a learned and scholarly man, keen and able, 

broad minded and liberal. He stands very high in my mind.”114

Neill also continued to be active in civic and social welfare work, 

particularly concerning women and children. In January 1920, the 

Supreme Court of the District of Columbia named him to the Board 

of Education for a term expiring June 30, 1921.115 In November 1921, 

when the National Council of Catholic Women opened the National 

Catholic School of Social Service in Washington, a graduate school 

affiliated with Catholic University, Neill became its first director. During the 1920’s, Neill also served as a member of the Department of 

Social Action of the National Catholic Welfare Council.116

Charles Patrick Neill died in October 1942.

79

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter IV.

Royal Meeker: 

Statistics in Recession 

and Wartime

R

oyal Meeker, the new Commissioner of Labor Statistics, 

faced a different situation in August 1913 from that of his 

predecessors. The Bureau of Labor Statistics was now part 

of the newly established Cabinet-level Department of 

Labor. The Secretary of Labor, rather than the Commissioner, was 

labor’s primary point of contact. Thus, Meeker’s dealings with organized labor were more circumscribed than was the case for Neill or 

Wright.

The influences on Meeker and the Bureau came from a variety of 

sources. In the early years, concern with unemployment in a deepening recession led the Bureau to begin studies on the subject and, in 

1916, to start a regular series of reports on industrial employment. 

The Bureau also encouraged the activities of State and municipal 

public employment offices and the efforts of Secretary of Labor William B. Wilson to establish a national employment service.

Upon U .S. entry into the war in April 1917, government programs for increasing production, mobilizing the labor force, maintaining peaceful labor-management relations, and stabilizing prices and 

wages influenced the work of the Bureau. With statistics now used in

80

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Meeker: Statistics in Recession and W artime

planning war programs, the Bureau was called upon to expand its 

conceptual and technical work in the fields of prices and wages. This 

led notably to the development of a cost-of-living index. The necessary resources were provided by Presidential allocations from special 

war funds.

Meeker and the Bureau cooperated effectively with the War 

Industries Board's Central Bureau of Planning and Statistics, established to monitor and coordinate the mushrooming statistical activities 

of the war agencies.

The demands on the Bureau continued after the armistice, particularly for information on living costs. But the special funding from the 

President was now terminated, and the Bureau’s budget was cut as 

Congress sought to return expenditures to “normal’’ following the 

war emergency.

When Meeker resigned in 1920, the Bureau had established a 

substantial place for itself as a provider of widely utilized economic 

data and had become a prototype of the modem statistical agency.

The third Commissioner

Royal Meeker was bom in 1873 in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. As a young man, Meeker worked “on the farms of Pennsylvania and Iowa, in the lumber woods of Pennsylvania, in the 

foundries, machine shops, and factories, and at casual employments in 

several States”—all apparently before his graduation from Iowa State 

College in 1898.1 He moved on to Columbia University as a graduate 

student under E.R.A. Seligman from 1899 to 1903, then spent a year 

at the University of Leipzig before returning to his native Pennsylvania as a professor of history, political science, and economics at 

Ursinus College during 1904 and 1905. He published his dissertation, 

“History and Theory of Shipping Subsidies,” in 1905 and received his 

Ph.D. from Columbia the following year.

Meeker’s association with Woodrow Wilson began in 1905, when 

he applied to Wilson, then president of Princeton, for a position as 

preceptor in economics. He obtained the appointment and taught, 

among other subjects, money and banking and transportation. He was 

named assistant professor in 1908.

He was also associated with Wilson in charitable and welfare 

activities. Meeker served on the executive committee of the New

81

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Jersey Conference of Charities and Correction while Wilson served as 

a vice president. Also, he served on the Board of Managers of the New 

Jersey State Reformatory for Women while Wilson was Governor of 

New Jersey.2

After the election of 1912, Meeker offered his services to the 

President-elect, suggesting, among other things, a survey of the economic community on the banking reform issue. In this connection, he 

helped prepare a questionnaire and compiled the results for Wilson. 

In March 1913, the new President wrote Meeker of the findings, 

“They are most useful to me, and I warmly appreciate all the trouble 

you have taken in getting this material together.”3

In June 1913, Secretary of Labor Wilson recommended Meeker 

to the President for the post of Commissioner of Labor Statistics. The 

President urged his acceptance: “I hope with all my heart we shall see 

you here a great deal.”"* Upon Meeker’s nomination, The New York

Times described him as “a close friend of President W ilson,” who “has 

given much attention to labor problems.” The Times also reported 

that he was frequently consulted by “Wilson Administration leaders 

on the currency question.” The reference to labor problems may have 

been an overstatement, for Meeker had said little on the subject 

before his appointment.5

When offered the position, Meeker went to New York to talk 

with his predecessor, Charles P. Neill. Writing of the meeting, Meeker 

said that Neill “strongly advised me to tackle the job” but that he also 

“expressed the belief that the functions of the Commissioner are too 

many and incompatible.” The role of the Commissioner in mediating 

and conciliating disputes in the railroad industry definitely caused 

Meeker to pause. He wrote Secretary Wilson, “I feel then that unless I 

can be assured that the Commissioner of Labor Statistics will be 

relieved of the duties of mediator in the disputes covered by the 

Erdman Act, I must ask you to withdraw my name from consideration 

as Commissioner.”6

Nevertheless, Meeker wrote the Secretary, “I know the work is 

hard and the responsibility great; but I should deem it an honor and a 

pleasure to serve under you and President Wilson no matter what the 

task.” Passage of the Newlands Act, which created a new agency for 

mediation of labor disputes, cleared the way for Meeker’s acceptance, 

and the President transmitted the nomination to the Senate on July

82

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Meeker: Statistics in Recession and Wartime

22. The Senate confirmed the appointment on August 11, and Meeker 

was sworn in the following day.7

Meeker’s views

Meeker, like Neill, was associated with the Progressive movement for 

governmental activism to achieve reform. In 1910, he wrote, “Before 

all else, the average American must be startled out of his stupefying 

faith in the divinely ordained destiny of his country. The policy of 

drift cannot possibly bring the ship of state to any desirable haven, and 

the sooner the crew are made aware of this, the better.”8

Meeker carried over into his work as Commissioner his belief in 

the positive role of government. It was his duty, he said, “to turn the 

searching light of publicity into the farthest and darkest com ers of 

industry, to make known the successes of enlightened policies of 

dealing with labor, to show up wrongdoers, whether they be employers of workers or workers of employers, to aid every endeavor to raise 

the ethical standards that obtain in the dealings between employer and 

employee, to bring about kinder feelings between master and man, 

and to foster the spirit of cooperative endeavor throughout all industry.” For Meeker, the Bureau’s role was crucial to ensuring that “the 

old policies of antagonism, belligerency, and warfare must give way to 

the policies of cooperation, mutual understanding, and peace.” 9

Linking morality and business gain, Meeker stressed the need for 

constructive approaches for dealing with the human factor in industry. As he expressed it, “The dissemination of information bearing on 

labor, the presentation of the facts which will enable employers to 

contrast the statistical results of the different systems and methods of 

dealing with labor, is of the utmost importance and benefit to business.” The Bureau’s publications “have aided business immeasurably 

by showing that the employer who deals justly with his workers can 

produce better goods and services at lower prices than the employer 

who depends for his profits upon low wages, long hours, and bad 

working conditions.” 10

But much remained to be done. He wrote, “Managers generally 

seem to regard the workman as a peculiar kind of peripatetic machine 

which installs and removes itself when and where needed without cost 

to the employer, needs no oil or attention, and scarcely ever is worth

83

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

conserving or safeguarding because so easily replaceable when broken 

or worn out.”11

Meeker viewed unemployment as one of the great hazards of life 

and felt that government had a larger responsibility toward the unemployed than merely “handing out bread and soup....” He favored the 

establishment of a nationwide system of public employment offices 

with “the responsibility for the furnishing of suitable employment for 

all the unemployed, not merely jobs to the jobless, but economically 

paying jobs—jobs that pay an American living wage to American 

workingmen.”12

Meeker set forth his views on this issue in his 1919 testimony 

supporting a national employment system: “I take it that every man 

and woman bom in the United States is entitled to the privilege of 

earning a living, and that his job or her job should not be dependent 

upon any private fee-charging agency whatsoever.. . . It should be the 

first and foremost policy o f our National Government to see to it that 

every potential worker is an actual worker every working day of the 

year outside needed vacation time.”13

He was also concerned with protecting workers against other 

hazards. Asserting that “social insurance against property losses” was 

more common in this country than “insurance against personal 

hazards o f workers or those in the lower income groups,” Meeker 

argued that the laboring man should be protected against the hazards 

of accident, illness, unemployment, invalidity and old age, and death. 

He came to view such insurance as one of the necessities of life, just 

like food, clothing, and shelter—and as “essentially a public function” 

which “should be operated as a social enterprise.” “I do not happen to 

be a socialist,” he declared, “but, if it is socialism to provide adequate 

protection to the lives, health, and well-being of our working population, then let us have some more of the same.”14

In Meeker’s view, workmen’s compensation provided not only a 

rightful and proper protection for the laborer but also an economic 

benefit to business and to society at large. Accidents had always 

occurred in industry, but the workers had had to shoulder the burden 

of this cost of production. However, said Meeker, the advent of 

workmen’s compensation had wrought a miracle. Because compensation laws prompted safer and more efficient production methods—as 

managers sought to avoid the cost of claims—they encouraged gener84

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Meeker: Statistics in Recession and W artime

ally better business practices. And the bitterest critics of compensation 

had become its strongest friends.15

Meeker’s recommendations for workmen’s compensation could 

be summed up in two words—compulsory and universal. The plans 

should be funded by the States and operated as a State monopoly or a 

State-controlled mutual benefit society from which all private casualty 

companies were excluded. And the plans should cover occupational 

poisons and diseases and compensate for permanent disabilities.16

He laid out six "minimum requirements’’ for the system. First, 

industry and government should concentrate on preventing accidents. 

When injuries occurred, the worker must be assured of adequate 

medical, surgical, and hospital care to cure or restore him as completely as possible. The injured worker should receive adequate compensation for himself and his family. When ready to return to work, 

he should be retrained, if necessary, for suitable employment. He 

should then be placed in an appropriate job. And, at proper intervals, 

he should be reexamined to make sure that the injury had responded 

to treatment.17

Meeker had expressed definite views on child labor before 

becoming Commissioner, apparendy influenced by his work in the 

charities and prisons of New Jersey. Although, like his predecessor, he 

opposed child labor on moral grounds, Meeker recognized some fundamental economic necessities. Thus, while supporting restrictions on 

child labor, he also preached die need to improve education and 

training. In requiring school attendance and prohibiting factory work 

for children, society must also assure the quality of their education. 

“We must be sure that our schools are at least as good educational 

institutions as our factories,” Meeker warned.18

Meeker advocated a strong, state-controlled school system. In an 

article in The New York Times in April 1913, he called for the compulsory public education of all children through the intermediate grades. 

All would be “busy preparing for the great business of living,” with 

some beginning to learn trades, others, engineering professions or 

general culture.19 He believed that many of the community’s problems 

with crime and pauperism could be traced to an inadequate school 

system. As part of the remedy, he suggested vocational education, 

arguing that proper training in conjunction with counseling would 

help alleviate unemployment problems by giving guidance and 

resources to the unskilled.70

85

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

He favored some form of compulsory civic service for youth and 

proposed that, as “an antidote and partial substitute for militarism,” all 

youth on completion of secondary or technical school be required to 

enter the service of the state for a period, serving in private employment, government factories, farms, and mines. In addition to aiding 

youth “to find themselves and to select more intelligently a vocation in 

life,” such service would diminish industrial strife by “giving sons and 

daughters of luxury a saving knowledge of blisters, backaches, and 

hunger, the first fruits of manual labor.”21

Meeker supported government action to protect workers, viewing the state of trade union organization as inadequate. However, he 

considered unions to be beneficial institutions, at one time even proposing that the state oblige “every laboring man to belong to a union, 

discriminating against non-unionism to the extent of actually prohibiting it. . . . Wages and hours of labor would not be fixed by inflexible 

statutory enactment, but by bargaining between employers and 

employees in approximately equal terms.”22

Shortly before he left office in 1920, Meeker warned of the 

growing bitterness in labor-management relations, lamenting the 

inability to carry over the cooperative relationships of the war years 

into peacetime. He citied the British experience of securing worker 

representation on joint industrial councils and works committees. At 

home, he saw the resumption of employer opposition to unions and 

little prospect for continuing such wartime efforts as worker representation on shop committees. “We are today exactly where the British 

were about 30 years ago,” he stated. Meeker’s conclusion was more an 

appeal: “Before abandoning ourselves completely to pessimism and 

despair, we should at least try the experiment of giving the workers a 

real voice and responsibility in management.”23

Securing the Bureau’s place

Meeker entered the Bureau at a time when government agencies were 

proliferating in response to specialized demands. One of his continuing concerns was to secure a clear jurisdiction for the Bureau, both 

within the new Department of Labor and in the growing Federal 

establishment. At the same time, he sought to establish cooperative 

arrangements so as to avoid duplication and provide uniformity in the 

statistical work of government agencies.

86

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Meeker: Statistics in Recession and Wartime

The Bureau in the D epartm ent of Labor

Meeker maintained effective relations throughout his tenure with Secretary of Labor William B. Wilson and Assistant Secretary Louis F. 

Post and, during the war years, with Special Assistant Felix Frankfurter. To a degree, this was helped by the early establishment of the 

Department Committee on Correlation, under Post, to coordinate the 

activities of the bureaus within the Department and to work with 

other departments and commissions on matters relating to labor.

In the new Department, the Bureau retained its old responsibilites for labor-associated statistics. In addition, it was given some 

oversight of the statistical work of other bureaus. Also, the Committee on Correlation set up agreements and procedures to avoid disputes 

between the Department’s agencies. BLS negotiated one such agreement with the Children’s Bureau on statistics relating to wage-earning 

children and another with the Secretary’s Office on procedures for 

administering the Federal workmen’s compensation system.24

During the period, several bills were introduced to create a 

Bureau of Labor Safety in the Department of Labor, one as early as 

July 1913.25 Both the interest of the Department and BLS in the field 

of safety and their reluctance to see a new agency established were 

apparent in their correspondence with Congress on the bills. In 

August 1913, Secretary Wilson wrote Rep. David J. Lewis, Chairman 

of the House Committee on Labor, that “much useful work would be 

performed” by such a bureau but emphasized that the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics had “for a long time” studied accident statistics, accident 

prevention, and compensation, and had issued many reports and bulletins on the subject. The proposed new bureau was not established.26

Meeker also faced an active campaign by women’s groups to 

establish a separate agency to deal with women’s issues. BLS had had a 

women’s division since 1911, but its studies had been limited by the 

failure of Congress to make appropriations for the work. Further, the 

women’s advocates wanted an agency which would actively promote 

social reform rather than merely present statistical information. In 

1916, Zip S. Falk, Executive Secretary of the Consumers League of the 

District of Columbia, wrote Secretary Wilson that women wanted to 

show “the human story of wage earning women.” The Bureau, she 

said, published its reports in “an exclusively statistical form.” And 

Edith Abbott wrote that the Bureau’s 19-volume report on working 

women and children constituted a superior collection of facts, but a

87

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

“commission inquiry would in all probability have been vastly more 

useful in promoting improvements in the condition of the working 

women and children.” Abbott cited the New fork State Factory Investigation Commission as an example of what she and her friends 

wanted—constructive publicity, not just dry facts. 27

Initially, Secretary Wilson and the Bureau opposed the creation 

of a separate agency. Ethelbert Stewart, Meeker’s second in command, 

argued that the Bureau of Labor Statistics had had a women’s division 

for several years and that establishment of a separate agency would 

cause “duplication or conflict of jurisdiction.” Besides, he said, 

women’s concerns were part of general labor issues. The better procedure, he explained, would be to create by statute a women’s division 

within BLS and to appropriate sufficient funds.28

At first, Secretary Wilson supported the Bureau’s position, but 

the arguments of the women’s advocates apparently impressed him, 

for he soon changed his mind. Upon “mature consideration,” Wilson 

wrote to Rep. Lewis, “there is a vast field for investigation and study 

which specially and peculiarly affects women in industry which could 

be more effectively handled under the immediate direction of women 

than under the direction of men.”29

The House Committee recommended passage of a bill to establish a separate agency, finding that the lack of statutory support had 

made for limited funding of the women’s division in BLS and uncertainty over its continued existence, finally resulting in successive resignations from the position of division chief.30

Meeker reluctantly altered his views. In 1916 he wrote to Mary 

Van Kleeck, “As Congress seems disinclined to grant larger appropriations and larger salaries in the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I think the 

only thing for the women of the country to do in order to bring about 

the proper consideration of women in industry is to advocate the 

establishment of a Women’s Bureau.”31

Congress failed to act, however, and Meeker sought funds for 

special studies of women in industry and to create the statutory position of chief of the women's division, but with little success. In July 

1918, Secretary Wilson established the Woman in Industry Service as 

part of the War Labor Administration, and, in 1920, with Meeker’s 

full support, Congress created the separate Women’s Bureau.32

88

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Meeker: Statistics in Recession and Wartime

The Bureau in the Federal establishment

Shortly after taking office, Meeker wrote Joseph P. Tumulty, private 

secretary to the President, asking for an appointment with Wilson to 

discuss his plans for the Bureau. He wanted to know if the Bureau’s 

program “trespasses upon the preserves of any other department or 

bureau.” He also expressed concern that Congress might create additional bureaus and commissions in disregard of the already existing 

bureaus.33

For several years, Meeker complained to congressional committees about duplication of work by government agencies. In 1914, he 

pointed out to the House Appropriations Committee, “There are no 

less than five governmental agencies that are commissioned by law to 

investigate the cost of living.” And he wrote the President that Congress had ordered the Commerce Department to investigate the cause 

of rising food prices, emphasizing that only BLS collected retail prices 

on a regular basis and that, in fact, Commerce had turned to BLS for 

assistance. A little later, Meeker criticized Commerce for publishing 

material on wholesale prices: “The work that they do is but a small 

segment of the work that we are doing in wholesale prices.”34

O n several occasions, the Bureau complained of intrusions by the 

Treasury Department’s Public Health Service. Stewart charged that 

the Public Health Service had begun studies of occupational diseases 5 

or 6 years after the Bureau had done similar work for the study on 

women and children. He called the action “a deliberate infringement” 

and “an act of trespass” upon the functions of the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. Before the Senate Appropriations Committee, both Meeker 

and Stewart criticized the Public Health Service: “They are not well

fitted to do that thing___ Their statistics are extremely inaccurate and

unreliable because they do not know the occupations.”

In 1918, Meeker cautioned Secretary Wilson about an Executive 

Order proposed by the Secretary of the Treasury concerning the 

functions of the Public Health Service, alerting Wilson to the potential threat to Bureau programs. 'Yet during the war, the Bureau joined 

with the Public Health Service in a study o f health problems arising 

from industrial poisons. Despite his continuing concerns, Meeker saw 

“no reason why there should not be full and cordial cooperation 

between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Public Health Serv89

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Meeker also fought for a role for the Bureau in developing 

resources for industrial education. In February 1914, he wrote 

Tumulty that Congress had established a commission to investigate 

the field and also noted that the National Society for the Promotion of 

Industrial Education sought a separate investigation. In view of those 

activities, he wanted to make the President aware of the Bureau’s 

efforts on the subject. A s “the only Federal agency that has ever made 

a comprehensive study of industrial and vocational education and 

guidance,” his Bureau deserved the work, Meeker argued, pointing 

out that BLS had made the pioneering studies and had invented the 

terminology.36

Ethelbert Stewart expressed like concerns in writing the Secretary about the new Federal child labor law. He stated that parents 

must be convinced that they would profit by keeping their children in 

school because o f the child’s increased earning power. This meant that 

schools must make the hope a reality. Training should reflect employment opportunities, and the Department of Labor should have the 

functions of developing both the national employment offices and the 

vocational training resources.37

Early in 1915, at the President’s instruction, Meeker wrote a 

confidential memorandum outlining the major cases of overlapping 

and duplication in the Federal establishment. He listed six agencies 

competing with BLS: The Bureau of Mines of the Department of the 

Interior, for accidents in the iron and steel industry; the Bureau of 

Foreign and Domestic Commerce of the Department of Commerce, 

for wages and prices; the Public Health Service, for occupational 

health and diseases; the Forest Service and the Bureau of Chemistry of 

the Department of Agriculture, for industrial poisons; and the Bureau 

of Education, for vocational education.38 In 1917, the Secretary of 

Labor pointed out several of these in his report to Congress on 

harmonizing the work of the various government agencies.39

Meeker used various forums to stress the importance of cooperation. In 1914, he told the National Safety Council, “We must get 

governmental agencies to work together. I regard that as my principal 

job.” At the American Economic Association meeting in December 

1914, he commented, “I sincerely hope that the proposed joint committee of the Economic Association and the Statistical Society to 

advise with the statistical Bureaus o f the government will be 

appointed. Unnecessary duplication of statistical work should be elim90

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Meeker: Statistics in Recession and Wartime

inated, and the statistical methods used should be standardized and 

made uniform.”40

The Bureau and State agencies

Meeker tried to improve communications with and among State agencies as well. He wanted to make the Bureau “the center for the 

dissemination of useful information regarding developments in the 

industrial field, to cooperate with the State agencies, and to secure 

their cooperation in making labor studies. . . .”41 “I have, it seems to 

me, a very excellent plan which covers cooperation between my 

Bureau and the various State agencies that deal with labor m atters.. . . 

You do the work, and I will reap the glory,” he suggested to the 

Association of Governmental Labor Officials in 1915. More seriously, 

he declared his intention to eliminate duplication, to develop information where it was lacking, and to establish uniform statistical definitions and methods.42

When unemployment became a major public concern in 1914, 

the Bureau began a continuing cooperative relationship with the 

American Association of Public Employment Offices and regularly 

published its proceedings. In addressing the association, Meeker cited 

the need for national and local information on the employed and 

unemployed, including industrial and occupational detail. He suggested that the States were better able to obtain and furnish such 

information and indicated the kinds of information to be sought from 

trade unions and employers.43 In 1916, shortly after the Bureau began 

its employment series, it arranged with the New York State Department of Labor for the mutual use of the employment data collected by 

that agency.

The Bureau’s work: Meeker’s first term

Price indexes

One of Meeker’s first projects was revision of the index numbers of 

retail and wholesale prices. He later commented, “Long before I took 

charge of the Bureau, I had become very suspicious of the Bureau's 

index numbers, especially its retail price index. . . . Before I had got 

settled in the saddle, I set about to revise and recalculate the index 

numbers published by the Bureau.” He called upon his fellow economists; Irving Fisher and Wesley C. Mitchell were among the few who

91

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

responded with helpful suggestions. He later thanked them especially: 

“Had it not been for the sympathy, encouragement, and counsel of 

Professors Mitchell and Fisher, I should not have had the courage to 

carry out the recasting of the Bureau’s index numbers.”44

The Bureau expanded retail price coverage in 1914. To obtain a 

more realistic measure of changes in workers’ living costs, it increased 

the number of food items priced and added several cloth and clothing 

items. By 1917, retail prices were collected in 46 cities, as against 39 

formerly; for 28 food items, as against 15 earlier; for the new category 

of dry goods, 8 items; and, in addition, for anthracite and bituminous 

coal and gas for domestic use.

Also, the method of computation of the indexes was altered by 

shifting the base from 1890-1900 to the most recent year and developing a chain index, making year-to-year comparisons easier. Actual 

prices, rather than averages of relative prices (percentages), were now 

used in determining relative change. The Bureau explained the reason 

for the new method: “W hen averages of averages of relative prices are 

thus piled up, it becomes difficult to comprehend the meaning of the 

final average.” Under the new system, “A percentage based on average 

or aggregate actual prices of a commodity reflects more accurately the 

changes in the cost of that commodity.”45

The wholesale price index underwent a parallel revision. In 1914, 

the Bureau increased the number of price quotations to 340, defined 

the commodities more accurately, and included more markets. Previously unweighted, the index was now weighted by value (price multiplied by quantity marketed) based on the 1909 censuses of 

manufactures and agriculture. Indexes were rebased and computed in 

the same fashion as for retail prices. The Bureau published its new 

wholesale price index in 1915, along with Wesley C. Mitchell’s classic 

essay, “The Making and Using of Index Numbers.”

The influences of both Fisher and Mitchell were apparent in the 

price index revisions. Fisher advocated chain indexes as more easily 

comparable than those on fixed bases. Also, Fisher believed that the 

wholesale price index could be computed from a relatively small number of commodities. Mitchell agreed that chain indexes were more 

accurate than fixed-base measures and that the series should be an 

aggregate of actual prices weighted according to the quantities marketed. However, he differed with Fisher about the size of the survey

92

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Meeker: Statistics in Recession and Wartime

field: “The more commodities that can be included in such an index 

number the better, provided that the system of weighting is sound.”46

Tfears later, before the American Statistical Association, Meeker 

recommended further improvements in the wholesale index: “In my 

view, the best way to achieve the ‘best index number’ is, first, to secure 

more trustworthy and more representative prices from (1) producers 

and (2) jobbers and wholesalers, and, secondly, to obtain more accurate statistics and estimates of quantities of goods produced, imported, 

exported, and consumed.” 47

Meeker early showed an interest in developing an international 

system of price statistics. In January 1914, the Bureau wrote to the 

Senate Appropriations Committee that negotiations were underway 

with England, France, and Canada. In March, Meeker wrote the 

President, “Plans for putting international statistics upon a common 

basis have proceeded so far that I think it highly desirable that I go to 

Europe to confer in person with the leading statisticians there.” He 

made the trip, but the outbreak of war in Europe prevented any 

further work on the project.48

Wage studies

Shortly after resuming its program of industry wage studies, the 

Bureau was collecting payroll data for all industries that employed at 

least 75,000 workers. The Bureau surveyed nine major industry 

groups: Cotton, wool, and silk; lumber, millwork, and furniture; boots 

and shoes; hosiery and knit goods; iron and steel; cigars; men’s clothing; slaughtering and meatpacking; and steam railroad cars.

The 1913 study on the cotton, wool, and silk industries gave 

hourly wage rates and nominal full-time hours per week. The 1914 

study for the same industries added data on full-time weekly earnings. 

Moreover, in line with revisions in the retail and wholesale price 

indexes, the weighting system for the wage indexes was changed. The 

new industry relative was constructed as an aggregate compiled 

directly from employment data rather than as a relative of relatives.

Another innovation in the wage studies was the collection of data 

on the extent and regularity of employment. In a study of the hosiery 

industry, the Bureau introduced the concept “variation in employment during the year,” appearing in other industry studies as “fluctuations in employment during the year” and “volume of employment.”

93

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Productivity measures also were introduced. A study of the lumber and millwork industry in 1915 presented output per one-man 

hour, cost per one-man hour, and cost per 1,000 board feet produced 

for logging and saw mill operations. For the boot and shoe industry, 

data were presented on “time and labor cost, by occupations in the 

manufacture of 100 pairs of welt shoes, the rate of wages or earnings 

per hour, and the number of pairs worked on per hour.”

In 1913, the Bureau published union scales of wages and hours 

for 1907 to 1912 for more than 40 trades in 39 important industrial 

cities. The material consisted of time rates as stipulated in written 

agreements and trade union records made available to Bureau agents 

by local union officials. Later, the series was expanded to cover 56 

cities in 35 States for 11 industry groups, and over 100 trades and 

occupations. The Bureau also constructed index numbers of wages in 

the trades and occupations covered, which it compared to retail food 

price indexes as a cost-of-living measure.

In addition to its regular reports, the Bureau was called upon for 

special wage studies. In 1914, workers in fish canneries around Seattle 

requested an investigation of wage conditions which the Bureau had 

to refuse because of a lack of funds. That same year, the Bureau 

gathered data on wages and conditions in street railways when a strike 

in Indianapolis pointed up the lack of available information. During 

the summer and fell of 1915, the Bureau conducted a special investigation for the Joint Committee on Printing. The Joint Committee was 

considering pay scales at the Government Printing Office, and the 

Bureau surveyed wages and hours from employer payroll records in 

the printing and binding trades in 179 establishments in 26 cities and 

presented those findings along with the union wage rates for the same 

occupations and the same cities.49

Cost-of-living studies

When Meeker came to the Bureau, retail price data were being used 

to set wage rates for some government work, as, for example, at the 

Government Printing Office and the Washington Navy Yard. In testifying on the data, Meeker said, “In order to settle upon what is a fair 

and reasonable wage, it is necessary to know what a dollar will buy and 

this is the most accurate information available to both trades-union 

men and to employers. ...” However, since the Bureau had last 

collected expenditure data in 1901-03, the existing budget information

94

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Meeker: Statistics in Recession and Wartime

was obsolete: “It is, in my judgment, extremely necessary that, as soon 

as possible, provision be made for a new budget survey.”50

In 1914, the Senate Committee on Education and Labor reported 

in favor of authorizing the Department of Labor to develop informa' 

tion on the cost of living in the District of Columbia. Meeker had 

indicated that the proposed survey would cover only nongovernment 

workers, and that existing Bureau resources would not be adequate 

for the study.51 The Senate did not take further action, however. In 

1916, Meeker testified that a survey would be helpful in determining a 

minimum wage level but that it would also help answer the pressing 

question: “What does it cost the American family to live?”52 Finally, in 

December 1916, Congress appropriated $6,(XX) for the investigation.

The first phase of the study consisted of the collection of data on 

budgets of 2,110 families in the District during the first half of 1917. In 

the second phase, the Bureau studied the income and expenditures of 

600 white women earning wages of under $1,100 a year. As the third 

phase, in cooperation with the Office of Home Economics of the 

Department of Agriculture, the Bureau conducted a dietary study of 

31 families.53

Beginning in October 1917, the Monthly Labor Review carried a 

series of articles presenting the findings, one of which was that w. . . a 

very considerable proportion of the low-income families of Washington do not buy enough food to maintain the family members in health 

and strength.” Among the wage-earning women, the Bureau found 

that the majority “were not only working at distressingly low wages, 

but a very large proportion of them were women who had been wage 

earners for many years.” William F. Ogbum, after an intensive examination of 200 of the budgets, declared that an average family of man, 

wife, and three children under the age of 10 needed an income of at 

least $1,155 to say out of debt.54 The Bureau published a cost-of-living 

index for the District in 1919, and, in 1921, added it to the list of cities 

included in the national index.

Industrial relations

The Bureau investigated several major labor disputes during Meeker’s 

early days in office. Secretary Wilson called on Ethelbert Stewart in 

the fall of 1913 to mediate a coal mining dispute involving the Rockefeller interests in Colorado. Later the same year, Meeker sent Walter 

B. Palmer, who had investigated earlier troubles in Colorado and

95

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Pennsylvania, into Michigan for information on a copper strike led by 

the Western Federation of Miners. But such assignments became 

infrequent once the new Mediation and Conciliation Service was fully 

organized and were not a regular Bureau function as they were under 

Neill.

The Bureau continued to report extensively on collective bargaining developments. From 1913 through 1916, it published five 

bulletins on the subject; four of these were on collective bargaining in 

New 'fork City—three on the garment industry and one on the building trades.

In 1915, the Bureau resumed publication of data on the number 

of strikes and lockouts, including causes and results, based on public 

sources.

Employment and unemployment

Meeker’s deep concern for the problems of employment and unemployment reflected the growing awareness that the United States 

lagged far behind other industrial countries in dealing with unemployment as a broad social and economic problem. As Neill had stated in 

1912 at an international conference on unemployment, “The subject 

of unemployment has, up to the present time, received but a limited 

amount of attention in this country.”55

The recession of 1913-14 spurred the Bureau to consider studies 

on unemployment. In early 1914, Meeker met with Gompers and 

Morrison of the AFL about possible projects on unemployment which 

the Bureau could undertake. But later in the year Meeker had to 

inform Gompers that the Bureau had done no work because Congress 

had failed to provide funds.56 In requesting appropriations, Meeker 

had testified: “We have not anything that is worth the paper it is 

written on on the question of unemployment in this country, and, my 

heavens, it is up to this Bureau... to find out the facts.”57

During the winter of 1914-15, however, the Committee on 

Unemployment formed by Mayor John P. Mitchell called upon the 

Bureau for a series of field surveys of unemployment in New fork 

City. The committee had collected data from employers on the number employed in a week of December 1914 and for the corresponding 

week of December 1913. At about the same time, the Metropolitan 

Life Insurance Company, in cooperation with the Mayor’s Committee, had surveyed its industrial policyholders in Greater New fork. At

96

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Meeker: Statistics in Recession and W artime

the request of the committee, with personnel borrowed from the U .S. 

Immigration Bureau and the New York City Tenement House Inspection Service, the Bureau covered over 100 city blocks and some 3,700 

individual tenement houses in January and February 1915. It found an 

unemployment rate of 16.2 percent, which approximated the 18-percent rate reported by Metropolitan. The results were published by the 

Bureau in Unemployment in New York City, New Ttbrk.58

Meeker then contracted with Metropolitan for studies in 16 cities 

in the East and Middle West and in 12 Rocky Mountain and Pacific 

Coast cities. In August and September 1915, at the urging of the 

Mayor’s Committee, both the Bureau and Metropolitan conducted 

surveys in New York City for a second time. The results of this work 

were presented in 1916 in a Bureau publication, Unemployment in the

United States.59

Meeker declared of the program: “These studies constitute the 

beginning of what should be carried as a regular series of reports. . . . 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics should be in a position to give the 

fullest information to employers, employees, and the public as to 

numbers employed and unemployed.” And he complained of congressional parsimony: “It is a great pity that no provision has yet been 

made for the collection and publication of statistics of unemployment 

by the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.”60

Meeker gave several reasons for the continuing unemployment, 

foremost among them being immigrant labor which had, he said, 

poured into the country and had caused congestion in many labor 

markets. Furthermore, he argued, many corporations followed the 

deliberate policy of keeping “40 men waiting in line outside the gates 

of their plants for every possible job that might be open in their 

establishment.” In addition, “overspeeded industries” contributed 

greatly to labor turnover.61

The Bureau’s work on unemployment was only a temporary 

effort, overwhelmed by the demands of wartime, which turned labor 

surpluses into labor shortages. The lasting effect of the work, however, was that the Bureau did undertake a statistical program to reflect 

changes in employment levels. Beginning with five industries in October and November 1915, the Bureau introduced the monthly series, 

“Amount of employment in certain industries,” beginning publication 

in January 1916. This was the start of the Bureau’s establishment 

series on employment and total payrolls. Meeker could say later that

97

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

these were the only official figures on employment and unemployment.62

The work on unemployment also led the Bureau to the study of 

labor turnover. As Ethelbert Stewart explained, the Secretary directed 

the Bureau to study unemployment, and the Bureau found that the 

problem of unemployment was seriously complicated by “men hunting for jobs, by the shifting of the labor force.”63

Labor turnover studies became integral elements of the Bureau’s 

support o f constructive employment practices by management. 

Meeker commented on the abysmal ignorance of employers regarding 

costs to their companies and to men and machines “of the ill-devised 

and shockingly wasteful system of ‘hiring and firing’ men in a steady 

stream with no attempt to try them out, fit them in, train them and 

keep them.”64

Meeker and the Bureau actively supported those employers 

exploring avenues for the regularization of employment through the 

periodic national meetings of the Conference of Employment Managers, predecessor of the American Management Association. The 

Bureau published the conference proceedings from 1916 through 

1918. Meeker said that, “Like all meritorious movements, this movement to promote the more intelligent treatment of laborers has spread 

until it has become nationwide.”65 He stressed that employers could 

derive the greatest benefit from their wage payments by “shortening 

the working-day, providing rest periods at convenient intervals, 

advancing piece and time rates, cutting out all over-time, re-creating in 

the employee an interest in the job he is doing and helping him to get 

the most out of his earnings and leisure.”66

The Bureau made several additional early contributions to the 

study of turnover with work on the seasonality and irregularity of 

employment in the women’s clothing industries, in support of an 

effort by those industries in New York City to obtain better information on the question. Extensive field investigations in 1915-16 and a 

wartime study in 1918 provided the basis for summaries later published in the Monthly Labor Review as “Mobility of Labor in American 

Industry.”

In 1916-17, the Bureau collected information on corporate welfare plans from 430 employers in an effort to spread information on 

ways to reduce turnover by improving working conditions. Also, the

98

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Meeker: Statistics in Recession and Wartime

Review carried many articles on specific plans in various companies and 

industries.

Social insurance

Royal Meeker’s interest in social insurance showed in much of his 

work at the Bureau, for he defined it very broadly to encompass most 

forms of protective legislation for workers. In 1916, he wrote the 

President to suggest “bold action on social insurance” that would 

include a model law for the District of Columbia and Federal employees as well as protection for all workers in interstate commerce. Pointing to the high infant mortality and accident rates, he urged 

establishment of national health insurance and made a strong appeal 

for support for safety programs.67

Workmen's compensation. As under Wright and Neill, the Bureau 

continued to publicize and encourage experiments and improvements 

in workmen’s compensation programs. The Bureau regularly 

presented materials in the Monthly Labor Review covering State legislation and experience. In addition, it published a series of bulletins on 

workmen’s compensation laws and programs in the United States and 

foreign countries.

Between 1908 and 1916, the Bureau had direct responsibility for 

administering the program of workmen’s compensation for Federal 

employees. From his earliest days at the Bureau, Meeker sought to 

have this responsibility transferred. Meanwhile, he suggested improvements in the system. In his 1915 report to the Secretary, he listed 

several administrative reforms that should be enacted. He also wrote 

the President about shortcomings in the program. His complaints 

included administrative confusion, in that Congress had established 

three separate systems covering different groups of Federal workers. 

Yet he found “the most glaring inadequacy of the present law” to be its 

failure to include all employees of the government. The second greatest weakness, in his view, lay in the failure to cover occupational 

diseases. In 1916, after considering several proposals, Congress created 

the separate Federal Employees’ Compensation Board to administer 

the system.68

Industrial safety and health. Actively continuing the efforts begun 

under Neill to improve industrial safety and health conditions,

99

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Meeker combined research into effects and exposures with efforts to 

establish a uniform system of statistical reporting. In a letter to Presidential secretary Joseph Tumulty in February 1914, Meeker set forth 

his view of the Bureau’s role: “It seems to me imperative that the 

Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics should act as a central clearinghouse for State agencies, for the purpose of standardizing accident and 

occupational disease statistics. This Bureau should be in a position to 

furnish at any time advice as to the best methods of preventing industrial accidents and occupational diseases."69

In Meeker’s opinion, the Bureau, rather than any other agency or 

private firm, should be able to say where the hazard lay, just what the 

danger was, and how best to remedy the situation.

Meeker and Charles H. Verrill of the Bureau staff worked with a 

committee of the International Association of Industrial Accident 

Boards and Commissions to develop standard methods and definitions 

for reporting accidents. “No one State has yet published statistics that 

are at all adequate to its own needs, and no two States have produced 

results that are in any way comparable.” To help remedy the lack of 

adequate statistics, the committee recommended systems for classification by industry; by cause, location, and nature of injury; and by 

extent of disability. The Bureau offered to tabulate and publish State 

accident statistics and also provided the committee with the benefit of 

its experience in developing severity rates for the iron and steel and 

machine-building industries.70

The Bureau established cooperative arrangements for reporting 

accidents with the States of Massachusetts, Ohio, and New 'fork, 

hoping to extend such arrangements, and it continued the close relationship with the National Safety Council begun under Neill. Meeker 

at one time served as chairman of the Committee on Standard Forms 

for Accident Reporting, and, in 1916, he was elected chairman of the 

Governmental Section.

With the cooperation of insurance companies, Frederick L. Hoffman produced Industrial Accident Statistics in 1915, which presented 

data from the Prudential Insurance Company as well as from the 

Census Bureau, several States, and three foreign countries. In 1917, 

the Bureau published Louis I. Dublin’s Causes of Death by Occupation, which gave figures from the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company’s Industrial Department.

100

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Meeker: Statistics in Recession and Wartime

The Bureau also continued to publish pioneering studies by Alice 

Hamilton on exposure to industrial poisons, especially in the lead 

industry. Hamilton also wrote on industrial poisons in the rubber and 

explosives industries. The publication of the report on the explosives 

industry in 1917 proved especially opportune, coming as it did when 

“the enormous expansion in the industry. . . has drawn thousands of 

green workers into occupations which subject them to serious or fatal 

poisoning.”71

In addition, the Bureau published a study by John B. Andrews on 

anthrax as an occupational disease, a report by Lucian W. Chaney and 

Hugh S. Hanna on the safety movement in the iron and steel industry, 

and one by Arthur R. Perry on preventable death in cotton manufacturing.

Meeker acknowledged, however, that much remained to be done. 

In 1920, shortly before leaving office, he told the Pennsylvania Safety 

Congress, “It is a shameful confession to be obliged to make, but we 

don’t know whether the net result of our efforts to reduce industrial 

accidents has been more accidents or fewer accidents, a greater or a 

smaller loss in disability time.” He then urged more effort to establish 

uniformity in definitions, statistics, coverage, and compensation, work 

which the Bureau continued.72

The second term: Statistics for wartime needs

When the United States entered the war in April 1917, the state of 

Federal statistics was “woefully incomplete and inadequate.” Bernard 

Baruch, Chairman of the War Industries Board, later observed that 

“the greatest deterrent to effective action” during the war was the lack 

of facts.73 Problems in gathering timely statistics were complicated by 

the competing demands of the many independent statistical bureaus. 

The multiplication of questionnaires became so great by mid-1918 that 

complaints from respondents mounted.7^

The need for coordination became increasingly evident, but there 

was debate as to which agency should have the responsibility. Both 

Baruch’s War Industries Board and the Labor Department’s War 

Labor Policies Board, headed by Felix Frankfurter, discussed the issue. 

One proposal called for establishment of a temporary organization in 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics to collect, compile, and distribute labor 

statistics for the needs of the various departments and war agencies.

101

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

However, the gathering and distribution of industrial statistics— 

including labor statistics—was placed under the charge of the Central 

Bureau of Planning and Statistics of the War Industries Board, with 

arrangements for coordination between the Central Bureau and 

Meeker.75 While BLS did not obtain the principal coordinating role, 

its responsibility for labor statistics was recognized and enhanced.

Cost-of-living studies and standard budgets

The demands of the wartime economy finally permitted Meeker to 

achieve his long-sought goal of a new, comprehensive consumer 

expenditure survey. Throughout the war, the government was concerned with the manner in which wages could be adjusted for the 

rising cost of living. Thus, the August 1917 agreement between the 

Emergency Fleet Corporation and the AFL Metal Trades Department, 

which established the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board, stated 

that the Board would “keep itself fully informed as to the relation 

between living costs in the several districts, and their comparison 

between progressive periods of time.”76

Great Britain had set an early example for revision of cost-ofliving measurement during wartime. At first, wage adjustments were 

based on the retail prices of food, but these were found unsuitable in a 

time of rapidly changing prices, even with more frequent publication. 

In June 1916, the British Board of Trade produced a new index 

number covering all groups of expenditures and representing the 

“average cost of living of the working classes.”77

In the United States, proposals for adjustments tied to an index 

figured prominently in policy discussions. Some means of achieving 

stability in purchasing power had been discussed by economists even 

before the war. Meeker and Irving Fisher had corresponded on the 

subject as early as 1912. At that time, Fisher had promoted the concept of a “stabilized” or “compensated” dollar to obtain constancy in 

purchasing power by adjusting “the number of grains [of gold] which 

go to make a dollar.” The change would be determined, according to 

Fisher, “by index numbers of prices, such as those of. . . the United 

States Bureau of Labor.”78

Fisher again promoted the idea as the war economy heated up, 

focusing on the use of a price index to adjust wages for the increased 

cost of living. In tyiay 1917, he wrote Assistant Secretary of Labor Post 

to propose a “half-way” plan for salary adjustment. Fisher suggested

102

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Meeker: Statistics in Recession and W artime

that, since food prices rose twice as fast as general prices, adjustment 

should be set at half the rise in the Bureau’s retail food price index 

number. This would, he argued, secure “rough justice.” Meeker 

rejected the assumption that all items rose at one-half the increase in 

food prices, recommending instead that wages be adjusted up or down 

according to the full rise or fall in the food index. That is, until a 

further investigation into the retail prices of nonfood commodities 

could be made, the index numbers of retail prices of food should be 

considered as representing changes in the cost of living.79

In the meantime, Meeker pressed to begin work on surveys of 

the cost of living of families in shipbuilding centers for the Shipbuilding Board. In December 1917, he estimated his need at $50,000 to 

conduct the surveys, and the President allocated the sum from his 

National Security and Defense Fund. In May 1918, the President 

granted Meeker’s request for another $25,000 to complete the 

surveys.80

During the early months of 1918, the Bureau scrambled to conduct the surveys in 18 shipbuilding centers, covering family expenditures in 1917 and 1918. The Shipbuilding Board put the results to 

immediate use in setting uniform national wage rates for most of the 

skilled shipyard trades.81

In February 1918, Henry R. Seager of the Shipbuilding Board 

wrote Post that the Board relied on the Bureau of Labor Statistics for 

authoritative data on changes in the cost of living and that it would 

seriously consider using index numbers if the Bureau decided officially 

to establish index numbers of changes in the cost of living of wage 

earners in different parts of the country. He noted, however, that 

Meeker was not yet prepared to undertake the task because of the 

technical difficulties and said that the Board would wait for the Bureau 

to take the initiative.82

In March, the policy was developed under which the tripartite 

National War Labor Board was to administer wartime labor-management relations. Strikes and lockouts were prohibited, and, of particular significance for the Bureau's programs, prevailing wages and 

working conditions in localities were to be considered in fixing wages. 

But the “right of all workers, inducing common laborers, to a living 

wage” was declared, with minimum rates “which will insure the subsistence of the worker and his family in health and reasonable comfort.”83

103

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

By August, die Secretary of Labor supported an indexing scheme 

as the way of standardizing and stabilizing wages. He wrote the President, expressing the need for "properly weighted family budgets prepared by the Bureau o f Labor Statistics and a record made monthly of 

the changes in the cost of living, the wage rate to rise or fall during the 

ensuing month one cent per hour for each change of eight cents per 

day in the cost of living shown by the investigations made by the 

Bureau."84

By June, the National War Labor Board was calling for nationwide data on the cost o f living, and the Bureau, with an allocation of 

$300,000 from the President, began on the larger task. Meeker 

pointed out how the new survey would provide much better information than the earlier surveys of shipbuilding centers. Those studies 

were done in haste, he said, with time not available to calculate new 

weights based on quantities consumed, so the old 1901 weights had 

been used. Also, the number of articles priced was not adequate; 

miscellaneous items of expenditure were not priced at all. Further, 

specifications for individual items had not been adequately developed 

to insure future pricing of identical or closely related items. And the 

shipbuilding centers were too few and too untypical to be representative o f the country as a whole.85

The national study was conducted in 1918-19. Some 12,000 families with incomes of about $900 to $2,500 in 92 cities in 42 States were 

surveyed. More than 300 agents visited the homes of wage earners and 

"small" salaried workers, and, on the basis of interviews with housewives, obtained information on expenditures and income for a 1-year 

period between July 1917 and February 1919. Data were collected on 

quantities purchased, as well as costs, in contrast to the 1901 expenditure study, which had covered only costs. Information obtained by 

interview was frequently checked against daily expense accounts maintained by the housewives over at least a 5-week period.

The first results of the survey appeared in an article in the 

Monthly Labor Review in May 1919, with others following for the 

several regions. These presented “average yearly expense per family" 

for food, clothing, rent, fuel and light, furniture, and miscellaneous, 

along with "total average yearly expenses per family."

In releasing the results, Meeker acknowledged their shortcomings. It was unfortunate, he said, that the study had to be conducted in 

an abnormal period. "Many families not only economized on clothes

104

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Meeker: Statistics in Recession and Wartime

and house furnishings but actually skimped themselves on food,” 

Meeker stated, “both because of the high prices and because of the 

intense Liberty Loan drives.”86

The data showed, Meeker stated, that there was no American 

standard of living that provided “all the necessaries, many of the 

comforts, and a goodly supply of the luxuries of life.” Instead, there 

were many different standards depending on the income and size of 

families. The lot of lower income families was especially hard. They 

needed, he said, higher wages and cheaper food, clothing, houses, 

medical treatment, and insurance. He concluded, “Let us make the 

minimum living standard in America one that will support life in 

decency and health.”87

While finding the cost-of-living report “generally illuminating,” 

The New York Times disagreed with Meeker: “The Bureau of Labor 

Statistics cannot be accused of countenancing an unjust wage for the 

American workman. Quite the contrary, its tendency is to raise an 

ideal standard, a standard incapable of being realized in any nation, 

and especially in the present acute industrial crisis.”88

In 1919, shortly after publishing the results of the expenditure 

survey, the Bureau issued its initial report on changes in the cost of 

living—its first comprehensive set of cost-of-living indexes for the 

Nation and for major industrial and shipbuilding centers. Thereafter, 

indexes were issued semiannually for the Nation as a whole and for 31 

cities. Pricing for 1913-17, the period preceding the expenditure survey, was based on records of retail establishments in the 18 shipbuilding centers. Beginning with December 1917, the Bureau regularly 

collected data in the 31 major industrial and shipbuilding centers for 

about 145 commodities and services. Washington, D.C., was added in 

1921.89

Later, an academic critique of cost-of-living studies in the Journal

of the American Statistical Association concluded that, while economists had for several years debated the difficulties of constructing a 

cost-of-living index, the substantial correspondence of the Bureau’s 

numbers with those of a wartime pilot study by the National Industrial 

Conference Board was the best proof that such a measure was practicable.90

Meeker described the purposes of the nationwide expenditure 

study as including the formulation of standard budgets for use by 

adjustment boards in setting minimum and fair wage awards. To deter105

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred "Years

mine the adequacy of the market basket utilized in constructing the

cost-of-living indexes, he declared, “A standard minimum quantity

budget must be agreed upon which will allow a sufficiency of all

necessary commodities and services, food, clothing, housing, fuel, furniture, house furnishings, and miscellaneous to enable the standard

family to live healthfully and decently.”91

After the war's end, the Joint Commission of Congress on

Reclassification of Salaries called on the Bureau to formulate standard

budgets for government employees in the District of Columbia. The

commission found, using the Bureau materials, that rates of compensation had not kept up with increases in the cost of living.92 The main

Bureau work for the commission was published in two articles in the

Monthly Labor Review in 1919 and 1920. One presented a total budget, at market prices, necessary to sustain a level of health and decency

for a government employee in Washington, D.C., with a family of five.

The budget represented “a sufficiency of food, respectable clothing,

sanitary housing, and a minimum of essential ‘sundries’”; but did not

include "many comforts which should be included in a proper ‘ American standard of living.'” No provision was made ufor savings other

than insurance, nor for vacations, nor for books or other educational

purposes.” The cost of the budget was estimated at $2,288 in October

1919. The second budget provided similar material for single men and

women.93

The data from the 1918-19 expenditure survey were further used

to develop a standard “minimum quantity budget necessary to maintain a worker’s family of five in health and decency.” Constructed with

the assistance of the Department of Agriculture and the National

Conference of Social Work, the standard reflected requirements for

food, clothing, housing, heat and light, furniture and furnishings, and

miscellaneous items. The costs of the budget were not calculated by

the Bureau.9*

The Bureau’s cost-of-living and budget information was cited

frequendy and used extensively by parties to wage disputes and by

Congress, Federal agencies, private companies, and international conferences. Its value was recognized by such groups as the Industrial

Conference called by President Wilson in December 1919. In their

report, the conference participants stressed that “it is vitally important

that the government maintain and even extend its machinery for

investigating and reporting” on changes in the cost of living. As

106

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Meeker: Statistics in Recession and W artime

important as the wartime investigations were, “Exact and reliable 

information is equally important during the period of reconstruction 

through which we are now passing.”95

Yet, despite appeals by President Wilson and Meeker, Congress 

was determined to return appropriations to normal after the war. In 

1919, the Bureau sought a deficiency appropriation of $475,000 for 

cost-of-living work. Congress allowed $12,000.96 Meeker had developed the cost-of-living and budget programs to a most promising level 

of utility—only to have their future threatened by congressional budget cutting in the postwar retrenchment.

The industrial survey

Wartime demands intensified the need to speed and expand the gathering and tabulation of information on wages and hours, strikes and 

lockouts, and labor requirements. Requests came from various Federal 

agencies and from State wage adjustment committees and departments 

of labor. These requests, and especially those of the War Department 

for wage information in the vicinity of cantonments, required sending 

agents into localities not previously covered in the Bureau’s wage 

surveys. Meeker’s attempts to secure funds for expanded surveys 

between 1916 and 1918 were unsuccessful.

In October 1918, with the encouragement of the Central Bureau 

of Planning and Statistics of the War Industries Board, Meeker and 

others again stressed the need for more complete wage statistics. The 

Bureau’s regular program permitted only about 10 industry studies on 

2-year cycles, and these were largely of “historical or antiquarian interest” when finally published. Meeker proposed that 30 or more industries be surveyed at least once a year.97

Shortly thereafter, the President allotted $300,000 for an integrated study of occupational hours and earnings to reflect wartime 

conditions and help resolve disputes. Almost immediately, Meeker 

wrote that, while the work was being planned and organized as 

quickly as possible, “it is becoming increasingly difficult since the 

signing of the Armistice to get needed information from employers.”98 

The information was obtained, however, and in May 1920 the Bureau 

presented the results of the survey, which covered wages and hours 

during 1918 and 1919 for 780 occupations in 28 industries, covering 

2,365 establishments in 43 States. Unfortunately, as the Bureau 

acknowledged, with the sudden change in production requirements

107

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

following the war’s end, the data in the report reflected the unsettled 

conditions of postwar reconstruction.

The Bureau declared that it “could render no greater service to 

the country” than to have such information continuously available 

and pleaded for the support of “accurate, reliable, and strictly impartial” investigations such as the industrial survey. By that time, however, Congress had already refused further appropriations to maintain 

the program, and only the more limited wage survey program was 

continued.99

Administration

The many activities of the Bureau under Meeker were conducted with 

only modest increases in congressional appropriations (table 3). Limited funds made for low-paying job classifications and few opportunities for advancement, sources of constant complaint by Bureau officials 

and others. In surveying the Bureau’s work, Wesley C. Mitchell wrote 

that the field work in collecting price and wage data was “better on the 

whole than the office work of making these data into finished bulletins.” While the clerical force “stood on a level rather above that 

common to government offices,” BLS lacked an “adequate staff of 

skilled statisticians.” The weakness of the organization, as Mitchell 

explained it, arose from the fact that the Bureau could not offer a 

satisfactory career to capable men.100

In 1916, Stewart stated, “The one criticism always levelled at the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics is that the value of our material is greatly 

decreased and, as some of our very warm friends insist, destroyed by 

the lapse of time between the gathering and the final issuing of the 

material. Now, it is simply impossible for us to get our work out in 

reasonable time with the office force we have.”101 And Congress 

threatened action that would, in the Bureau’s opinion, make matters 

worse by prohibiting employees from taking outside jobs for pay. 

Stewart stated that such an amendment would force “fifty percent of 

the best men in the Bureau” to resign.102

The wartime emergency increased the pressures. Late in 1917, 

Stewart commented that most of the Bureau’s positions had not been 

re-rated since the founding of the Bureau in 1885 and that “our men 

who are able to supervise statistical work have left us or are leaving us 

for better pay in the war agencies.” Turnover increased so much that,

108

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Meeker: Statistics in Recession and W artime

Table 3. Funding for Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1914-20

(in thousands)

Fiscal year ended

June 30 —

Appropriations

Total1 Salaries

Special Presidential

funds

1914 $185 $102 -

1915 206 138 -

1916 209 138 -

1917 i n 138 -

1918 213 148 $75

1919 243 173 z625

1920 322 217 -

'Includes miscellaneous and deficiency appropriations, but not allocations 

for printing and binding.

2$50,000 o f this was returned.

SOURCES: National Archives Record Group 257, Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 

Appropriations Ledger, 1887-1903. Legislative, Executive, and Judicial 

Appropriations.

whereas in 1916 it had been necessary to hire 150 people to fill the 101 

permanent positions, in 1917, 222 people had to be hired to fill 108 

positions.103

The extensive wartime studies on the cost of living and the 

industrial survey had been conducted through allocations from the 

President’s special fund. The Bureau lost this source after the armistice and had to cut programs to meet its peacetime budget. In March 

1920, a Survey article, “Let There Be Darkness,” stated, “Apparently 

the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics is to be hamstrung by Congress. 

Its appropriation has been so cut that some of its most important work 

must be stopped.”104

Both Stewart and Meeker testified in favor of plans to solve some 

of the long-range personnel problems. In 1916, Stewart spoke in 

support of a pension system for civil servants, arguing that the government pays elderly, inefficient employees anyway, pension or no pension. Many corporations had established pension programs, he said, 

“because they had a water-logged pay roll that they had to fix up. In 

other words, they had a pension roll without a pension system, and 

they had to devise a pension system in self-defense.”105

Congress did pass a wartime bonus for government employees, 

but Meeker noted that it did not cover the increase in the cost of 

living. He argued that wages should keep pace with living costs and

109

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred years

with raises in private industry. In fact, he drafted a bill to provide 

automatic adjustment of government salaries to changes in the cost of 

living as measured by Bureau of Labor Statistics cost-of-living studies 

and retail price surveys.106 Congress established a pension system in 

1920, but it was many years before the concepts of comparability and 

periodic adjustment for government salaries were incorporated in statutes.

Publications

Meeker instituted a new publications policy in 1915 with the launching of a monthly journal to supplement the bulletins published on an 

irregular schedule. The Bureau had felt the need for some way to 

present materials that were important but too brief for publication as 

separate bulletins. Also, in introducing the Monthly Review, Meeker 

sought to give more frequent and wider publicity to labor-related 

activities. He asked officials of Federal, State, municipal, and private 

agencies to notify the Bureau of their business so notices and reports 

could be published in the Monthly Review. The periodical, he said, 

would present the current work of the Bureau, the Department, other 

Federal agencies, and the various State bureaus. In addition, it would 

publish materials from such bodies as State industrial commissions, 

factory inspection commissions, and temporary investigatory committees. Furthermore, one of its special features would be notes and 

summaries from foreign countries, particularly valuable in providing 

information on wartime labor policies and experience in the warring 

European nations. To emphasize the nature of the subject matter, the 

Bureau changed the name of the periodical to Monthly Labor Review

with the issue for July 1918.107

The Review encountered difficulties during the war. In July 1918, 

the Joint Committee on Printing resolved, “That during the continuation of the war [the Public Printer] be directed to print only such 

publications as are required for the essential work of the Government 

and which do not delay necessary war printing.” This attitude resulted 

in cuts in the BLS printing appropriations, and also in later charges 

that Congress tried to squelch publication of information about prices 

and the cost of living. Meeker complained that the cuts could force 

the discontinuance of the Review and asked for a deficiency appropriation. Secretary Wilson replied that the Department would cover the

110

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Meeker: Statistics in Recession and Wartime

shortage from its funds rather than ask Congress for additional 

money.108

Despite the emergency pressures, the Review expanded greatly 

over its prewar size, publicizing the first results of new Bureau surveys 

on the cost of living, the new budget studies, and other original work 

as well much information on conditions in belligerent countries. Its 

popularity prompted a change in policy. With circulation up from the 

initial 8,000 in July 1915 to 19,000 in June 1920, the Review was put on 

a subscription basis in July 1920. Meeker citied the shortage of paper, 

the high cost of printing and supplies, and the necessity to economize.109

During the war, the Bureau cooperated with another agency in 

the Department, the Woman in Industry Service, in the preparation of 

publications. The bulletins of both agencies were edited by the Bureau 

and issued as joint publications. Reporting on this arrangement to 

Secretary Wilson, Meeker cited the saving of cost and time and suggested that other departmental units also take advantage of the “expert 

Editorial Division in the Bureau of Labor Statistics.”110

International activities

Interest in labor developments abroad, a concern of the Bureau from 

the time of its founding, increased during Meeker’s tenure, although 

efforts at developing international standards for statistics were aborted 

by the war. In 1914, the Bureau issued a bulletin on labor laws and 

factory inspections in six major European countries and reported on 

how the start of the war affected food prices in 18 countries. From its 

beginning, the Review carried articles on the effect of the war on 

wages, hours, working conditions, and prices in European countries. 

In 1917, at the request of the Council of National Defense, the Bureau 

issued a series of bulletins on British munitions factories, covering 

hours of work, fatigue and health, welfare work, and industrial efficiency, as well as on the employment of women and juveniles and on 

industrial unrest.

These and other studies provided important background material 

for the establishment of war labor agencies and policies in the United 

States. The importance of the information was evidenced by the stationing of a special representative in Great Britain to keep the Bureau 

in constant touch with developments there.111

Ill

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

After the war, at Frankfurter’s request, the Bureau prepared 

reports on the labor situation in foreign countries for the use of the 

U .S. delegation to the Peace Conference. Early in 1919, Meeker went 

to England as economic adviser to a group of employers for a study 

sponsored by the Department of Labor on the British reconstruction 

experience. Ethelbert Stewart was also sent to England to help prepare 

for the Washington meeting of the International Labor Conference.

The U .S. contribution to the quasi-official International Association for Labor Legislation and its Labor Office through a congressional 

appropriation to the Bureau for the purpose was continued throughout the war. However, with the establishment of the League of 

Nations and its International Labor Office, Congress discontinued the 

subvention.112

Resignation

On May 5, 1920, Meeker wrote President Wilson of the “flattering 

offer” he had received to head up the Scientific Division of the International Labor Office to perform work similar to that of the Bureau. 

He felt that this was a fine opportunity to help organize the new ILO, 

a major office in the League of Nations. At the same time, he recommended Allan H. Willett of the University of Pennsylvania, who had 

directed the industrial survey, as his successor. In his formal letter of 

resignation to the President a month later, Meeker expressed his 

commitment to the Wilsonian ideal of a League of Nations. “I regret 

very much to sever myself from your Administration, but it seems to 

me that I can best serve the ideals for which you stand by accepting 

this position.”113

President Wilson supported Meeker’s decision to go to the ILO 

but reserved his decision on his successor. The President wrote that, 

after consultation with Secretary Wilson, he had “come to agree with 

him that a better appointment would be Mr. Ethelbert Stewart of 

Illinois.” He went on to say, “I know you would be gratified by the 

terms in which the Secretary of Labor speaks of your own work at the 

head of the Bureau.”114

In commenting on Meeker’s resignation, Secretary Wilson 

described him “as an exceptionally efficient administrator of the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics.” He cited as Meeker’s accomplishments, in 

addition to the Bureau’s regular fact-gathering, which “he has handled

112

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Meeker: Statistics in Recession and Wartime

with sound judgment and quiet determination,” first, coordination of 

the Bureau’s work with that of the States and standardization of 

industrial terminology and methods; second, reorganization of the 

cost-of-living work on a family budget or market basket basis; and, 

third, his wartime studies of wages and living costs, accepted by all the 

wage boards. The Secretary concluded that, while Meeker’s sympathies “were always with the workers, he never allowed these sympathies to distort the facts.”115

Later years

Meeker continued his activities in social and labor economics for the 

next quarter century. From 1920 to 1923, he served as Chief of the 

Scientific Division of the International Labor Office of the League of 

Nations in Geneva. He returned to the United States to serve as 

Secretary of Labor and Industry for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania under the Republican progressive Gifford Pinchot from 1923 

to 1924. In 1924 also, he went to China under the auspices of the 

Institute of Social and Religious Research of New York as a member of 

the Commission on Social Research in China. In 1926 and 1927, he 

was a professor of economics at Carleton College in Minnesota. In 

1930, he became associated with Irving Fisher as president of the 

Index Number Institute in New Haven, a position he held until 1936. 

During this period, he also directed a survey of aged persons for the 

State of Connecticut and became a special agent of the Connecticut 

Department of Labor. In 1941, he was named Administrative Assistant 

and Director of Research and Statistics of the Connecticut Department, from which he retired in 1946. He died in New Haven in 1953.

113

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter V.

Ethelbert Stewart: 

Holding the Fort

E

thelbert Stewart, appointed in June 1920, was the first Commissioner of Labor Statistics to come from the ranks. Carroll 

Wright had hired him as a special agent 33 years earlier, and 

he had served the Bureau in increasingly responsible positions for most of the period. Although he was 63 when he became 

Commissioner, he devoted 12 more years to the Bureau, serving during the administrations of Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, Calvin 

Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover.

During these years, the political climate was not a favorable one 

for the Department of Labor or the Bureau. Congressional and administration policies encouraged business interests, and the Department 

of Commerce, for 8 years headed by Herbert Hoover, grew in influence. Congress also gave some attention to the needs of farmers, who 

were suffering from depressed prices, by granting the Department of 

Agriculture additional funds, mainly for agricultural statistics. Other 

agencies, however, were subject to economy drives.

Following the brief recession of 1921, there was relative prosperity during much of Stewart’s tenure, except in agriculture and in such 

“sick” industries as coal and textiles. The growth of the consumer

114

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Stewart: Holding the Fort

durable goods industries—automobiles, radios, refrigerators, and electrie and gas stoves—contributed substantially as mass production, low 

prices, and installment credit brought these products increasingly into 

American households. Even with prosperity, however, there was constant unemployment, attributed largely to technological change.

For the first time in a period of prosperity, organized labor was 

unable to increase its membership or influence. A combination of 

factors contributed, including antiunion policies in the growing mass 

production industries, the continuing craft orientation of the American Federation of Labor, conservative Federal labor policies, and court 

decisions unfavorable to labor.

While Stewart fought for funds to modernize the Bureau’s statistical and analytical work, he was usually rebuffed. Only when concern 

over unemployment mounted in the late 1920’s did Congress provide 

additional funds. Under difficult circumstances, Stewart maintained 

the Bureau’s independence and objectivity, standing firm against misuse of its reports for political purposes. He broke new ground in the 

field of productivity measurement and, with the encouragement and 

advice of the professional organizations, achieved some gains in the 

coverage and reliability of the Bureau’s traditional employment, wage, 

and occupational safety programs.

The fourth Commissioner

Bom in Cook County, Illinois, in 1857, Stewart spent his early years 

on the family farm. Because of a stammer, he was “practically barred* 

from any formal schooling, but he read voraciously and received some 

private tutoring. At 20, he moved to Lincoln, Illinois, to publish the 

Lincoln County Republican, but later sold his interest. After trying 

several jobs, he went to work at the Decatur (Illinois) Coffin Factory. 

While at the factory, Stewart joined a “workingmen’s club” in Decatur 

and became involved in politics. In 1885, he ran for city clerk on a 

workingmen’s ticket and served as an officer at the Illinois State 

Trades and Labor Convention; he was blacklisted by the coffin company for his activities.1

In 1885, Governor Richard J. Oglesby appointed Stewart Secretary to the Illinois Bureau of Labor Statistics, apparently at the suggestion of Henry Demarest Lloyd, financial editor of the Chicago 

Tribune. Stewart had visited Lloyd, impressed by his attacks on the

115

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred years

monopolistic power exercised by the giant oil and railroad corporations, and they had formed what was to be a lifelong friendship.

Also in 1885, Stewart became editor of the Decatur Labor Bulk'

tin, having joined the Knights of Labor a few months earlier. For 

several years to follow, he held positions with various labor papers.

Stewart was reappointed as Secretary of the Illinois Bureau of 

Labor Statistics in 1887 and for successive 2-year terms through 1893. 

In this capacity he participated in a number of investigations of labor 

conditions in the State.

In 1887, he obtained a position as a special agent for the new 

Federal Bureau of Labor. In 1889, he wrote Wright about the possibility of securing a permanent position, but the Commissioner apparently demurred then because of Stewart’s speech problem. He 

continued to do fieldwork for the Bureau in the Midwest until 1910. 

Among other major studies, he worked on Regulation and Restriction

of Output with John R. Commons. Under Neill, he planned and 

conducted the fieldwork for studies of the telephone and telegraph 

industries and the Bethlehem Steel Corporation.

In 1910, Stewart transferred to the Tariff Board and in 1912 to 

the Children’s Bureau, serving as statistician of each agency.

He returned to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1913 to function 

simultaneously as Chief Clerk, Chief Statistician, and Deputy Commissioner, Meeker’s second in command. In addition to his extended 

Bureau responsibilities, he served the Department in a variety of 

capacities. Between 1913 and 1916, Secretary Wilson called upon him 

to investigate and mediate strikes in coal mining, the garment industry, and street railways. In 1917, the Secretary appointed him to a 

board of arbitration for wage adjustment in New Y>rk Harbor. During 

the war he served as chief of the Department’s Investigation and 

Inspection Service, part of the War Labor Administration, conducting 

a number of brief surveys. In 1919, he went to London to help plan 

the League of Nations Labor Conference that met in Washington later 

that year. On returning from London, Stewart served as a technical 

adviser to the Bituminous Coal Commission. In 1920, as the special 

representative of the Secretary, he investigated deportation cases and, 

in that connection, advised on bail policy.2

In June 1920, the Secretary recommended Stewart to President 

Wilson for the position of Commissioner of Labor Statistics to succeed Royal Meeker. Stewart had not been Meeker’s first choice, but

116

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Stewart: Holding the Fort

the Secretary thought him better qualified, and the President accepted 

his judgment, issuing a recess appointment. With the change in 

administrations imminent, the Republican Senate refused to confirm 

any of the Democratic President’s appointees, including Stewart. The 

new Secretary, James J. Davis, renominated Stewart, writing to the 

incoming President, Warren G. Harding, “The position... is a technical and scientific one, and I have become entirely satisfied, from conferences I have held with men qualified to advise in such matters, that 

Mr. Stewart measures up fully to the standard.”3 The Senate confirmed Stewart in April 1921.

Stewart served under Secretary Davis for 10 years and more than 

fulfilled his expectations. On Stewart’s 70th birthday in 1927, Davis 

wrote him, “^bu were represented to me as a fearless fighter for right 

and justice, and you have proved to be all of that and more. ...” In 

1930, Davis noted that he had watched the development of the Bureau 

with great interest and commented, MI am becoming more and more 

impressed, not only with the breadth and scope of the work of that 

Bureau, but by the industry, energy, and enthusiasm with which its 

work is conducted.”4

Stewart’s views

Stewart emphasized the practical over the academic or theoretical. 

Something of a muckraking newspaperman early in life, he retained 

that sense of the human, of the person behind the number. As he 

himself said, “For 30 years, I have been struggling to put some flesh 

upon the bony skeleton of mere tabulation.” He cautioned against 

“this mania for statistics,” warning that “the only things that make 

human life human do not lend themselves readily to the statistical 

method.”5

In discussing the Bureau’s cost-of-living surveys, Stewart once 

said, “It is accurate by any test to which you can put figures. But, like 

all similar attempts, it is of little value because it is impossible to put 

the necessities and aspirations of any family into figures. We can easily 

determine what they spend, but what they should have is a matter of 

widely varying opinion.”6 Similarly, the use of such surveys for setting 

wages only “perpetuates that standard, ossifies conditions, and paralyzes progress.” As he expressed it, “there is one standard of the cost 

of living—that is the cost, whatever it may be, of living the maximum

117

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

span o f life and living it fully. This cannot be figured from the day's or 

the year's grocery bill.”7

But statistics could shed light on the human condition, contributing to the understanding and remedying of economic and social 

problems. Indeed, progress had already been made. Textbooks carried 

facts and figures compiled by the bureaus, and such education and 

publicity stimulated passage of legislation to improve the condition of 

workers.

Statistics could also help in other ways. Stewart explained, “In 

the mad effort to produce and sell without any accurate information as 

to the amount of each commodity required by the people of this 

country or of the world, we run factories long hours and on night 

shifts, and the result is to produce unemployment and panics.” Unemployment could be reduced by use o f consumption statistics to guide 

production operations. The use of wage and cost-of-living data to 

establish a “fair day's work” and a “fair day's wage” could smooth 

industrial relations.8

Stewart expressed his view o f the Bureau’s independent role in 

replying to the Secretary regarding an editorial which had objected to 

the Bureau's reporting on old-age pensions. Stewart declared, uSo 

long as the subject matter is of sufficient general interest to justify the 

publication of the facts, and so long as the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

sticks stricdy to the question of facts, then all I have to say to this is 

that anybody [who] dislikes the facts is in hard luck.”9

In reviewing the decade of the 1920’s, Stewart pointed out the 

importance of the Bureau's studies of the impact of technology on 

employment, observing, “Never before did mechanical and industrial 

changes strike so many industries, processes, and occupations at one 

and the same time. The working people of the United States are 

entitled to know what the changing industrial conditions are, where 

they are, and the nature and extent of the occupational readjustment 

which is necessary to meet them without loss of earning power or 

industrial status.”10

Earlier, in 1924, Stewart had analyzed some of the causes of 

discontent and dissatisfaction among workers—low wages, extensive 

unemployment and lost time, and plant inefficiency, or, as he put it, 

“the feeling that their power and energies are being frittered away, 

that their life and energy are being exhausted in inconsequential and 

unnecessarily laborious to il” Capitalism, he concluded, had brought

118

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Stewart: Holding the Fort

increased physical comforts but had also “rendered life more hectic, 

more nerve-wracking, brain and soul wrecking, than any of the systems which preceded it.”11

He stressed the importance of the broader social context when 

considering a particular social reform. In discussing the limitations of 

workmen’s compensation laws, he wrote, “If we prize individualism so 

highly as an ism, let us think of the individual once in a while. . . . If 

from conditions inherent in an industry, a man loses wages because of 

an illness contracted by reason of and in the course of his employment, he is just as much entitled to compensation as if a flywheel split 

in two and injured his arm.”12

Stewart favored proposed legislation to set wage standards on 

Federal construction projects. “Is the government willing, for the sake 

of the lowest bidder, to break down all labor standards and have its 

work done by the cheapest labor that can be secured and shipped 

from State to State?” And, when the Bureau developed wage data on 

municipal street laborers, he found these to reflect “sweatshop conditions,” even though, as he said, “It is pretty generally agreed that the 

public, when it acts as an employer, should be a good employer.”13

In regard to the effect of the minimum wage on the employment 

of women, he stated, “Anybody who handles the minimum wage law 

ought to realize that what we should consider is not industry, not 

administration, not legislation, but the social question, society; it is the 

question of whether our men are going to decrease 3 inches in height 

in 25 years as the men in France did. No industry has a right to mold 

women who are to be the mothers of our men in such a way as to 

deteriorate the race.”14

In the same vein, he opposed the “family wage rate,” an experiment popular in some European circles, in which the worker’s earnings reflected the size of the family, arguing that this was too narrowly 

focused. Society as a whole should pay its share for replacing what he 

called “the raw material of which civilization is composed,” so he 

supported a “social allowance” from the “political and social institutions.” Given such relief from the costs of child rearing, more people 

would marry, and fewer mothers would work outside the home, 

thereby improving homelife.15

Commenting on the effects of automatic machine production, 

Stewart argued, “Let us change our point of view as to the object of 

existence. At present, it is work, work, work; produce, produce, pro119

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

duce; and sell, sell, sell. We have no education along other lines. We 

do not know what to do with our leisure.” He warned, in recognition 

of the likely effects of technological developments, “The whole 

machinery of education should be turned at once toward a study of 

leisure, and toward teaching the coming generation the use and purpose of leisure, for, take it from me, they will have plenty of it.”16

O n the subject of leisure, Stewart received considerable newspaper coverage for his comments to die Second National Outdoor 

Recreation Conference in 1926. In discussing the need for public 

parks and the difficulties of conducting social life in boarding houses, 

Stewart observed, “I believe that a girl who works 9 hours in the 

spindle room of a cotton factory, or 8 hours a day in a boot and shoe 

factory at the speed rates which now prevail, can stand a little petting.” 

This prompted headlines such as "Petting in City Parks Advocated by 

Labor Department Attache,” “Let ’Em Pet in the Parks,” and “Wants 

More ‘Petting’ and Fewer Policemen.”17

Stewart was equally forthright in evaluating die problems confronting industry. Writing on the textile industry in the American

Federationist in 1929, he pointed to overproduction, the loss of foreign markets, the decline in wages, and the rise in night work, coupled 

with inability to adjust readily to style changes and the hoary and 

inefficient commission or agent system of selling. His conclusion was, 

“In short, the situation in the textile industry is just as bad or worse 

than it is in the bituminous coal industry, and the problem is in the 

hands of men no more competent to solve it.”18

The Bureau’s work

Although the Bureau was recognized as a valuable and capable institution by technical experts and professional societies, it found few 

opportunities to modernize and improve its work during the 1920’s. 

Only through increased cooperative arrangements with the professional associations and State agencies did the Bureau manage to 

expand some of its programs. Stewart maintained close relations with 

the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, the International Association of Public Employment Services, and the Association of Governmental Labor Officials, publishing 

their proceedings as Bureau bulletins. The Bureau also worked with 

the American Engineering Standards Committee, publishing an

120

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Stewart: Holding the Fort

extensive series of its safety codes, and with the Personnel Research 

Federation and the National Conference on Outdoor Recreation.

The professional societies often came to the defense of the 

Bureau when its activities were threatened, as in 1922, when the 

Bureau of Efficiency recommended centralizing government statistical 

work in an enlarged Bureau of the Census. To be retitled the Bureau 

of Federal Statistics, it would take over the BLS programs of wages 

and hours, accident statistics, and prices. BLS, much reduced in function, would become the Bureau of Labor Economics.19

The American Economic Association and the American Statist!' 

cal Association opposed the change. They pointed out that such an 

increase in responsibilities might swamp the Census staff, that there 

was in fact less duplication of statistical work than a “superficial survey” might indicate, and that friends of the Census Bureau should 

concern themselves more with securing larger appropriations to 

attract the best professional staff than with expanding its authority.20 

Talk of reorganization of statistical work subsided during the rest of 

the decade, and the Bureau’s functions remained intact, although 

jurisdictional disputes flared from time to time.

Stewart and the Bureau also put considerable emphasis on developing cooperative relations with the State bureaus and establishing a 

nationwide network of reporting agencies. In this way, the Bureau was 

able to expand some of its programs despite congressional refusal to 

increase appropriations. Late in the decade, Stewart outlined several of 

the cooperative programs, specifically in employment, union wage, 

building permit, and accident statistics. Joining in one or more of the 

programs were New "fork, Illinois, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Maryland, California, New Jersey, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

In the business-oriented 1920’s, the Bureau’s relations with the 

business community were limited, but Stewart was fairly successful in 

obtaining cooperation in expanding regular, routine series on wages 

and employment. His contacts were mostly with research directors, 

safety experts, and personnel managers.

Cost-of-living and price indexes

Not long after he became Commissioner, Stewart was faced with a 

possible transfer of the cost-of-living work to another agency. In 1921, 

Secretary of Commerce Hoover, with President Harding's support, 

pressed to have the Census Bureau issue the cost-of-living reports.

121

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Hoover claimed that the shift would result in greater accuracy, economy, and efficiency and complained that BLS was not cooperating 

with the Census Bureau. W hen The New York Times reported the 

proposed transfer, Secretary o f Labor Davis indicated that no decision 

had been reached. Hoover, however, replied, “So far as I am aware, 

there is no dispute over this matter unless it arises from minor 

employees o f the government who fear that, through any reorganization o f method, their positions and authority might be curtailed.”21

Stewart assured Secretary Davis that BLS was cooperating with 

the Census Bureau and would continue to do so in every way possible. 

No action was taken on Hoover's proposal.22

In appropriations hearings, Stewart regularly cited uses of the 

Bureau's cost-of-living index in wage adjustments. In 1923, he 

reported that more than half the settlements in wage controversies 

were based on the index. However, he was unable to obtain funds to 

maintain quarterly collection and publication. In his 1923 annual 

report, Stewart wrote, “It is very plain that the Bureau must continue 

to make these surveys every 3 months no matter at what cost, and the 

only immediate problem is how to answer the demand for such 

surveys from smaller cities and from a wider geographical distribution 

o f industrial centers." But the director of the Bureau of the Budget 

responded that the President wanted BLS to live within its appropriation even if the surveys had to be curtailed. In May 1925, the work 

was put on a semiannual basis. 23

In 1927, Stewart set forth the need for a new family budget study 

on which to base a revision of the cost-of-living index to reflect the 

changes in purchasing patterns, population distribution, and retail 

establishments since the last survey. He stated, “It is a very serious 

question as to whether or not the Bureau should continue to collect 

up-to-date prices to be applied to a 1918 quantity distribution of 

family purchases and call this an up-to-date cost of living.” He proposed a new survey to cover a better variety of industrial centers, a 

larger number of smaller cities, a larger number of families, and families with a higher income level. Among the influences on consumers 

which such a study would reflect would be the increased purchase of 

automobiles and radios, the rise o f installment payment plans, new 

types and locations of retail stores, and the growth of advertising.2*

Support for a new study came from outside professional organizations, but Congress would not provide funds during Stewart's term.

122

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Stewart: Holding the Fort

However, a limited study was conducted in 1928, when Congress 

directed the Personnel Classification Board to formulate a wage scale 

for the government field service. The Board asked for BLS assistance, 

and the Bureau responded with a survey of the incomes and expenditures of the families of 506 Federal employees in Baltimore, Boston, 

New 'fork, Chicago, and New O rleans.25

The Bureau also participated in an innovative cost-of-living 

inquiry conducted by the International Labor Office in 1930-31. The 

study originated with a request by the Ford Motor Company for 

information to help in setting wage rates o f its employees in certain 

European cities to ensure the same general living standard as that of its 

employees in Detroit. The Bureau conducted the work in Detroit, 

covering a sample of 100 families. The Detroit budget was then used 

by the various European statistical agencies, with adjustment for differences in national consumption habits, government social insurance 

payments, and other factors, to determine the cost of living in those 

cities relative to Detroit. 26

The Bureau did expand its collection o f retail prices, a less costly 

and complex process than a consumer expenditure survey, so that by 

1932, it included 42 articles of food in 51 continental cities of the 

United States and in Honolulu. The Bureau added electricity to the 

list of items priced—gas and coal for household use were already 

covered—but dropped dry goods.

The wholesale price index was revised and expanded several 

times during the period. In 1921, BLS completed a two-pronged 

improvement, regrouping the commodities and adding new articles 

and also shifting to the 1919 Census of Manufactures for weighting 

purposes. With data for August 1927, the Bureau issued a revised 

index in which the weighting base was changed from 1919 to 1923-25 

and the price base was shifted from 1913 to 1926. At the same time, 

some new articles were added, such as automobiles, tires, rayon, and 

prepared fertilizer, and some old ones dropped, such as New 'York 

State hops and Bessemer steel billets and rails. With data for January 

1932, BLS completed the third revision o f Stewart’s term, increasing 

the number of price series from 550 to 784, with adjustments back to 

1926. At the same time, the Bureau began publication of a weekly 

index along with the regular monthly figures.

The wholesale price work was very popular. In 1922, the Bureau 

was providing data in advance of publication to such agencies as the

123

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Federal Reserve Board, the Bureau of Standards, the Census Bureau, 

the Bureau of Markets, and the Federal Trade Commission. In the 

private sector, the Review of Economic Statistics based part of its Index 

of Business Conditions on BLS commodity prices.27

The wholesale price index became the focus of legislative proposals for stabilizing commodity price levels. A 1922 bill inspired by 

Irving Fisher would have pegged the quantity of gold weight in the 

dollar to a BLS index of wholesale prices to maintain constant 

purchasing power. In 1926, Stewart testified on a bill to amend the 

Federal Reserve Act to provide for the stabilization of the price level 

for commodities in general. The “price level” was defined as the price 

at wholesale as reflected in the BLS wholesale price index. Stewart 

gave considerable evidence on the index and supported the proposal, 

declaring that the responsibilities “are not burdensome and are 

entirely acceptable to the Department of Labor and to the Commissioner of Labor Statistics.” In 1932, Stewart again testified on a proposal “for increasing and stabilizing the price level of commodities” by 

using data from the wholesale price index.28

With the onset of the depression, private research groups pointed 

out the need for better statistics on prices and living costs. In September 1931, the Social Science Research Council and the American 

Statistical Association sponsored a conference on improving the state 

of knowledge of price movements in the United States. The limits of 

the Bureau’s cost-of-living index were noted, since pricing was based 

on 1918-19 family expenditures, as was the need for more comprehensive coverage for the retail and wholesale price indexes. The conference recommended construction of the official wholesale and retail 

price indexes by a single agency, with plans to be developed for a 

comprehensive family budget study when normal economic conditions were restored. Stewart agreed with many of the recommendations but noted the time and expense involved in carrying them out.29

Wages and industrial relations

Stewart expanded the collection of wage data, launching studies of the 

automobile, airplane, metal mining, cigarette, rayon, and Portland 

cement industries, among others. In the course of expanding coverage, 

the Bureau also focused on some new areas such as bonus systems and 

pay for overtime, Sundays, and holidays.

124

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Stewart: Holding the Fort

Stewart pointed out, however, that the limited funds permitted 

surveys of only about a dozen of the larger industries every 2 years at 

best, and that the importance of information on wages required at 

least annual reports, particularly for the newer industries. He cited the 

Bureau’s embarrassment in meeting requests for data needed in tariff 

discussions with old information or with none at all.30 The Bureau did 

continue annual publication of union scales of wages and hours, now 

grouped into about 12 trades and occupations in 67 cities.

A few new series were begun during Stewart’s tenure. In the late 

1920’s, the Bureau started a monthly series on current general wage 

changes based on questionnaires sent to establishments and unions. 

Especially valuable were the series begun in 1932 on man-hours 

worked per week and average hourly earnings, obtained from reports 

of the establishments furnishing monthly employment data. Previously, only payroll totals had been available. The new information was 

an important addition to the Bureau's series, particularly for monthto-month changes.

Statistics on strikes and lockouts continued to be published quarterly until 1926, when they were issued monthly and supplemented by 

an annual report.

The Bureau also published much information on developments 

in collective bargaining. Bulletins on bargaining agreements were 

issued annually from 1925 through 1928. The Monthly Labor Review

regularly carried information on labor agreements, awards, and decisions, and reports by Hugh L. Kerwin, Director of Conciliation, on 

the conciliation work of the Department of Labor. Other publications 

on industrial relations included studies of meatpacking, the West 

Coast lumber industry, bituminous coal mining, and apprenticeship 

systems in building construction. Studies relating to such aspects of 

welfare capitalism as the provision of recreational facilities by employers also presented information on vacations, sick leave, medical and 

hospital services, and group insurance.

Two editions of the Handbook of American Trade Unions were 

published. These listed union organizations and gave their history, 

jurisdiction, apprenticeship systems, benefits paid, and membership.

Employment and unemployment

The Bureau had published a monthly series on employment and 

payrolls since 1916. During the recession of 1920-21, in the absence of

125

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

measures of unemployment, the figures gained increased attention. In 

August 1921, the Senate directed the Secretary of Labor to report the 

number of unemployed, and Stewart prepared a response for Secretary Davis, reporting that “the best estimate that can be made from 

available sources of information is that there are at present 5,735,(XX) 

persons unemployed in the United States.” He explained, “These 

figures relate to the differences in the numbers of employees carried 

on payrolls July 1921, as compared with the peak of employment in 

1920,” thus calling attention to the fact that the series was not a direct 

measure of unemployment, reflecting only “employment shrinkage.”31

In transmitting Stewart’s figures to the Senate, Davis alleged that 

die prewar unemployment situation had been worse, that more men 

and more breadwinners had been out of work in 1914. The New York

Times supported the Secretary’s position, pointing to farmhands 

drawn into the cities by the lure of silk-shirt pay but now returned to 

the farms, and to women factory workers who had returned to “the 

more normal life of the home.” The New Republic however, vehemendy disagreed, saying that Commissioners Wright and Neill and 

Secretary William B. Wilson had established a “tradition of accuracy 

and impartiality.” It continued, “It remained for the present incumbent, in spite of the high standing of many of his bureau chiefs, to 

shatter this tradition. Manifestoes by the Secretary of Labor are no 

longer taken seriously in this country.” 32

In October 1921, at the urging of Secretary of Commerce Hoover, President Harding called a conference on unemployment, with 

Hoover as chairman. Varying estimates of the extent of unemployment were offered at the conference. The Bureau estimated the 

“shrinkage of employment” at 5.5 million. The U .S. Employment 

Service, which had been conducting its own surveys and issuing 

reports, estimated the number unemployed at 2.3 million. With such a 

range of estimates, the conference, as reported later, “merely voted to 

announce to the country that the number unemployed was between 

3.5 million and 5.5 million, numbers startling enough to challenge 

attention.”33

In 1922, after the conference adjourned, Assistant Secretary E. J. 

Henning directed the Employment Service to discontinue the publication of employment statistics in view of the function being performed 

by the Bureau. But despite agreements and directives, the Employment Service continued to collect such statistics. Stewart noted that

126

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Stewart• Holding the Fort

both New Jersey and Pennsylvania refused to cooperate with the 

Bureau because of the duplication of requests from the two agencies. 

“It seems imperative,” he said, “that unless the Employment Service 

gets out of the field, the Bureau of Labor Statistics must drop this 

feature of its work.” In 1924, the Secretary again had to chastise the 

Employment Service, however, saying that its role was to match men 

with jobs, not to function as a statistical bureau. “Our Department 

already has one Bureau which devotes its energies to the gathering of 

statistics which affect labor.

The matter did not end there. The Employment Service continued to issue reports on the general industrial situation, although it had 

stopped collecting payroll data from firms. The American Statistical 

Association warned in 1924 that these reports “tend to confuse the 

public mind, particularly when they are not in agreement with the 

more accurate statements based on payroll data put out by the State 

and Federal Bureaus of Labor Statistics.”35 Later, in the charged 

atmosphere of the Great Depression, such differences in unemployment estimates were to become politically explosive and were, in fact, 

to hasten Stewart’s retirement.

An important outgrowth of the President’s Conference on 

Unemployment was a committee appointed by Hoover to study the 

factors underlying employment and the practical measures that could 

be taken to prevent or mitigate unemployment. The committee called 

on the National Bureau of Economic Research for a study of business 

cycles and on the Russell Sage Foundation for a study of the adequacy 

of employment statistics. Under the direction of Wesley C. Mitchell, 

the National Bureau published Business Cycles and Unemployment in 

1923, a comprehensive set of essays by noted economists. The American Statistical Association assumed the sponsorship of the study of 

employment statistics and appointed a committee on measurement of 

employment with Mary Van Kleeck of the Russell Sage Foundation as 

chairman. The full results of that study were published in 1926, 

representing the joint efforts and recommendations of the three organizations.

The report, Employment Statistics for the United States, was a 

landmark in the development of the role of professional advisory 

committees on government statistics. It recommended that BLS function as the coordinating agency for the publication of “a periodic 

report on employment throughout the nation,” to include data made

127

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

available by other Federal agencies and the States. It urged expansion 

of the employment series to include nonmanufacturing industries, 

information on hours worked, and additional data on characteristics 

of workers. It also recommended careful sampling.

The report acknowledged that employment statistics did not provide a measure of unemployment—they did not cover those who had 

never obtained employment, for example. And it pointed out the need 

for information on unemployment in local areas, since “the alleviation 

of distress can best be achieved in the locality where it is found.”

The Bureau had already moved to expand its employment series, 

but the report served as encouragement and support for further work. 

By 1927, the Bureau’s monthly reports provided employment and 

total payroll information for 54 manufacturing industries, covering 

about 11,000 establishments.

Outside experts were now examining the Bureau’s data closely, 

and they pointed out some major shortcomings. For one thing, the 

series was still limited to manufacturing establishments and the railroads, and the shift of workers into distribution and service industries 

was not being captured. Further, Federal Reserve Board statisticians 

found a downward bias of nearly 2 percent a year in the factory 

employment figures when comparing them with the Census of Manufactures. The bias was attributed to the Bureau’s slowness in picking 

up new industries, and new establishments in older industries. BLS 

was urged to adjust its data to the biennial census and to apply 

seasonal adjustment factors. ^

In March 1928, with ominous signs of increasing unemployment, 

the Senate passed a resolution sponsored by Senator Robert F. Wagner 

calling on the Secretary of Labor to report the extent of unemployment and to devise a plan for periodic, permanent statistics. Secretary 

Davis responded, citing a BLS estimate of 1.9 million unemployed 

based on the “shrinkage in employment.” Wagner and others were 

critical of the figure, claiming that the number unemployed was three 

times as large. He proposed three measures dealing with unemployment—expansion of BLS statistical programs, establishment of a 

nationwide system of employment offices, and creation of a Federal 

public works program.37

In May, Congress authorized $100,000 for expansion of the 

Bureau’s employment series. With the funds, BLS would be able to 

double the number of manufacturing establishments covered and add

128

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Stewart• Holding the Fort

establishments in agriculture, mining, building construction, and 

wholesale and retail trade. Data collection for some of these industries 

began in 1928.

In 1928 and 1929, the Senate held landmark hearings, chaired by 

Senator James Couzens of Michigan, on Wagner’s comprehensive proposals on unemployment. Stewart testified on the "shrinkage of 

employment” and, as he had over the years, stressed that the Bureau’s 

employment index was not an unemployment measure. He stated that 

a census of unemployment was necessary, from which the employment data could be adjusted to reflect current unemployment. To 

questions as to whether unemployment matters, including a count of 

the unemployed, were a State rather than a Federal Government 

function, Stewart responded that, while he did not intend the latter to 

assume all of the responsibility, it was the Federal Government’s 

responsibility to undertake a complete survey. He pointed out that 

unemployment, in affecting purchasing power, affected commerce, 

which he saw as a Federal, not a State, concern. Furthermore, technological displacement of labor was a world problem.38

The Senate Committee had the benefit of advice from many 

technical advisers, including representatives o f the American Statistical Association. Isador Lubin, later to become Commissioner of Labor 

Statistics, was economic adviser to the committee, on assignment from 

The Brookings Institution. Lubin and other technical witnesses supported Stewart's view of the need for a census of unemployment as a 

benchmark for the employment series, approved of the BLS effort 

underway to expand the reporting sample, and agreed that coverage of 

part-time employment should be added. 39

Congress authorized the census of unemployment, and Secretary 

of Commerce Robert P. Lamont created an advisory committee to plan 

it. J. Chester Bowen, BLS Chief Statistician, served on the panel, as 

did William A. Berridge, of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 

and Arynefcs Joy, of the staff of the Federal Reserve Board.40

As public concern with unemployment intensified following the 

stock market crash of October 1929, the differing reports of the 

Bureau o f Labor Statistics and the U .S. Employment Service again 

became a subject of debate. The Employment Service emphasized 

hiring prospects, and its figures showed a more optimistic forecast. 

The BLS data on employment and labor turnover provided a more 

accurate picture, but the figures appeared after the Employment Serv129

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

ice releases. The administration highlighted the Employment Service 

figures, despite criticisms from New 'fork State Industrial Commissioner Frances Perkins and others, and downplayed the more objective BLS data.*1

Another incident grew out o f President Hoover’s request to 

Stewart for an experimental weekly employment index. In January 

1930, basing his statement on the first weekly returns, President Hoover announced, “The tide o f employment has changed in the right 

direction.**2

A number of public figures attacked Hoover’s statement. Frances 

Perkins said the numbers were based on too short a time period and 

did not correspond to data collected by her office. She further noted 

that the President had not quoted Stew art Secretary Davis responded, 

“Unfortunately there is developing an inclination in some quarters to 

make politics out o f our employment situation even to the extent of 

questioning the accuracy o f the statement that the latest figures show 

an upward trend in em ployment* Senator La Follette, however, said 

of the administration that all it had done amounted to publishing 

“optimistic ballyhoo statements.” In a February editorial, The New

fork Times noted that the Bureau’s regular monthly numbers for 

January confirmed Perkins rather than Davis.*3

Further incidents followed. In June, Secretary of Commerce 

Lamont released some very preliminary returns from the Census of 

Unemployment conducted in April. In a protest against what he 

viewed as attempts to reduce the unemployment count by separating 

those laid off from those with no jobs at all, Charles E. Persons, the 

man in charge of the Census tabulations, resigned. Perkins again 

complained of misleading interpretations given to the public. In July, 

following release o f preliminary data on Greater New fork City, Perkins declared that “a more accurate count* would have revealed more 

unemployment.**

These events, and the growing crisis, spurred action on improving employment statistics. In July, Congress enacted a bill sponsored 

by Senator Wagner directing the Bureau to “collect, collate, report, 

and publish at least once each month full and complete statistics of the 

volume o f and changes in em ployment* Additional appropriations 

were provided.

A t the same time, President Hoover announced the appointment 

o f a committee on employment statistics to advise him “on methods by

130

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Stewart: Holding the Fort

which we should set up statistics of employment and unemployment,” 

later adding the consideration of "technological unemployment.”45

Joseph H. Willits of the W harton School of Finance and Commerce served as chairman of the committee, which included, among 

others, the Secretaries of Labor and Commerce, the Director of the 

Census, the Commissioner of Labor Statistics, representatives of the 

AFL and the National Association of Manufacturers, and academic 

experts. Among the technical advisers were W A. Berridge, Meredith 

Givens, Ralph Hurlin, Bryce Stewart, and Ewan Clague. Thus, the 

committee constituted a “blue ribbon” panel of government and private compilers and users of such statistics.

After conducting several studies, the committee issued its report 

in February 1931. While noting the Bureau’s efforts to expand the 

scope and samples of the series, the committee called for further 

improvements. In the manufacturing sector, it urged the Bureau to 

adjust its series to the Census of Manufactures to correct the downward bias reported by the Federal Reserve Board statisticians. It also 

called for data by city and State, especially where State agencies were 

not collecting such information. Sam pling coverage should be 

improved to take account of the rise of new firms and new industries. 

The committee commended BLS for launching data collection in 

nonmanufacturing industries but called for further effort to include 

building construction and the growing “white collar” fields. O n the 

measurement of hours worked and part-time employment, BLS 

should concentrate initially on manufacturing and railroads to gain 

experience for covering other industry sectors.46

The committee stressed the importance o f accurate employment 

data for the measurement o f unemployment. In the absence of some 

system of universal registration of the unemployed, nationwide unemployment censuses would provide the best measure, but these were 

costly and had other shortcomings. Therefore, the committee recommended the continuation of a decennial census of unemployment, 

possibly a quinquennial census, to which the employment series, with 

the recommended improvements, could be benchmarked.47

The committee gave considerable attention to the subject of technological unemployment, noting the difficulty o f relating labor displacement to specific causes. Ewan Clague, who earlier had directed 

the development of industry productivity measures by the Bureau, was 

asked to prepare a preliminary survey. The committee stressed the

131

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

importance of technological advance in any discussion of employment 

and unemployment, and recommended that fundamental data collection and case studies "should be a continuing part of the responsibility 

of the Federal Government and specifically of the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics.”4®

BLS had already begun many of the proposed programs. But the 

committee gave sanction and direction to a specific, comprehensive 

plan of action, and the Bureau’s activities intensified rapidly. By 1932, 

summary reports covered 64,000 establishments in manufacturing and 

nonmanufacturing industries. With the assistance of several cities and 

States, the Bureau developed a series on construction industry 

employment, covering some 10,000 firms. Also, the Bureau developed 

a series showing the trend of employment in States, using data from 

State agencies to supplement BLS figures, as well as a series on 

employment in cities with a population of more than 500,000, covering 13 such cities by supplementing the monthly survey. However, an 

experimental survey of State, county, and city government employment and earnings proved unsatisfactory when reports declined substantially due to economy measures taken by those jurisdictions 

during the depression years. Federal civil service employment was 

reported beginning in 1932. The Bureau did not begin to benchmark 

its employment series to the Census of Manufactures until 1934.49

Industrial safety and health

The Bureau continued its campaign for improvement of industrial 

accident statistics. Its objective was to “do for the entire field what has 

been done for the iron and steel industry”, referring to the Bureau’s 

regular reports on accident rates in that industry begun in 1910. As 

Meeker had said earlier, Secretary Davis declared in 1923, “It is not 

greatly to the credit of our people that nobody knows with any 

substantial degree of accuracy how many industrial accidents occur 

annually in the United States. No one knows even the annual number 

of industrial fatalities. The difficulty in obtaining reliable data is due 

largely to the incomparability and incompleteness of the accident 

statistics published by the various States.”50

Thus, the Bureau encouraged States and industries to adopt a 

uniform method of recording and reporting accidents. Stewart urged a 

strong statistical program to identify “where it will pay you to get 

busy.”51

132

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Stewart: Holding the Fort

In the late 1920’s, Stewart pushed for congressional authorization 

for a Division of Safety within the Bureau to act as a “clearinghouse 

for the information the States are gathering.”52 Although the authorization was never received, in 1926 the Bureau began an annual survey 

of industrial injuries in a group of manufacturing industries, based on 

State records and reports from establishments. With data for 1930 

covering about 25 percent of the workers in some 30 manufacturing 

industries, it reported average frequency and severity rates.

Articles and bulletins covered a variety of related studies, 

including a survey of health in the printing trades and the mortality 

experience of union typographers, as well as several studies of industrial hygiene and industrial poisoning.

In addition, the Bureau cooperated with the American Engineering Standards Committee to write and publish safety codes. It also 

sponsored meetings such as the Industrial Accident Prevention Conference that convened in Washington in July 1926 with 33 States 

represented, a major step forward in cooperation. In 1926, the Bureau 

published a bulletin on phosphorus necrosis in the fireworks industry, 

the result of one of its investigations. Following this, through agreements with manufacturers, BLS was successful in eliminating the production and sale of small articles of fireworks containing white or 

yellow phosphorus.53

Social insurance

Social insurance and various forms o f protective legislation continued 

to be an active interest of the Bureau. In the early 1920*s, reports were 

published on workmen’s compensation, family allowances, legal aid, 

cooperatives, a minimum wage, women workers, and child labor. Later 

in the decade, the Bureau concentrated on a relatively new field, 

pension and retirement systems. Following passage of amendments to 

the Federal retirement system in 1926, the Bureau launched a survey 

of 46 State and municipal plans, publishing the results in 1929 along 

with information on public service retirement systems in Canada and 

Europe. It followed with many other studies o f domestic and foreign 

experiments.

The Bureau also published material in a related field, care for the 

elderly under private auspices. The Review presented articles on 

homes for the elderly operated by fraternal, religious, and nationality 

organizations, including one on homes for “aged colored persons.”

133

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

The Bureau also cooperated with fraternal organizations in a survey of 

conditions in almshouses and “poor farms” around the country, developing the results in cooperation with the National Fraternal Congress.

Productivity and technological change

The study of productivity and the effects of technological change 

made important strides under Stewart. The Bureau had published 

studies on productivity in the lumber and shoe industries during 

Meeker’s years, but, in general, as Stewart observed in 1922, “Few 

statistical subjects are more discussed, there is none upon which we 

know less.”54

Productivity was an issue in labor-management relations in the 

1920’s. Wage adjustments recognizing the increased productivity of 

American industry became a goal of labor, formally stated by the AFL 

in 1925: “Social inequality, industrial instability, and injustice must 

increase unless the workers* real wages, the purchasing power of their 

wages, coupled with a continuing reduction in the number of hours 

making up the working day, are progressed in proportion to man’s 

increasing power of production.” 55

Among spokesmen for management, there were divergent views 

on the role of productivity. Some contended that there were restrictions and inefficiencies in the work rules sought by labor; others 

reluctantly accepted the “economy of high wages” which would make 

for increased purchasing power to improve both standards of living 

and the demand for the increasing output of American industry.56

Stewart explained that the Bureau’s work would not involve 

“what a man can do or what he ought to do. It is proposed simply to 

record what he does, as a matter of statistics.” He had no sympathy 

with the use of such information “to drive men” in an “unreasonable 

speed-up,” but believed that it was as important for industry to know 

“the time cost of production” as it was to know the labor cost or the 

material cost.57

In 1922, Stewart signed an agreement with the Babson Statistical 

Organization for a joint project on productivity, with the construction 

industry as the first subject. The study could not be carried out 

successfully, however, because of the great variation in materials 

among contractors and the lack of adequate records. Several other 

studies were completed and published—for longshoring and the shoe, 

brick, and paper boxboard industries—but the project was abandoned

134

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Stewart: Holding the Fort

in 1924 because of a lack of funds and a shortage of staff equipped to 

handle the complex technical work.58

The groundwork for a more sophisticated program of industry 

productivity measures was laid in 1926, when Stewart brought Ewan 

Clague from the University of Wisconsin to direct a special project. 

For data on output, the work drew on the biennial Census of Manufactures supplemented by more current figures available from the 

Department of Commerce. Employment data came from the Bureau’s 

monthly series. In 1926, the Bureau published output per man-hour 

measures for the steel, automobile, shoe, and paper industries. In 

1927, measures were published for 11 additional industries. More 

extensive case studies of particular industries, such as the glass industry, also included output per man-hour measures.

Stewart cautioned that, while labor time was used as the unit for 

measurement, this did not mean that the increased output was due to 

the efforts of labor alone, or at all. “The increased output per manhour in a given industry may have been due to more skillful and 

efficient labor, to new inventions, improved machinery, superior management, or any one of a number of factors; but the Bureau in these 

general summaries makes no attempt to determine the relative importance of these factors.”59

Later, as concern grew over the effects on employment of 

increased productivity and technological change, the Bureau developed information on the displacement of workers. In the early 1930’s, 

Bureau studies covered the effects of new technology in the telephone 

and telegraph industry; the amusement industry, in particular the 

effect of sound motion pictures; street and road building; agriculture; 

cargo handling; iron and steel sheet production; cigar making; and the 

automobile and tire industries.60

Administration

During Stewart’s 12 years, the leadership of the Bureau changed little. 

Charles E. Baldwin was Stewart’s second in command throughout, 

first as Chief Statistician and Chief Clerk, then as Assistant Commissioner. When Baldwin became Assistant Commissioner, J.C. Bowen 

succeeded him as Chief Statistician. Only two men served as Chief 

Editor under Stewart, Herman L. Amiss and Hugh S. Hanna. All four 

had been in the Bureau since at least 1909.

135

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Stewart complained o f underclassification of positions. As Com ' 

missioners had before him, he testified to Congress, “Clerks competent to do the work of the Bureau of Labor Statistics cannot be had at 

these rates." This was one reason for the relatively poor attraction of 

the Bureau for young professionals in these years.61

Perversely, even congressional attempts to improve pay for govemment employees affected the Bureau negatively. In 1927, Stewart 

informed the House Committee on Appropriations that, although 

Congress had increased the per diem paid to field agents, the Budget 

Bureau had granted less than half the amount needed to cover the 

increase. The liberalization resulted, he said, “in still further reducing 

our possible field work."62

O n one occasion, however, Stewart and Secretary Davis were 

able to gain some ground in improving the status of Bureau personnel. 

In September 1923, Stewart wrote Davis to complain that the Personnel Classification Board had rated BLS as a “minor bureau." In turn, 

Davis wrote the Board, “There are four separate counts under each of 

which it would appear a distinct injustice has been done in that the 

real status of the Bureau has not been adequately considered. . . . I 

cannot consent to the relegation o f the personnel and work of the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics to a Departmental clerical status." Concerned for the general treatment of economists, sociologists, and technical statisticians, the American Statistical Association, the American 

Economic Association, the American Sociological Association, and 

the American Association for Labor Legislation joined in protest. 

Reversing itself, the Classification Board established the “Economic 

Analyst Group" in the professional and scientific service.6^

Congress routinely refused funds for expansion of the Bureau’s 

programs. In Stewart’s first 4 years, the budget was at about its level in 

1919 (table 4). In fact, Congress often reacted to Stewart’s requests for 

increased appropriations with suggestions for reductions instead. He 

was pressed, for example, to justify the cost of field visits for data 

collection in the wage and price programs when collection by mail 

would be cheaper.

136

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Stewart: Holding the Fort

Table 4. Appropriations for Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1921-33

(in thousands)

Fiscal year ended

June 30 —

Total1 Salaries

1921 $248 $173

1922 242 173

1923 242 173

1924 242 173

1925 288 215

1926 285 215

1927 294 220

1928 300 220

1929 2419 220

1930 396 273

1931 399 273

1932 3580 (4)

1933 450 (4)

’Includes salaries, miscellaneous, library, and deficiency and supplemental appropriations.

in cludes deficiency appropriations o f $119,000.

^Includes supplemental appropriation o f $140,000.

4Not available separately; total given as ‘ salaries and expenses.*

SOURCES: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Appropriations. The Budget o f the

United States Government.

And the Monthly Labor Review was in jeopardy in 1921, when 

Congress, seeking to rein in government publications, put a requirement in an appropriations bill for specific congressional authorization 

for such journals. Approval for the Review was held up, and the need 

for economy was not the only reason given. Representative Stevenson 

of South Carolina, from the Joint Committee on Printing, declared 

that a Department of Labor pursuing its “legitimate functions” and 

publishing materials “legitimately to be used by the institutions of this 

country” would have no difficulties. However, “a magazine that 

reviews books and prints commendations of soviet literature and all 

that sort of thing . . . we do not propose that it shall be further 

published at the expense of the voters of the United States.” Nevertheless, Congress passed the necessary authorization in May 1922.64

137

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

The disposition of Congress changed somewhat later in the decade. The Bureau’s appropriation was increased by about 20 percent in 

1925, with slight additional increases until 1929, when, with a weakening economy and growing unemployment, Congress granted a substantial deficiency appropriation for work on employment and 

unemployment statistics. Deficiency and supplemental appropriations 

were given for this work during the next years, but they often came 

too late in the fiscal year to be allocated, so that the Bureau of the 

Budget would delete the amount from new requests.65

International activities

The reporting of economic conditions abroad never flagged under 

Stewart. Bureau publications frequently presented statistics and 

reports on legislation and industrial developments in foreign countries. However, U .S. rejection of membership in the League of 

Nations in 1920 greatly limited BLS participation in international 

agencies. The Bureau moved to drop the annual allocation of $1,000 

from its budget for the International Association for Labor Legislation. Stewart noted that the association had merged with the International Labor Organization, one of the constituent agencies of the 

League of Nations, to which the United States did not belong. Even 

so, the Bureau maintained “a friendly cooperation” with the ILO, 

especially while former Commissioner Meeker was there.66

Stewart did attend the meetings of the International Institute of 

Statistics in Rome in 1925 as a member of the U .S. delegation. He 

attended only one other international meeting, a session of the ILO 

Conference of Labor Statisticians in 1931. Stewart was there primarily 

because of the Bureau’s work on the international study of wages and 

the cost of living for the Ford Motor Company. Stewart explained his 

reluctance to join in such functions: “If we send delegations to one of 

their conferences or conventions, I do not believe that we can escape 

the implication that we are as a country refusing to enter the League 

of Nations by the front door but are in fact crawling in through the 

back door.”6?

138

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Stewart: Holding die Fort

Retirement

On July 1, 1932, Commissioner Stewart, then 74 years old, was retired 

involuntarily under the Economy Act of 1932, which required automatic separation of retirement-age Federal employees after July 1932 

unless specifically exempted by the President. Stewart’s term ran until 

December 1933, but Secretary Doak’s refusal to recommend an 

exemption resulted in his termination.

Observers generally attributed his retirement to factors other 

than age. The following incident, reported in Time, was also cited in 

other newspapers as the main reason: “Last spring, Secretary of Labor 

Doak told newsmen that he had been supplied departmental data 

which showed that employment was increasing throughout the land. 

Fooled before by such cheery statements from politically minded Secretaries, the reporters went to Commissioner Stewart to check up. 

The white crowned, white whiskered old man telephoned Secretary 

Doak that the statistics given him warranted no such declaration. 

Thereupon Secretary Doak recalled the newsmen, told them to disregard his earlier statement, and then, in front of them gave Statistician 

Stewart a tongue-lashing for daring to contradict his chief. It was 

Secretary Doak who refused to certify Mr. Stewart’s indispensability 

to the President, thereby depriving him of his job.”68

Stewart himself wrote that he had been considering retirement 

but “it was the cheap, boorish method employed that hurt me.” The 

San Francisco News was more caustic: “In the city named for George 

Washington, it seems they fire people for telling the truth. Stewart has 

been in continuous government service for 45 years. He is recognized 

as one of the ablest men in his line in America, and his honest work 

on employment is particularly needed now. But, unfortunately for 

him and the country, he is too candid.”69

For a year, from July 1, 1932 until July 6, 1933, Charles E. 

Baldwin served as the Acting Commissioner, and he tried to follow 

Stewart’s policies.

Ethelbert Stewart died in 1936.

139

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter VI.

Isador Lubin: 

Meeting Emergency 

Demands

I

sador Lubin was sworn in as Commissioner of Labor Statistics in 

July 1933, in the midst of the worst depression in the Nation’s 

history. The Bureau expanded greatly during his tenure, first to 

meet the needs of the New Deal agencies set up to deal with the 

emergency and then to provide the information needed for guiding 

the economy during the war years. Through the force of his personality and the breadth of his knowledge and experience, Lubin provided 

the impetus for the Bureau’s development into a modem, professionally staffed organization equipped to deal with the many tasks assigned.

The fifth Commissioner

Isador Lubin was bom in 1896 in Worcester, Massachusetts, the son 

of Lithuanian immigrants. Helping out in his father’s retail clothing 

business, Lubin learned of the uncertainties confronting factory workers in the early years of the century. He attended Clark College in 

Worcester and, with the goal of an academic career, accepted a fellowship at the University of Missouri. There he established a close relationship with Thorstein Veblen.

140

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Lubin: Meeting Emergency Demands

With U .S. entry into the war in 1917, Lubin, along with many 

other young academicians, was drawn into government service. For 

several months, he and Veblen were employed in the Food Administration, preparing studies dealing with food production and farm labor 

problems. In one study, they interviewed local leaders of the Industrial Workers of the World—widely viewed as radicals threatening the 

war effort—and reported that some of the grievances of the group 

were legitimate and that the agricultural workers involved were not 

receiving fair treatment.1

Lubin then joined the War Industries Board's Price Section at the 

invitation of its head, Wesley C. Mitchell. For a year, he was involved 

in studies analyzing wartime fluctuations in the prices of rubber and 

petroleum and their products, and the general effect of wartime government price floors and ceilings.

After his service in Washington, Lubin received an appointment 

as an instructor in economics at the University of Michigan and later 

was put in charge of the labor economics courses. He returned to 

Washington in 1922 to teach and conduct studies at the new Institute 

of Economics, which became The Brookings Institution in 1928. 

Among the studies he led were broad-gauged analyses of the American 

and British coal industries, dealing with the economic, social, and 

psychological influences on mine operators and unions, including the 

competitive effects of nonunion operations, national efforts at selfsufficiency in coal production, and alternative sources of energy.2

In the late 1920’s, Brookings was a prime source of advice and 

research on the growing problem of unemployment. Lubin became a 

leading participant in studies of technological unemployment and of 

the British experience in dealing with unemployment. In 1928, he was 

assigned by Brookings to assist the Senate Committee on Education 

and Labor, which was considering legislation to deal with unemployment. He became economic counsel to the committee and, working 

closely with Senator James Couzens, the committee chairman, organized and directed the hearings, laying out the subject matter and 

selecting representatives of government, business, unions, and the 

economics profession to testify.

Brookings then assigned Lubin, at the request of Senator Robert 

Wagner, to assist in hearings on three bills in the spring of 1930. One 

called for expanded monthly reports on employment by the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics; another, for advance planning o f public works to be

H I

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

activated during business depressions; and the third, for establishment 

of a Federal-State unemployment insurance system. Frances Perkins, 

New York State Industrial Commissioner, was among the witnesses 

Lubin assembled. Only the bill on employment statistics was enacted 

immediately.

Lubin helped organize the National Conference of Professionals 

held in Washington in March 1931 at the call of a bipartisan group of 

Senators led by Robert M. La Follette, Jr., to discuss a legislative 

program to combat the depression. The conference participants 

included governors, members of Congress, farm and labor leaders, 

businessmen, economists, social workers, and others. He also worked 

actively with Senators La Follette and Costigan in late 1931 and 1932 

on bills proposing Federal relief and public works programs, again 

serving as economic counsel.

In August 1932, Senator Wagner asked Brookings to grant Lubin 

a leave of absence to work in his campaign for reelection. Lubin’s 5 

years of experience with measures to deal with unemployment proved 

valuable in Wagner’s successful campaign, in which Wagner stressed 

his efforts to ease the burdens of the depression.3

In 1933, Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor in the new 

Roosevelt administration, was looking for a Commissioner of Labor 

Statistics to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Ethelbert 

Stewart. Lubin was on the list of candidates submitted by the American Statistical Association, and, knowing of his broad interests and 

experience, Perkins chose him as her nominee. Her biographer has 

stated, “When she offered him the post, she told him that he had been 

chosen because she thought he would remember that statistics were 

not numbers but people coping or failing to cope with the bufferings 

of life.”4

Lubin’s views

Lubin was prominent among those economists who saw the need for 

an increased role for government in economic affairs, particularly after 

the onset of the depression. As early as 1929, in reporting on the 

result of the study he conducted for the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Lubin stressed that the so-called absorption of the 

“dispossessed” worker by “newer” industries was a “slow and painfully 

prolonged process.” Further, many displaced workers were being

142

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Lubin: Meeting Emergency Demands

forced into unskilled trades, with lower earnings and consequently 

reduced standards of living. “At the same time, they are being made to 

bear the burden of unemployment for which they are in no way 

responsible and over which they have no control.” Lubin’s assessment 

was that “unemployment is the result of industrial organization, and 

not of individual character.”5

In testifying on unemployment insurance measures in 1931-32, 

Lubin stated that society was partly responsible for unemployment, 

resulting as it did “from the general disorganization of the economic 

system due to the fact that those persons who direct our system are 

not doing the job as well as it should be done.” National corporations 

and industries and employed consumers benefiting from depressed 

prices should bear their share of the burden.6

It was his view that underconsumption resulting from the inequitable distribution of income had been a major factor contributing to 

the Great Depression. At the opening hearing of the Temporary 

National Economic Committee in 1938, Lubin stated, “A more equitable distribution is more than an ethical problem. . . . To me it is a 

problem of keeping the gears of the economic machine constantly in 

mesh.” What was needed, he believed, was to so distribute income 

“that it will pull into our homes, through a higher standard of living, 

the goods, that is the clothing, food, entertainment, education, and so 

forth, which our economic machine must turn out at a rate considerably higher than at the present time----”7

Lubin supported the establishment of minimum wages and maximum hours to protect the competitive system while making it possible 

for American workers to maintain a decent standard of living. In 

reviewing the industry codes established under the National Industrial 

Recovery Act, he frequently protested against the inadequate provisions on wages, hours, and child labor, and sought to include minimum standards for health and safety in the codes. With the 

establishment of adequate standards, Lubin stated, “Employers with a 

social conscience are assured that they will no longer be compelled to 

conform to the standards of competitors with blunted social sensibilities.”8

At the final TNEC hearings in 1941, Lubin stressed the need for 

viewing the economy as a whole. “No set of measures that can be 

recommended will be adequate unless there is a fundamental underlying and continuing commitment that the goal of national economic

143

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

policy is the full utilization of our resources, both of men and mated' 

als. . . When economic progress involved losses as well as gains, 

Lubin deemed it proper “that the cost of progress, which benefits the 

community as a whole, should be borne by the community. . . He 

called for defense contracts to require special dismissal funds to cover 

employees affected by cutbacks in defense industries in the postwar 

reconversion period.9

He believed events had demonstrated that government leadership 

and participation were required to meet violent economic dislocations, 

whether in peace or in war, since private enterprise did not adapt 

readily to such dislocations. No single program, neither the discouragement of economic concentration nor the indiscriminate spending 

of public funds, would bring a solution of these problems. “There is 

no panacaea that will guarantee the creation of full employment in a 

free democracy.”10

Lubin and the New Deal years

When Lubin assumed the leadership of the Bureau, he and Secretary 

Perkins were in agreement that the Bureau’s staff and programs 

needed to be improved to keep up with the economic and social needs 

of the times. More and better information on employment and unemployment was of vital importance. More price data were needed by the 

agencies administering the National Industrial Recovery Act and the 

Agricultural Adjustment Act to determine whether consumers were 

being faced with unwarranted price increases. The National Recovery 

Administration also needed expanded and more current industry wage 

and hour studies for use in its code-formulating activities. And the 

new era of industrial relations ushered in by the National Labor 

Relations Act, as well as the division between the AFL and the CIO , 

called for more information on unions and collective bargaining developments.

Lubin added another dimension to the task: “Not only must raw 

data be improved but the Bureau must be enabled more fully to 

analyze the material it now has, so that evidence may be available as to 

where the recovery program is having the greatest effect and where it 

is falling down.”11

Both Lubin and Perkins showed immediate interest in improving 

the Department’s statistical program. Upon her appointment, Perkins

1 H

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Lübin: Meeting Emergency Demands

called on the American Statistical Association to establish a committee 

for advice “regarding the methods, adequacy, usefulness and general 

program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.” This committee, whose 

membership included Ewan Clague and Aryness Joy, became part of 

the broader based Committee on Government Statistics and Informa' 

tion Services (CO GSIS) sponsored by the Social Science Research 

Council and the A SA .12

Lubin readily acknowledged the role of outside experts in die 

“work of revision and self-criticism”, reporting that “the Bureau has 

followed a consistent policy of consulting with recognized technical 

experts, and of constantly soliciting the opinions of employers and 

labor union officials regarding possible improvements to provide 

greater service.”13 At an informal meeting of labor union research staff 

members in 1934, Lubin announced die creation of a Labor Information Service for the use of local union officers and members. Relations 

with union research staff continued on an informal basis until June 

1940, when a more formal relationship was established.

In mid-1934, Perkins reported that the Department’s statistical 

work “is perhaps better than at any time during its history and represents the best technical standards, as to method, coverage and interpretation.”14

Lubin and Perkins also were interested in improving the coordination of Federal statistical work. Immediately after his appointment 

in July 1933, Lubin participated in the setting up of the Central 

Statistical Board, which Roosevelt established by Executive Order at 

the end of July. Subsequently, Lubin and Perkins endorsed legislation 

for a permanent board, which was established by Congress in 1935 for 

a 5-year period to ensure consistency, avoid duplication, and promote 

economy in the work of government statistical agencies. The technical 

board was responsible to a Cabinet-level Central Statistical Committee 

composed of the Secretaries of Labor, Commerce, Treasury, and Agriculture. Lubin urged Perkins to press her claim as chairman of die 

committee with Roosevelt, and she was so designated. Lubin served as 

vice-chairman of the technical board.

While Lubin worked towards the improvement of statistical programs, Secretary Perkins encouraged a broader role for the Commissioner, giving him many special assignments, among them the 

chairmanship of a labor advisory board to the Public Works Administration. In this capacity, he dealt for almost 3 years with questions

145

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

relating to the referral of union and nonunion workers to construction projects, job opportunities for Negro skilled workers in view of 

their exclusion from building trades unions, observance of arbitration 

awards, and determination of wages.

Lubin also served as chairman of a board set up to settle a strike 

of citrus workers in Florida in early 1934. The board included representatives of the National Recovery Administration, the National 

Labor Board, and the Department of Agriculture. The board’s report 

called on the Department o f Agriculture to insist that the marketing 

agreement approved for the citrus industry include provisions encouraging steady employment and recognizing the right of labor to organize and bargain collectively. In submitting the report to Agriculture 

Secretary Henry Wallace, Lubin urged that he establish an office to 

deal with agricultural labor problems. When Wallace took no action, 

Lubin proposed that the Bureau study the farm labor area. The effect 

of inadequate knowledge about these workers, according to Lubin, 

was their exclusion from all existing laws.15

W hen a strike threatened in the auto industry in November 

1934, Leon Henderson, Chief Economist of the National Recovery 

Administration, asked Lubin’s help in an investigation. The Bureau 

conducted a study of wages in the industry, including analyses of 

annual earnings, employment patterns, and seasonal fluctuations in 

production. Henderson and Lubin personally interviewed industry 

representatives. Among their recommendations was one accepted by 

the auto manufacturers, that new models be brought out in November, rather than in December, to achieve greater regularization of 

employment.16

Early in her administration, Perkins named Lubin chairman of a 

departmental committee to promote U .S. membership in the International Labor Organization. At the same time, she agreed to an ILO 

request to have Lubin serve on its advisory committee on labor statistics. Following U .S. entry into the ILO in August 1934, Lubin was the 

first U .S. delegate to its governing body. The Bureau was given 

responsibility for the administrative arrangements for continuing U .S. 

representation in Geneva, with funds for the purpose included in the 

Bureau budget. ^ Lubin continued to attend meetings of the governing body.

Perkins frequently asked Lubin to participate in economic discussions at the White House. He prepared analyses for her and for the

146

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Lubin: Meeting Emergency Demands

Central Statistical Committee she headed. Elected secretary to the 

committee, Lukin regularly prepared an economic report, which was 

abstracted for presentation to the National Emergency Council. In 

1936, Perkins wrote the President that “the value of this arrangement 

would obviously be enhanced by Dr. Lubin’s membership in the 

National Emergency Council. May I recommend and request that you 

designate him?”18

Lubin was soon given other White House assignments. He participated in the discussions the President held with business, labor, and 

government policy officials on measures for dealing with the major 

economic downturn of 1937. Soon after, he was the first witness in 

hearings on unemployment. In 1938, when Congress established the 

Temporary National Economic Committee to investigate monopolistic 

practices, the President asked Lubin to call off a lecture commitment 

to be on hand to help with preliminary arrangements.19

Lubin was designated as the Department o f Labor representative 

to the TN EC, with A. Ford Hinrichs, the Bureau's Chief Economist, 

as alternate. Lubin had a large part in planning the work of the 

committee, in preparing analyses, and in making recommendations. 

The Bureau prepared several monographs for the committee, with 

Special Assistant Aryness Joy directing the staff work, which included 

both analytical and case study approaches.

Lubin's full-time direction of the Bureau came to an end in June 

1940 when Secretary Perkins, at the request o f Sidney Hillman, head 

of the Labor Division of the National Defense Advisory Commission, 

assigned Lubin to serve as Hillman’s economic adviser. Lubin retained 

his position as Commissioner. In a memorandum to Hinrichs, named 

Acting Commissioner, Lubin stated, “In general, you are authorized 

on your own responsibility and without reference to me to represent 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics in any matters which may arise and to 

make any decisions that may be necessary either with reference to 

policy or internal administration. ” However, he would continue to be 

available to Hinrichs “on all matters o f fundamental policy.”20

Lubin's responsibilities grew under the Defense Advisory Commission, then under the Office o f Production Management, and later 

under the War Production Board. Within a year, he was called to serve 

in the White House as special statistical assistant to the President. On 

May 12, 1941, Secretary Perkins wrote the President, “I am very glad 

to comply with your request to assign to your office and for your

147

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

assistance Mr. Isador Lubin____W hile Mr. Lubin will, I know, give

you great assistance, his entire staff in the Department of Labor will be 

at his disposal to assist him in the inquiries he will make for you.”21

Lubin remained as Commissioner on leave until his resignation 

from government service in 1946.

Hinrichs and the war years

Hinrichs served as Acting Commissioner for 6 years, supervising the 

wartime activities of the Bureau. He communicated with Lubin on a 

regular basis, but generally to meet Lubin’s needs at the White House. 

His relations with Secretary Perkins were more formal than Lubin’s 

had been.

A. Ford Hinrichs was bom in New 'fork City in 1899. He 

received his doctorate at Columbia University and taught there and at 

Brown University, where he was director of the Bureau of Business 

Research. In 1930 and 1932, he travelled to the Soviet Union, Italy, 

and Germany to study state economic planning.22

O n his entry into the Bureau as Chief Economist, Hinrichs con' 

ducted a study of wages in the cotton textile industry requested by the 

National Recovery Administration for the development of industry 

codes. Later, he made a more intensive survey of the industry for the 

use of the Wage and Hour Administration. In early 1940, Hinrichs 

was designated Assistant Commissioner, shortly before becoming Acting Commissioner.

W hen Hinrichs took over the leadership of the Bureau in the 

midst of the national defense buildup, it had significantly enhanced its 

role as the factfinding agency of the Federal Government in the fields 

of employment, prices, wages, industrial relations, industrial safety and 

health, and productivity. It had an extensive file of data on economic 

trends and a staff trained to collect data accurately and economically.

With U .S. entry into the war, the agencies administering war 

production and stabilization programs needed a vastly more detailed 

body of economic data. Under Hinrichs, the Bureau became the 

factfinding arm of the Office of Price Administration, the National 

War Labor Board, the War Production Board, the War and Navy 

Departments, the Maritime Commission, and, to a lesser extent, other 

agencies. It supplied detailed information on employment conditions 

and provided estimates, by occupation and region, of the amount of

148

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Lubin: Meeting Emergency Demands

labor needed to meet war production schedules. For price control and 

rationing programs, it provided data on wholesale and retail prices and 

the cost of living; for wage stabilization programs, it provided data on 

wages, hours, and the cost of living. Agencies such as the OPA and the 

W LB used the statistics from the Bureau to monitor the effectiveness 

of their administrative activities. The wartime work had a lasting 

impact on the Bureau’s programs in improved quality, the expansion 

of regional and local data, and the development of more advanced 

statistical techniques.

The Bureau’s work

The cost-of-living index

The Bureau’s cost-of-living index figured in legislation immediately 

upon Roosevelt’s entry into office. On March 20, 1933, Congress 

passed the Economy Act, which reduced Federal Government salaries 

by 15 percent on the basis of a drop of more than 20 percent in the 

cost of living since June 1928. Later in the year, as required under the 

act, the Bureau conducted a survey of the cost of living of Federal 

employees in the District of Columbia, comparing prices paid in 1928 

and December 1933. Grouping expenditures for those earning under 

$2,500, over $2,500, and for single individuals living in rented rooms, 

the study found price declines averaging about 15 percent, except for 

the single individuals, for whom restaurant prices had not fallen as 

much as unprepared foods used at home.23

The national cost-of-living index underwent early improvement 

with the help of the Advisory Committee to the Secretary. By 1935, 

the index, still based on the 1917-19 expenditure survey, was published quarterly, calculated from food prices in 51 cities and other 

commodity and service prices in 32 of the large cities. Beginning in 

1935, the national index was calculated by applying population 

weights to the data for the 51 cities. The number of food items was 

increased from 42 to 84, with a better representation of meats, fruits, 

and vegetables, and with weighting to make them representative of 

other foods whose pattern of price movements was similar. Pricing was 

based on written specifications, ensuring comparability from city to 

city and over time, and trained local personnel were employed on a 

contract basis to collect some of the data. The rent index was revised

149

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

to make it more representative o f wage earners and lower salaried 

workers.

Lubin pressed for authorization to conduct a new nationwide 

family expenditure survey and was able to obtain a special appropriation. Ethelbert Stewart had regularly, but unsuccessfully, asked for 

such authorization.

The expenditure survey was conducted in 1934-36, covering 

12,903 white families and 1,566 Negro families in 42 cities with a 

population of 50,000 or more. Limited funds made it necessary to 

restrict the survey to large cities. The families included had incomes of 

at least $500 per year, were not on relief, and had at least one earner 

employed for 36 weeks and earning at least $300 or a clerical worker 

earning a mmnmum o f $200 per month or $2,000 per year. The 

income of all the families averaged $1,524-$1,546 for white families 

and $1,008 for Negro families.24

The results showed a significant increase in expenditures for 

radios and used automobiles, and also reflected increased purchases of 

readymade clothing, gasoline, fuel oil, and refrigerators, better food 

and nutrition habits, better lighting in homes, use of dry cleaning and 

beauty shop services, and more automobile travel.

Data derived from the survey were incorporated in a revised costof-living index for wage earners and lower salaried workers in 33 large 

riripM* which was issued for the first quarter of 1940. One innovation 

was the inclusion of outlets representative of those patronized by 

Negro wage earners and salaried workers in cities where they constituted an important sector o f the population.25

Almost simultaneously with the expenditure survey, BLS and the 

Bureau of Home Economics joined in a nationwide survey of expenditures of urban and rural consumers for the Works Progress Administration. The Central Statistical Board and the National Resources 

Committee sponsored the survey and led in the planning. At the 

opening o f the TN EC hearings, Lubin called attention to the evidence 

from the survey that 54 percent of the 29 million American families 

had incomes below $1,250 a year.26

The requirements o f the defense preparedness programs soon 

called for additional data on prices and the cost of living. In 1940, the 

National Defense Advisory Commission asked the Bureau to act as its 

statistical agency in the field of prices and to summarize price developments. Shortly thereafter, the Bureau was providing information on

150

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Lubiti: Meeting Emergency Demands

current price developments, special-purpose index numbers for warassociated products, additional pricing of such basic items as industrial 

chemicals and essential oils, cost-of-living price collection in additional 

cities and more rapid issuance of reports, and rent and housing 

surveys in defense production areas. Special studies were undertaken 

of commodities in short supply during the period of “voluntary” price 

regulations by the Office of Price Administration. The national index 

was now issued monthly, based on price and rent reports for 20 of the 

34 large cities for which quarterly data were issued. By the end of the 

year, the Bureau also had initiated indexes for 20 additional representative small cities to compare changes in the cost of living in large and 

small cities.

In 1941, with the rising cost of living, the Bureau adopted a 

policy of keeping the index as up to date as possible. In 1942, consumer goods which were no longer available, such as refrigerators, 

automobiles, sewing machines, and new tires, were dropped. In 1943, 

the relative weights of rationed foods were changed to take account of 

their reduced availability. A lso, commodity specifications were 

changed more frequently than in normal periods, and, with the introduction of Federal rent control, the Bureau began to obtain information from tenants rather than from rental management agencies. In 

addition, the Bureau conducted tests to determine whether the prices 

reported to field agents were those actually paid by consumers.

The validity of the cost-of-living index was further tested by an 

important economic study, the Survey o f Family Spending and Saving 

in Wartime, notable for its use of probability sampling techniques. 

The survey was made primarily for the use o f the Treasury Department in formulating its tax and war bond programs and for OPA and 

the War Production Board for decisions on rationing, price, and allocation policies. Data were obtained from a representative sample of 

1,300 city fiunilies on income, spending, and savings in 1941 and the 

first part of 1942. The survey tested the relative weights in the cost-ofliving index, establishing that they were substantially correct as of 

1941. A smiliar study in 1945, covering 1944, resulted in minor 

changes in specifications and weighting patterns.2?

The cost-of-living index had come in for review at the Bureau’s 

annual conferences of union research directors from their inception 

in June 1940. Originally, these were basically technical reviews of the 

shortcomings of the index in view of changes in the availability and

151

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

quality of commodities, additional expenditures by workers required 

to shift work locations, and rising prices in booming localities. Some 

participants called for a BLS pamphlet of questions and answers about 

the index, including what it showed and could not show. Lazare 

Teper, Research Director o f the International Ladies* Garment Workers’ Union, suggested that the Bureau point out that the index understated price rises due to quality deterioration and other wartime 

conditions, so that employers and unions could make appropriate 

adjustments in their negotiations.28

Later, when wage controls appeared imminent, some research 

directors asked the Bureau to either replace the index or supplement 

it by developing budgets for maintaining a working class family in 

“health and decency." Hinrichs contended that this was a matter for 

the War Labor Board to decide and not the Bureau. However, if the 

unions wished to press their case with the board, the Bureau was 

prepared to furnish them with the information on family income, 

expenditures, and savings from the survey conducted in 1941 and 

early 1942.29

The Bureau issued the pamphlet “Questions and Answers on the 

Cost-of-Living Index" in April 1942. The description of the index was 

relatively simple and clear. The pamphlet described the adjustments 

made for the disappearance and rationing of civilian goods. On the 

index’s coverage, it stated, “A cost of living index can only measure 

the general change in the particular city of the goods and services 

customarily purchased by workers. It obviously cannot cover every 

conceivable increased cost which individual families experience." 

Among the costs which “by their nature cannot be covered in any 

measure of average living costs" were costs of maintaining the family 

at home while a wage earner worked at a distant job; commuting costs 

to distant jobs; higher costs, especially of rent and utilities, in cities to 

which workers migrated for defense jobs; and inconveniences caused 

by limited or disappearing goods.

Shortly after passage o f the Economic Stabilization Act, in a letter 

to William H. Davis, chairman of the National War Labor Board, 

Hinrichs described the problems the Bureau freed in preparing the 

index. You should be aware of the feet that we are experiencing 

considerable difficulty in the compilation of our indexes because of the 

many changes in kinds of consumer goods available. Moreover, as the 

rationing program is extended to more and more commodities, it will

152

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Lubin: Meeting Emergency Demands

be necessary promptly to take account o f the resulting changes in 

wage-earners’ spending, if the cost of living is to be truly representative. We expect to make every effort to keep the index on the soundest 

possible basis and we will wish to discuss with your staff, from Hmp to 

time, some of the policy problems which will arise in this connection.”30

Davis replied, “We are much concerned that the Bureau’s Costof-Living Index should not be open to attack on technical grounds. 

There have already been some comments by trade union representatives in cases before this Board, alleging that the index did not reflect 

the full rise in the cost of living. O ur general policy is now based on 

the assumption that the cost of living will not rise substantially, and 

we must be in a position to prove that this is in fret the case by 

reference to an official index which is not open to serious question. 

While this is a technical problem that the Bureau must handle in its 

own way, it is very important to us that the index faithfully show 

changes in actual prices of wage earners’ purchases under rationing or 

any other system of control of buying which may be instituted by the 

government.”31

Unions had begun to collect retail price data in 1941 to demonstrate that tighter price controls were needed and that wage controls 

would reduce workers’ real income. By late 1942, following the imposition of wage controls, the union studies were receiving much public 

attention. The Bureau and the standing committee o f union research 

directors discussed the studies in December 1942, at which time it was 

decided to have two union research directors work with the Bureau to 

keep the unions and the public generally informed on die uses and 

limitations of the index.32

The effort at public education was extended in early 1943. Aryness Joy Wickens made trips to a number of cities where price surveys 

had been done, meeting with members of the public and union officials to explain the uses of the index, the methods o f gathering and 

compiling price data, and the BLS materials available on changes in 

food prices. The Bureau gave advice on how to collect prices comparable to cost-of-living figures in cities it did not cover in the index. One 

result was that in Detroit, where union figures had differed substantially from BLS data, a new union survey following BLS techniques 

showed no significant divergence.33

153

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

By June 1943, in view o f the 24-percent rise in the index over 

January 1941, as against the 15-percent general wage increase permitted by the Litde Steel wage stabilization formula, the union research 

directors intensified their arguments. They now questioned the use of 

the cost-of-living index for wage adjustments, contending that what 

was needed were studies o f workers’ expenditures and a determination of the cost of an adequate standard of living. To those who 

insisted that the shortcomings of the index should be announced, and 

specifically to the labor members of the War Labor Board, Hinrichs 

replied, “If our index carries within it such serious shortcomings as to 

invalidate the policy conclusions based on it, then the thing to do is 

not to announce the shortcomings of the index, but to scrap it altogether or malr* it better. O ur job is to make it better so that nobody 

else will scrap it.” A s to telling the War Labor Board members about 

the shortcomings, Hinrichs said he had not been invited to do so. uIf 

asked, I am not going to avoid the question of any of the shortcomings. I have, o f course, discussed our index with members of the staff 

of the War Labor Board, but it is not our function to ask for a formal 

discussion with the Board.” He stressed that the unions should not 

put “all their eggs” in the cost-of-living basket and suggested that 

other BLS material could be used by the labor unions to support 

remands before the stabilization agencies.34

A t Hinrichs* request, Secretary Perkins asked the American Statistical Association “to review and appraise the cost of living index 

with reference both to its construction and its uses.” Frederick C. 

Mills, o f Columbia University and the National Bureau of Economic 

Research, was appointed to head a committee of experts, which heard 

from labor organizations, employer associations, consumer groups, 

and government agencies. The committee also conducted special field 

studies and tests of Bureau procedures, utilizing Bureau staff.

The principal conclusions of the Mills Committee sustained the 

Bureau’s position. These were: “First, that within the limitations 

established for it, the Cost of Living Index provides a trustworthy 

measure of changes in the prices paid by consumers for goods and 

services. Second, that many of the difficulties and doubts which have 

arisen concerning the index have their origins in attempts to use it 

uncritically for purposes for which it is not adapted.”

The committee’s assessment was that the index was useful for 

public policy dependent on measuring the average trend in consumer

154

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Lubin: Meeting Emergency Demands

prices nationwide, but, for other policy uses, more specific indexes 

were required. If a policy of relating wage adjustments to actual living 

costs of workers were adopted, indexes for particular areas, industries, 

population groups, and income levels would be needed.35

The Mills Committee report was released in October 1943. 

Chairman Davis of the National War Labor Board wrote to Perkins, “I 

think this will be very helpful to the whole stabilization program. I 

was not only gratified to have my own conviction about the index 

confirmed, but I also think the committee’s statement of the proper 

use to be made of the index will be helpful.”36

The report was only the first stage in a prolonged scrutiny of 

wage stabilization policy and the cost-of-living index. With labor pressing for relaxation of the wage stabilization policy, President Roosevelt 

suggested that the War Labor Board set up a tripartite committee to 

explore the widespread “controversy and dispute as to what the cost 

of living is,” and that agreement by such a committee could “have a 

salutary effect all over the country, because today all kinds of exaggerated statements are made.”37

The board acted immediately to appoint the committee, known 

as the President’s Committee on the Cost of Living, with Davis as 

chairman. At the initial meeting, the committee adopted a motion by 

George Meany of the AFL to investigate a number of specific questions: The cost of living in October 1943 compared with January 1, 

1941, May 15, 1942, and September 15, 1942; how the index figure 

was arrived at; whether there were any changes in the methods of 

securing or computing the figures; and concrete suggestions for 

improving the securing of figures. The Bureau promptly provided the 

information, along with a description of the preparation of the 

index.38

In January 1944, the labor members of the War Labor Board 

submitted a report stating that, by December 1943, the true cost of 

living had risen at least 43.5 percent above January 1941, whereas the 

BLS index had risen only 23.5 percent. The report stressed that the 

BLS index understated price rises because of deterioration of quality 

and disappearance of low-priced merchandise. It also noted the 

absence of consideration of room rent, food bought in restaurants, 

and costs in moving from one city to another. In general, it charged 

that the index was inaccurate.39

155

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

The Bureau submitted a comprehensive statement in reply, 

observing that “there is conclusive evidence that they are absolutely 

wrong in asserting that the rise in the cost o f living is nearly twice as 

great as the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows it to be.” The Mills 

Committee reaffirmed the conclusions of its October report.40

The comments on the wide discrepancy of 20 percentage points 

impelled Davis to call on a committee of technical experts for an 

unbiased study. Wesley C. Mitchell, of the National Bureau of Economic Research, was designated as chairman. Other members were 

Simon N. Kuznets, o f the War Production Board, and Margaret Reid, 

of the Budget Bureau’s Office of Statistical Standards.

In June 1944, before the Mitchell Committee was ready with its 

report, the Bureau held its fifth annual conference with union 

research directors. While in previous years only research directors had 

been invited, this time other union officers also were included, among 

them George Meany. Meany addressed the conference. Meany’s biographer has described what followed: “What he said was a bombshell, 

and a well-publicized one, for advance texts went to the press.” He 

charged the administration with failing to keep down living costs and 

deciding that “the next best thing to do was to keep down the cost of 

living index. In this policy the Bureau of Labor Statistics obsequiously 

acquiesced. We are led to the inescapable conclusion that the Bureau 

has become identified with an effort to freeze wages, to the extent that 

it is no longer a free agency of statistical research.”41

Shortly after the conference, the Bureau issued its regular

monthly cost-of-living release, which now contained a brief explanatory statement: “The BLS index indicates average changes in retail 

prices of selected goods, rents, and services bought by families of wage 

earners and lower-salaried workers in large cities. The items covered 

represented 70 percent of the expenditures of families who had 

incomes ranging from $1,250 to $2,000 in 1934-36. The index does 

not show the full wartime effect on the cost of living of such factors as 

lowered quality, disappearance of low-priced goods, and forced 

changes in housing and eating away from home. It does not measure 

changes in total ‘living costs’—that is, in the total amount families

spend for living. Income taxes and bond subscriptions are not 

included.”42

The release was greeted in the American Federationist with the 

headline, BLS admits its index gives faulty view of true rise in living

156

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Lubin: Meeting Emergency Demands

costs.” The article continued, “Mr. Meany and other labor spokesmen 

had exposed the injustice of using the BLS figures as a guide to 

computing living costs and as a basis for establishing wage rates.”43 

The report of the Mitchell Committee also appeared at this time, 

stating, MO ur examination of the methods used by the BLS and the 

other information we have gathered . . . leads us to conclude that the 

BLS has done a competent job, under very difficult market conditions, 

in providing a measure of price changes for goods customarily purchased by families of wage earners and lower-salaried workers living in 

large cities.” The committee estimated that the Bureau’s index in 

December 1943 understated hidden price rises by only 3 to 4 percentage points, mainly due to quality deterioration. The committee's one 

explicit recommendation was that the name o f the index be changed.44

In November 1944, Davis submitted the report he had prepared 

as chairman of the President’s Committee on the Cost of Living. In it, 

he drew on the Mitchell report in finding that “the accuracy of the 

index figures for what they were intended to measure is confirmed. 

They are entitled to the good reputation they have long enjoyed. . . . 

They are good basic figures for use in the formulation of fiscal and 

other governmental policies and for observing the effects of such 

policies.” With the “searching” studies conducted for the committee, 

“no such substantiated criticism of BLS methods has survived.” He 

did recognize that the 3 to 4 percentage points for the hidden 

increases, plus 0.5 of a point if small cities were also covered in the 

index, would bring the official rise of 25.5 percent in the index from 

January 1941 to September 1944 to about 30 percent. The industry 

members generally concurred in the chairman’s conclusions, but the 

labor members issued separate statements. For the CIO , R.J. Thomas 

strongly endorsed changing the name o f the index. For the AFL, 

Meany clarified the policy issues o f the index, indicating that the AFL 

had never endorsed basing wages on the cost o f living: “The established wage policy of this country has always been based on raising 

wages as increases in productivity made this possible.”43

The findings of the President's Committee on the Cost of Living 

were an important element in the recommendations made in February 

1945 to the Director of Economic Stabilization for maintaining the 

Little Steel formula as the standard for general wage increases for wage 

stabilization. In a dissenting statement, the AFL contended that wage 

earners had borne the brunt of the wartime anti-inflation program:46

157

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

In the early postwar period of continuing wage-price controls, 

the wage adjustment standard was relaxed. Regulations permitted 

adjustments for a 33-percent rise in the cost of living from January 

1941 to September 1945, including a 5-point adjustment over the 

official cost-of-living index to allow for continued deterioration of 

quality and unavailability o f merchandise. The Bureau explained the 5- 

point adjustment in its monthly release but did not include it in the 

index. In February 1947, in recognition o f the disappearance of some 

of the wartime market factors, the Bureau discontinued the explanation.

Following Meany’s appearance at the research directors’ conference, Secretary Perkins ordered the annual conferences terminated. 

However, informal relations with the members of the former standing 

committee continued; Hinrichs actively sought and received their 

advice on Bureau programs. Formal relations were not reestablished 

until 1947, when Commissioner Clague set up both labor and business advisory councils.

Changing the name o f the cost-of-living index as proposed by the 

Mitchell Committee was the subject of a conference with union 

research directors in January 1945, who, as early as 1940, had raised a 

question regarding the tide. They agreed on a new tide, “Consumer’s 

Price Index for Moderate Income Families in Large Cities.’’ Hinrichs 

submitted the proposal to Secretary Perkins, indicating that it met 

with Bureau approval. Perkins opposed any change, however, pointing 

out that the “Cost of Living” tide was widely used in other countries 

and was well understood. She believed that the index under the new 

name would be no more acceptable to its critics and, in fact, would 

create even more confusion. In a few months, Secretary Perkins was 

succeeded by Lewis B. Schwellenbach, and, in July 1945, he agreed to 

the new tide.47

Standard budgets

In 1936, the Works Progress Administration published two budgets 

giving quantities necessary for families for “basic maintenance” and for 

“emergency standards o f living.” These budgets were intended to 

appraise relief needs and set WPA wage rates. The Bureau updated the 

budgets periodically for 33 cities by applying changes in prices and 

rents reported to the Bureau for the cost-of-living index. In 1943, with 

the base of the estimates long out of date, they were discontinued.

158

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Lubin: Meeting Emergency Demands

In 1945, the House Appropriations Committee directed the 

Bureau to prepare a family budget based on current conditions, or to 

“find out what it costs a worker’s family to live in large cities in the 

United States.” A technical advisory committee of outstanding experts 

in the fields of nutrition and consumption economics helped develop 

the standards and procedures. The Bureau prepared the list of items 

and quantities to be included in the budget, priced them in 1946 and 

1947, and developed dollar totals for 34 large cities. The results were 

published in 1948. As formulated, the budget for a city worker’s 

family of four was an attempt to describe and measure a modest but 

adequate American standard of living.48

Wholesale prices

Lubin called for expansion of the Bureau’s wholesale price work in 

1933 to aid in the analysis of changes in the economy, both in specific 

industries and in major economic sectors. Immediate improvements 

included more detailed commodity specifications and broader commodity and industry coverage. In 1937, the index was changed from 

the “link-chain” formula used since 1914 to the “fixed-base” technique. Between 1933 and 1939, the number of individual commodities 

priced increased from about 2,300 to 5,000; the number of firms 

reporting increased from about 750 to 1,500.

The requirements of wartime gave a new orientation to the 

wholesale price program. The extensive use of the indexes in escalator 

clauses in large war contracts and in preparing price regulations made 

it necessary for the Bureau to hire price specialists with a thorough 

knowledge of particular commodity fields, to increase staff training, 

and to develop new techniques of price analysis. In a project conducted with the cooperation of the WPA, new groupings of commodities were developed, including separate indexes for durable and 

nondurable goods; producer and consumer goods; and agricultural 

and industrial goods.

Wages

The long-established program of periodic industry and union wage 

surveys continued under Lubin. In addition, the monthly series on 

average hourly earnings and average weekly hours in selected industries begun in 1932, based on the establishment survey, was expanded.

159

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

The Bureau had to recast its priorities to meet the urgent 

demands for information required to establish and administer the 

NRA codes. In place of the periodic studies of major industries, the 

Bureau had to conduct hurried and limited studies of industries such 

as cigars, cigarettes, tobacco, boys’ hosiery, and silk. More comprehensive studies, dealing with working conditions as well as wages, covered 

such diverse subjects as the cotton textile and petroleum industries, 

the onion fields of Ohio, and editorial writers on newspapers.

With the end of the NRA, the regular program was resumed and 

new studies were undertaken. A t the request of the engineering societies, the Bureau conducted a study of employment, unemployment, 

and income in the engineering profession. Also, special analyses were 

made to provide information on earnings and hours of Negro workers 

in the iron and steel industry and in independent tobacco stemmeries.

In its regular industry survey program, the Bureau made efforts to 

expand coverage to include annual earnings, earnings by age and 

length of service, and information on personnel policies. Annual earnings data proved difficult and costly to obtain, however, and this work 

was soon curtailed.

Several industry wage studies during the period included broad 

analyses of the industry’s structure, including its competitive features, 

technology, demand, and profits. In his introduction to a study of 

cotton goods manufacturing, Lubin observed, “The more specific the 

economic application of the facts with reference to wages, the more 

intensive should be the preliminary study of the industrial background.”49

The passage of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act in 1936 

and the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938 resulted in a substantial 

increase in the wage program. The Bureau provided summary data on 

wages and hours to the Department’s Wage and Hour and Public 

Contracts Divisions for the setting of minimum wages, and, during 

1938 and 1939, developed frequency distributions of wages in about 

45 industries, primarily low-wage consumer goods industries.50

Another reorientation of the Bureau’s work was required when 

the defense program got underway in 1940. With the emphasis on war 

production, the Bureau shifted to occupational wage studies of heavy 

industries such as mining, smelting, and fabrication of nonferrous 

metals; shipbuilding; machinery; rubber; and aircraft. In addition, a

160

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Lubin: Meeting Emergency Demands

number of disputes coming before the National Defense Mediation 

Board required the collection o f wage data by occupation and locality.

Such data were increasingly needed by the National War Labor 

Board, especially after it was given wage stabilization authority in 

October 1942. In May 1943, the Director of Economic Stabilization 

authorized the board to establish, by areas and occupational groups, 

brackets based on “sound and tested going rates” for decisions in cases 

involving interplant wage inequity claims. Wage increases above the 

bracket minimum were permitted only in “rare and unusual” cases 

and cases o f substandards of living.51

By agreement with the board, the Bureau was to be “one of the 

instrumentalities” for the collection o f occupational wage rate data 

within various labor markets in each o f the 12 War Labor Board 

regions. The Bureau was required to establish regional offices to service the needs of each board, with the program in the field subject to 

the general direction of the tripa|tite regional boards. The regional 

boards had authority to designate the occupations and industries to be 

covered and to interpret and evaluate the data. In practice, the boards 

relied substantially on the Bureau's expertise in the preparation of 

occupational patterns and job descriptions for the surveys.

The Bureau met the challenge o f the board's requirements for 

occupational wage rate data by industry for virtually all U .S. labor 

markets. Within 6 months, with board funds, the Bureau collected 

data from over 60,000 establishments in 400 localities—an unprecedented volume of information for such a short period of time. By 

1945, pay rates in key operations had been collected from more than

100,000 establishments, and some 8,000 reports on an industry-locality basis had been transmitted to the board. The data collection 

included supplementary information such as overtime and shift-work 

provisions, the prevalence of union agreements, paid vacations, 

bonuses, insurance, and pensions. Using the summary reports, the 

regional boards established wage brackets covering tens of thousands 

of board determinations in interplant wage inequity situations.

A major issue arose over the board’s proposal that “data secured 

by the Bureau in carrying out this project will be used and published, 

if at all, by or under the direction o f the Board.” Secretary Perkins, in 

opposing the rigid limitation on the Bureau’s right to publish the 

material, cited the Bureau’s mandate to make its information available 

as widely as possible, its importance for maintaining good public rela161

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

tions, and the use of its own funds for some of the work. The matter 

was finally resolved with the understanding that the Bureau would 

submit any proposed release or article to the authorized representative 

o f the board, seeking advice on the content and timing of releases. 

Any disagreement would be referred jointly to the Secretary of Labor 

and the chairman of the NW LB.52

A t first, the release procedure created problems for the Bureau. 

The unions contended that they needed the data in bracket-setting 

cases, even though they had been submitted to the War Labor Board. 

A satisfactory arrangement was developed whereby unpublished information was sent in response to requests, with the requesting party 

obliged to advise the Bureau of the intended use of the information in 

any wage negotiations or official procedure leading to wage determination, to insure that the Bureau's position was impartial.53

The occupational wage work provided the basis for developing an 

overall urban wage rate index to measure the impact of the stabilization program on basic wage rates. Data from the Bureau’s regular 

programs were inadequate for the purpose. The weekly earnings series 

for example, failed to take account o f the increased importance of 

payroll deductions. W hile estimates were made for these deductions, 

the series developed was affected by such factors as the effects of 

overtime pay; changes in the relative importance of regions, industries, 

and individual establishments; and changes in occupational structure. 

G ross average hourly earnings, subject to the same influences, were 

adjusted to eliminate the effects o f overtime pay and interindustry 

shifts in employment, but the resultant straight-time hourly earnings 

index continued to be affected by changes in the relative importance 

o f residual factors.

The urban wage rate index, first published in 1944, provided a 

better measure o f basic wage rate changes. Field representatives collected the data directly for specific and well-defined key occupations; 

the same establishments were covered; and fixed weights were used for 

each occupation, industry, and area. The index was continued until

1947.54

A s the war was coming to an end in 1945, plans were made to 

meet anticipated requirements for wage statistics during the reconversion period. The Bureau decided to conduct a large number of nationwide occupational surveys on an industry basis, including regional and

162

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Lubiti: Meeting Emergency Demands

locality breakdowns when feasible. Between 1945 and mid-1947, 70 

manufacturing and 11 nonmanufacturing industries were studied.

Industrial relations

The great impetus given to union growth and collective bargaining by 

the NRA and the National Labor Relations Act stimulated the Bureau 

to gear up to provide information to ease the adjustment to new labor' 

management relationships. In 1934, the Bureau began publication of 

the Labor Information Bulletin and also established a separate Industrial Relations Division which began the collection and analysis of 

collective bargaining agreements. Within a few years, a file of 12,(XX) 

agreements was developed. Thereafter, efforts were made to improve 

the sample and to maintain it on a current basis. Strike statistics also 

were improved and made more current.

In conjunction with the National Labor Relations Board, the 

Bureau undertook a study of company unions in 1935. David Saposs, 

who had just completed a study on the subject for the Twentieth 

Century Fund, was hired as director of the study. A t an informal 

meeting with BLS, AFL representatives expressed some reservations 

about the project, suggesting that the Bureau should place its emphasis 

on studying collective bargaining agreements rather than on what they 

viewed as merely “an arm o f management”55

After the study was completed, Lubin reported to Secretary Perkins that union officials were urging him to issue the report as soon as 

possible. “Somehow or other a rumor has been spread that the bulletin may be suppressed.”56

The preliminary report, appearing as an article in the Monthly

Labor Review entitled “Extent and Characteristics of Company 

Unions,” stirred up a tempest. The National Association o f Manufacturers advised Lubin that some o f its members, including those who 

had cooperated in supplying information to the Bureau, felt that in 

many respects the study “attempts to establish standards for employee 

representation plans which may result in misleading conclusions as to 

their functions and operations.” They met with Lubin, and immediately thereafter the Journal of Commerce reported, “Although resentment in industrial circles against the recent study on company unions 

prepared by the BLS continues high, it now seems doubtful that an 

organized boycott will result.”57

163

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

With the war emergency, the Bureau’s ongoing analysis of collective bargaining provisions proved valuable to government agencies, 

employers, and unions as collective bargaining received encouragement under wartime policies. In 1942, the Bureau published Union

Agreement Provisions (Bulletin 686). Based on the Bureau’s file of 

several thousand agreements, it analyzed and provided examples of 

clauses for some 28 principal labor contract provisions. The demand 

for the bulletin was so great that it was reprinted four times.

During the war years, die War Labor Board called on die Bureau 

for special studies on the prevalence of certain contract provisions, 

including maintenance-of-membership clauses, seniority rules, and 

grievance procedures. The Bureau also developed statistics on strikes 

in defense industries and for specific cases before the board. It also 

provided considerable information to die War and Navy Departments, 

the Conciliation Service, and the War Production Board.

Employment and unemployment

Establishment data. The Bureau’s employment statistics were of crucial importance in assessing the extent of the industrial recovery from 

the Great Depression and, later, in monitoring the defense and war 

programs. The monthly reports based on establishment payrolls were 

improved and expanded, incorporating recommendations of the Advisory Committee to the Secretary of Labor. Benchmarking to the biennial Census of Manufactures was finally implemented in 1934 and 

carried out on a regular schedule thereafter. In 1938, State, county, 

and municipal employment was included. Sampling was improved 

both on an industry and regional basis. Between 1933 and 1940, 

coverage increased from 70,000 representative private establishments 

employing 4.5 million workers to 148,000 establishments employing 

8.4 million. By 1939, 17 States were cooperating in obtaining employment and payroll data in manufacturing establishments.

In 1937, in cooperation with the Women’s Bureau, BLS began 

semiannual collection o f separate data for men and women in those 

industries in which large numbers of women were employed. The 

information was analyzed and published by the Women’s Bureau.

In 1940, with the growing defense program, Lubin pointed out 

the likely increase in the employment of women, as in the first World 

War. He called for wider collection and more detailed analysis of the 

employment conditions and earnings of women.58 Regular monthly

164

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Lubin: Meeting Emergency Demands

reporting on the employment of women in manufacturing industries 

was begun in June 1943. Separate turnover figures for women also 

were published.

Defense production programs required the expansion of industry 

coverage and reclassification to take account o f industries manufacturing war materiel such as guns, tanks, and sighting and fire-control 

equipment. Sixty-seven industries were added to the 90 manufacturing industries previously covered. By 1945, reports were received from 

180 industries covering 148,000 establishments and representing 12.5 

million workers. Turnover rates were also compiled and analyzed for 

all employees and for women employees in 125 mining and manufacturing industries.

To aid in dealing with recoversion problems, the Bureau received 

a supplemental appropriation in 1945 permitting collection of data in 

all States for construction of State and area employment estimates 

comparable to the BLS national series. While the program was short 

lived, it served to develop close relationships with State agencies, 

facilitating establishment of the cooperative program that replaced it.59

Throughout the 1930’s, the Bureau sought to provide additional 

measures which would serve as indicators o f overall employment 

trends. Beginning in 1936, two series o f estimates of nonagricultural 

employment were developed. The first, “total civil nonagricultural 

employment," showed the total number of individuals engaged in 

gainful work in nonagricultural industries, including proprietors and 

firm members, self-employed persons, casual workers, and domestic 

servants. The second, “employees in nonagricultural establishments,” 

was limited to employees only. The totals for both series were 

benchmarked to the 1930 Census o f Occupations, with periodic 

adjustments to the various industrial censuses and the newly developed Social Security tabulations. Persons employed on WPA and 

National 'Vbuth Administration projects, enrollees in the Civilian 

Conservation Corps, and members of the Armed Forces were not 

included. Beginning in 1939, similar estimates were prepared for each 

of the 48 States and the District of Columbia.60

Census of unemployment. The Bureau participated in an experimental 

census of unemployment in 1933 and 1934. Along with the Secretary’s Advisory Committee and the Central Statistical Board, the 

Bureau provided professional direction for a trial household census in

165

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

three cities. The Central Statistical Board set up an interdepartmental 

committee, chaired by Lubin, to supervise the study, which was con' 

ducted with resources provided by the Civil Works Administration. 

W hile the results were not published, the study was significant for its 

trailblazing application o f methods by which the theory of sampling 

could be used under practical conditions for developing Federal economic and social statistics. The experience gained was to influence the 

development of techniques for measuring unemployment61

Although the Advisory Committee recommended that the 

Bureau be responsible for unemployment estimates, later developmental work was carried on by the WPA, which, in 1940, initiated a 

national monthly sample survey o f households, “The Monthly Report 

o f Unemployment** Drawing on an innovation in the 1940 census, 

the survey made use o f a new concept—the “labor force**—in place of 

the earlier “gainful workers’* concept The new concept included only 

persons who were actually working or seeking work; formerly, persons who had had a paid occupational pursuit were included whether 

or not they were at work or seeking; work at the time of the survey.62

The Bureau contrasted the new series with its own nonagricultural employment series. It viewed the latter as providing “a means of 

throwing into proper perspective the significant fluctuations in basic 

industrial and business employment, where changes are measured 

currently with a high degree o f accuracy. ** The WPA monthly sample 

survey of individual households, on the other hand, was viewed as the 

only satisfactory method o f directly measuring the fluctuations in the 

size of the labor force and in unemployment, including in the employment total agricultural workers and such temporary and casual 

employment as the summer vacation employment of students not 

caught directly by BLS reporting techniques.63

With the termination o f the WPA in 1942, the Bureau of the 

Budget transferred the work to the Census Bureau, which continued 

to publish the results, retided the “Monthly Report on the Labor 

Force,** until 1959, when responsibility for the survey was turned over 

to BLS.

Labor requirements studies. In association with its work in obtaining 

reports of employment and payrolls from contractors involved in the 

vast system o f Federal public works projects, the Bureau obtained 

monthly reports o f all expenditures for materials by the Federal Gov166

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June 27, 1884.

CHAP. 127—An act to establish a Bureau of Labor.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House o f Representatives o f the United

States o f America in Congress assembled, That there shall be established 

in the Department of the Interior a Bureau of Labor, which shall be 

under the charge of a Commissioner of Labor, who shall be appointed by 

the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The 

Commissioner of Labor shall hold his office for four years, and until his 

successor shall be appointed and qualifed, unless sooner removed, and 

shall receive a salary of three thousand dollars a year. The Commissioner 

shall collect information upon the subject of labor, its relation to capital, 

the hours of labor, and the earnings of laboring men and women, and the 

means of promoting their material, social, intellectual, and moral prosperity. The Secretary of the Interior upon the recommendation of said 

Commissioner, shall appoint a chief clerk, who shall receive a salary of 

two thousand dollars per annum, and such other employees as may be 

necesary for the said Bureau: Provided, That the total expense shall not 

exceed twenty-five thousand dollars per annum. During the necessary 

absence of the Commissioner, or when the office shall become vacant, 

the chief clerk shall perform the duties of Commissioner. The Commissioner shall annually make a report in writing to the Secretary of the Interior of the information collected and collated by him, and containing 

such recommendations as he may deem calculated to promote the efficiency of the Bureau.

Approved, June 27, 1884

On June 27, 1884, President Chester A. Arthur signed the bill

establishing a Bureau of Labor in the Department of the Interior.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
William H. Sylvis, president of the iron

molders union, first set the goal of establish -

ing a national labor bureau at the 1867

convention of the National Labor Union.

Representative James H. Hopkins of

Pennsylvania sponsored the bill establishing the Federal Bureau during the

Presidential election year of 1884.

Terence V. Powderly, as Grand Master

Workman of the Knights of Labor, campaigned for establishment of a national

bureau and sought the post of Commissioner.

Samuel Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor, counseled with

and supported the Bureau while leading the

fight to establish the Department of Labor.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Carroll D. Wright, Commissioner, Charles P. Neill, Commissioner, 1905-13

1885-1905

Kellogg Building, first home National Safe Deposit Building,

of the Bureau of Labor home for 20 years, 1890-1910

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
G. W.W Hanger, Acting Commissioner, Royal Meeker, Commissioner, 1913-20

1913

BLS administration and finance office, 1920

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Ethelbert Stewart, Commissioner, 1920-32 Charles E. Baldwin, Acting Commissioner,

1932-33

Department of Labor Building, 1917-35

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
lsador Lubin, Commissioner, 1933-46 A. Ford Hinrichs, Acting Commissioner,

1940-46

BLS tabulating room, about 1935

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Lubin and Senator O ’Mahoney opening hearings

of Temporary National Economic Committee, 1938

Top BLS staff, July 1946

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Ewan Clague, Commissioner, 1946-65 Aryness Joy Wickens, Acting Commissioner,

1946 and 1954-55

Clague explains chart on wholesale prices.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Faith Williams (second from left),

Chief of the Office of Foreign Labor Conditions,

meeting with Swedish statistical group, 1950’s

BLS tabulating room, 1950’s

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Arthur M. Ross, Commissioner, 1965-68

Ben Burdetsky, Acting Commissioner, 

1968-69 and 1973

Geoffrey H. Moore, Commissioner,

1969-73

Julius Shiskin, Commissioner, 1973-78

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Janet L. Norwood, Acting Commissioner

and Commissioner, 1978 to present

Norwood presents economic data

to Joint Economic Committee.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTI

U S Dei 

Bureau < 

August 1

relation w c a p ^ n- and ^ raTprospenty^ ^ p te tó d » “ nJ£duc 

men ,a? ‘L Uectuah and S t a t i c s h the pubUc b> P men and tua\, and m s ta tis t^ d the PubU„^ployment 

eC°r ^ « \th , i_\î/* nroerams and P Bureau » ^ « h i c h Pla S S S i , pubUc p r o e m s and pn

ment

payment^ BureaU

'« f p i a t i s t i « ’ _, fnr umely and a« the n! Cthe Bureau B ** * ia\ statistics' Whereas « * omic and soc'a e pubhc ne

J S ± L the Bureau me?. data in ^ " leader *» « S ^ u meets tue £ the ^ Æ m *

^ m a S n ^

S S S a f t O S * 1 m— ^ - J - * '

V -W '1“ * „ a d

re^^fronic services: the Bureau Bas

f§5 5 ^ ^ ^ * i

ReS°nTArnerlca StaÎ^ m e n d a tioSHW*" 1

the es

the Nation

— ■'------ ^ 1 — ^

, « X " APPROVED

JUL - 9

Q

Commemorating the centennial, Congress recognized the contributions

of the Bureau of Labor Statistics with a Joint Resolution,

featured on the cover of the Monthly Labor Review for August 1984.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Lubin: Meeting Emergency Demands

emment or government contractors, in order to estimate the employment created by such public expenditures. O ut of this developed 

studies of the indirect labor involved in the fabrication of certain basic 

materials, including steel, cement, lumber and lumber products, and 

bricks. Other studies covered the electrification of the Pennsylvania 

Railroad, several power projects, and houses constructed by the Tennessee Valley Authority.84 The records of almost 40,000 federally 

financed construction projects completed between 1935 and 1940 

were analyzed to determine the types and cost of labor and materials 

required to carry out a given dollar volume of construction contracts. 

The techniques developed in these studies proved useful in projecting 

labor requirements for planned expenditures for defense facilities.65

Occupational outlook studies. The defense effort also spurred the 

establishment of the Bureau’s occupational oudook program. The 

original impetus came from the recommendation, in 1938, of President Roosevelt’s Advisory Committee on Education that an occupational outlook section be set up in the Bureau to provide information 

to aid in career counseling. In 1940, under congressional authorization, the Occupational Outlook Service was established.

Soon, however, it was occupied with developing projections of 

manpower supply and needs for defense industries, including the 

aircraft industry. Calling attention to the need for authentic information on demand and supply of certain labor skills Mto avoid all sorts of 

wild schemes which we may not be able to forestall and which may 

later rise to plague us,” Lubin indicated that the recently authorized 

funds for occupational outlook investigations could be used legitimately for this purpose. In mid-1940, at Sidney Hillman’s request, the 

President asked Congress to provide the Bureau with an additional 

$150,000 for the development of data on occupational skills needed by 

private industry in meeting military procurement needs.66

After the war, the occupational outlook program began to revert 

to its original function—studies for the guidance of young people. 

With demobilization, requests for oudook information came from the 

Army, the Navy, the Office of Education, and others. The Veterans 

Administration called on the Bureau for appraisals of the employment 

outlook for use in counseling veterans at its guidance centers. The 

Bureau developed analyses of over 100 occupations. Studies were also 

made of the occupational realignments during the war, which were

167

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

used in planning the demobilization of the 11 million members of the 

Armed Forces and the 12 million workers in the munitions industries.

Research on postwar employment problems. The study of postwar labor 

problems was begun as early as 1941, when the House Appropriations 

Committee provided funds for research on the provision of jobs for 

workers displaced from war production. A division for research on 

postwar problems was established in the Bureau, which initially conducted studies of the impact of the war effort on employment in 

individual localities and industries. Subsequently, in the study of postwar full employment patterns, a major technical innovation—the 

“input-output” concept—was utilized. This involved the study of 

interindustry relationships throughout the economy in 1939, the last 

year before the expansion of munitions production. Funded by the 

Bureau, the work was conducted at Harvard University in 1942 and 

1943 under Wassily Leontief and was then transferred to Washington. 

The input-output tables and techniques were utilized in developing 

both wartime attack targets and subsequent reparations policies for 

Germany; for estimates of postwar levels of output and employment in 

U .S. industries; and to forecast capital goods demand. The results of 

the program were published in 1947 as Full Employment Patterns,

1950. The study spread knowledge of the input-output concept within 

the government.67

Productivity and technological change

In 1935, the Bureau applied to the WPA for funds to conduct studies 

of productivity in 50 industries. The American Federation of Labor 

supported the proposal as filling a gap which had been experienced in 

developing the NRA codes and as necessary in collective bargaining 

for dealing with the problem of technological unemployment.68 At 

about the same time, the WPA developed its own program. In cooperation with the WPA National Research Project on Reemployment 

Opportunities and Recent Changes in Industrial Techniques, the 

Bureau conducted several labor productivity surveys in important 

industries. By 1939, all of the surveys were completed.

Lubin’s annual report for 1939 stated, “The Bureau expects to 

carry on further researches in the important field of labor productivity, in which it was a pioneer.”69 This resolve was underscored when, 

at the urging of the unions, Congress authorized the Bureau to “make

168

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Lubiti: Meeting Emergency Demands

continuing studies of labor productivity” and appropriated funds for 

the establishment of a Productivity and Technological Development 

Division, which was organized at the start of 1941. One of its earliest 

activities was to update the indexes constructed by the National 

Research Project.

During the war years, the division maintained annual indexes of 

productivity for some 30 industries and compiled collateral information on technological developments and other factors affecting 

employment and production in various industries. It provided information on technological developments in a monthly summary for the 

use of U .S. agencies and those of allied governments. Industrial establishments in 31 war industries were surveyed on the extent of absenteeism, with a monthly series continued for almost 2 years. Also, in 

the face of shortages, surveys of productivity were made in the rubber 

and gasoline industries.

Industrial safety and health

Compilation of data on the frequency and severity of industrial injuries had begun in 1926. When Lubin became Commissioner, about 

1.4 million workers in 7,000 establishments were being covered. By 

1944, 57,000 establishments were reporting annually. The much larger 

volume of reports was still being handled by the same number of staff 

members as in 1926; the enlarged coverage was made possible by 

radical changes in the methods of collecting and processing the data.

The impact of industrial accidents on war production, with the 

resultant loss of manpower, produced demands for more current 

information. The annual schedule on which reports had been issued 

previously could not meet this need. In 1942, the Bureau undertook 

to collect and publish monthly data on injuries in almost 10,(XX) 

establishments in industries of particular wartime importance. These 

were used by government agencies to pinpoint the plants and industries with high accident rates.

Several special studies were conducted during the war, including 

an examination of the effect of long work hours on efficiency, output, 

absenteeism, and accidents. A study of operations at the Frankford 

Arsenal in 1941 showed that, when extended hours required exertion 

beyond the normal physical strength of the workers, there were more 

accidents, greater spoilage of material, greater turnover, and decidedly

169

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

less production in the extended hours than in the regular hours.70 

Further studies were made in 1943 and 1944.

The Bureau conducted detailed studies of accidents in the 

foundry, longshoring, and slaughtering and meatpacking industries. 

The Bureau’s data were made available to the Department’s Labor 

Standards Division, and to the Maritime Commission for safety drives.

Administration

Funding

The Bureau grew substantially under Lubin’s direction. When he 

took over in 1933, the Bureau’s budget had just been reduced in a 

govemmentwide economy drive. Emergency funds made up for a 

further reduction in the regular budget in 1934. In succeeding years, 

congressional appropriations and funds transferred from other agencies permitted expansion and improvement of the Bureau’s programs. 

By 1941, the regular budget had increased to over $1 million, more 

than double its level in 1934, and the staff had grown from 318 fulltime employees to 810 (690 in Washington and 120 in the field).

There was a large increase in funding for the Bureau’s activities 

during the war (table 5). Between 1942 and 1945, Bureau resources 

doubled, and at one point the number of full-time employees totaled 

almost 2,000. Congress maintained the regular appropriation for salaries and expenses at close to the prewar level but granted supplemental and national defense appropriations. In 1945, the Bureau received 

funds to expand its regional offices for the collection of State employment and payroll data comparable with national figures and also to 

cover occupational wage studies previously financed by the National 

War Labor Board. Both o f these activities were terminated in 1946, 

however, when Congress failed to provide further funding.

A s the war neared an end, the Bureau began planning for a 

reduction in its operations, and by 1946 had cut its staff by about 12 

percent from the wartime peak. Supplemental appropriations, granted 

for expansion of work on foreign labor conditions, industrial relations, and productivity, partially made up for the reduction in wartime 

funds.

170

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Lubin: Meeting Emergency Demands

Table 5. Funding for Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1934-46

(in thousands)

Fiscal year ended

June 30 —

Total1 Salaries and expenses

Regular N ational defense

1934 $ 440 $ 414

1935 2949 528 -

1936 zl,284 885 -

1937 2,529 850 -

1938 1,114 784 -

1939 1,999 814 -

1940 3,215 1,012 _

1941 3,103 1,108 -

1942 2,677 1,081 $288

1943 4,292 1,207 1,001

1944 4,463 1,312 1,365

1945 5,507 1,312 2,672

1946 5,435 1,492 2,781

'Includes special and w orking funds in addition to appropriations for 

salaries and expenses.

in c lu d e s special appropriation for revision o f the cost-of-living index.

SOURCE: The Budget o f die United States Government.

Staff

In the early days of the New Deal, the Bureau found itself without , 

adequate staff to meet the vastly increased demand for data. When the 

National Recovery Administration called upon the Bureau for information needed to develop and assess the industry codes, personnel 

had to be detailed from inside and outside the Department. As Secretary Perkins stated at an appropriation hearing in 1933, “The Bureau 

of Labor Statistics has turned itself inside out in order to get this 

information and to make it available. . . in a form that was easily 

understood and readily used by people who had the responsibility of 

taking some action.” Lubin added that every labor group involved in 

any NRA code had had to go to the Labor Department for information.71

Lubin indicated the lengths to which ingenuity had to be applied 

to make up for the shortage of staff: “I do not want to appear to boast, 

but I think I am one of the few officials who have actually gone out 

and borrowed people from other departments of the Government and

171

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

put them to work during their spare time getting materials for which 

we would otherwise have to pay.**72

In appropriation requests and in public statements, Lubin 

stressed the need to improve the professional qualifications of the 

Bureau’s staff and to establish professional job categories at adequate 

levels to assure recruitment and retention of such personnel. He 

pointed out that he was the only trained economist on the Bureau’s 

staff. The work of the Bureau’s “highly efficient technical statisticians,” he wrote the House Appropriations Committee, required the 

addition of economists to permit full analyses of the current economic 

problems facing the country.73

Lubin was always on the alert for capable staff. He brought into 

the Bureau persons of outstanding professional capacity who were 

authorities in their fields. M ost had had advanced graduate study at 

top universities. A. Ford Hinrichs, director of Brown University’s 

Bureau of Business Research, came as the Bureau’s Chief Economist; 

Aryness Joy joined the staff from the Central Statistical Board. 

Throughout the period, there was internal training of the staff of a 

quality equal to that in the best American universities.

Lubin encouraged young economists to seek employment in government. Before the American Economic Association, he proselytised 

for the role o f government economists. He contrasted the circumscribed environment o f the academic researcher with the opportunities offered by Federal economic research for breaking down the 

barriers between economics, sociology, and political science.74

As a measure of his success in improving the Bureau’s staff, he

was able to report as early as 1937 that “more liberal appropriations by

a Congress sympathetic with its work made possible a very considerable strengthening of its personnel.”75

O rganization

Lubin made several organizational changes just before he went on 

leave in 1940. To distribute the workload more evenly and reduce the 

pressure on top officials, he reorganized the Bureau into three, rather 

than two, principal areas. The former line positions of Chief Economist and Chief Statistician, each responsible for the activities of all the 

divisions of the Bureau in his field, were altered, with the Chief 

Statistican made a staff position and the other eliminated. Instead, the 

divisions were grouped under three branch chiefs who were to be

172

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Lubin: Meeting Emergency Demands

responsible to the Assistant Commissioner, a new position. The three 

branches were Employment and Occupational Outlook, Prices and 

Cost of Living, and Working Conditions and Industrial Relations. 

During the war, when Hinrichs was Acting Commissioner, the position of Assistant Commissioner was not filled, however, and Hinrichs 

relied on the branch chiefs directly.

Wartime requirements resulted in the establishment of field 

offices. Before 1941, the only full-time field staff were those involved 

in the collection of retail prices. Between December 1941 and mid1942, 8 field offices were established for price collection and 12 for 

wage analysis. All the activities in each region were consolidated under 

one regional director in 1944. Early in 1945, the collection of employment statistics was added to regional office duties, but this was discontinued in 1946 when Congress failed to renew appropriations. By the 

end of the war, the permanent value of the regional offices was well 

established.

Cooperation and consultation

Lubin’s facility for inspiring confidence and gaining cooperation was 

of great value to the Bureau. His open and straightforward approach 

in his dealings with labor and business groups and the press made him 

influential in all of these areas. He maintained personal relationships 

with many corporate executives, and they exchanged views frankly on 

major issues of the day. He was intimately involved in resolving issues 

which might threaten the Bureau’s activities, and, generally, his directness and persuasiveness kept the incidence of such occurrences low.

For example, he played a major role in resolving reporting 

problems arising from the role permitted trade associations by the 

National Recovery Administration. Companies were submitting their 

data directly to these associations, and some were refusing to continue 

to submit reports to the Bureau and other government agencies.76 

When, at Lubin’s request, Secretary Perkins brought the problem to 

the attention of the NRA director General Hugh Johnson, Johnson 

ordered industries under NRA codes to furnish data directly to the 

Bureau and the Federal and State agencies cooperating with the 

Bureau.77

Some industry representatives questioned the order, contending 

that the code authorities—the trade associations—should be 

encouraged to get the information and provide it to the government.

173

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Lubin addressed a meeting of trade association executives and 

explained that direct government collection was necessary in the interest of uniform and timely reporting.78 Further, meeting with representatives of State governments and interested Federal agencies on the 

NRA order, Lubin cautioned on the need for maintaining and 

improving reporting relationships based on the established practices of 

voluntarism and confidentiality in reporting. While “under this order 

we have for the first time legal authority to secure these data,” Lubin 

stated, “we don’t want to use that pow er. .. , we would rather it would 

be a cooperative venture. . . . We have no intention of imposing any 

burdens on them that they couldn’t easily handle. We expect, however, to continue on the old basis of absolute confidence. These data 

are confidential and not to be used for enforcement purposes.”79

In another episode, in January 1936, the Automobile Manufacturers’ Association advised the Bureau that information for individual 

companies in the industry would no longer be furnished directly to 

the Bureau, and that individual plants would not be identified, except 

by a code to make monthly comparisons for individual plants. The 

arrangement was a source of constant irritation to the Bureau.

Lubin wrote the association that he viewed this “as a one-way 

proposition, with the Bureau being placed in the position where it can 

have only what the association says it should have and not what it feels 

it needs for its own use. It seems queer that after 15 years of a 

cooperative relationship with the leading firms in the industry, they 

should suddenly stop giving us reports on their own initiative. It is 

hard for us to believe that they were not specifically told not to give us 

the reports.” He went on to state, “I frankly cannot continue in the 

uncomfortable position I find myself in of warding off questions concerning our automobile figures.” Lubin continued to press the matter.

The problem was finally resolved at the end of 1937, when the 

Automobile Manufacturers’ Association authorized the forwarding of 

the individual reports to the Bureau. “I am sure this arrangement will 

prove to our mutual advantage,” Lubin wrote.80 Through his wide 

contacts with industry executives, he was also able to overcome other 

occasional reporting problems.

Lubin also worked to maintain good relations with labor groups. 

Early in his administration, he asked labor union research staff members to meet with BLS and the Advisory Committee to the Secretary 

of Labor. Relations with union research staff members continued on

174

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Lubin: Meeting Emergency Demands

an informal basis until June 1940, when a formal advisory relationship 

was established.

Perkins and Lubin set the keynote for the relationship. Perkins 

saw this avenue of exchange of information as helping trade unions 

“to make contributions to the . . . solving of the industrial problem 

and the economic problem of the nation as a whole.” Lubin urged the 

importance of continuing the relationship “so that we will have direct 

access to the people who are using our data.”81

Annual conferences were held between 1940 and 1944. A stand' 

ing committee was appointed each year and there were frequent discussions of the concerns of the research directors. The arrangement 

worked satisfactorily under Hinrichs until it came to an abrupt end in 

the midst of the controversy over the costof-living index.

Lubin and Hinrichs depart

Lubin resigned as Commissioner of Labor Statistics in January 1946, 

giving “personal obligations” as his reason for leaving government 

service. President Truman accepted his resignation but stated that he 

would continue to regard him “as a public servant whom I shall feel

free to call upon whenever the occasion warrants___ For 13 years you

have, without hesitation, given of your time and energy to the service 

of your government. You built up the Bureau of Labor Statistics into 

an institution that has commanded the respect of all recognized leaders in the field of economics and statistical science, as well as of labor 

and management throughout the country.”82

Truman shortly appointed Lubin as the U .S. representative to the 

UN Economic and Social Council. In 1955, New Y>rk Governor 

Averell Harriman called on Lubin to serve as State Industrial Commissioner. In 1960, Lubin joined the economics faculty at Rutgers 

University. He served as economic consultant to the Kennedy and 

Johnson administrations, and to the Twentieth Century Fund. Lubin 

died in 1978 at the age of 82.

Ford Hinrichs had continued as Acting Commissioner during 

1945 at the request of Secretary Perkins’ successor, Lewis Schwellenbach. He had considered resigning when press reports cited the 

new Secretary as being critical of BLS, but Schwellenbach denied 

these as inaccurate and persuaded him to stay on. In September 1945,

175

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Schwellenbach indicated he would recommend Hinrichs for the com' 

missionership when Lubin left.83

On Lubin’s resignation the following January, Philip Murray of 

the CIO submitted the name o f Murray Latimer for the commission' 

ership. AFL President William Green and some railway officials also 

supported Latimer. Some press reports indicated that Hinrichs was 

being replaced by a union-supported candidate; the cost-of-living con' 

troversy o f 2 years earlier figured prominently in these stories and 

editorials.8*

There was a groundswell o f support o f Hinrichs from the professional and academic community. Lubin urged Schwellenbach to nominate Hinrichs, advising, “Failure to nominate Hinrichs will, in my 

opinion, be grossly unfair to him as well as an admission by this 

administration that it has no faith in the Bureau.” He also stressed that 

the commissionership had never been considered a political position.85 Wesley Mitchell and Frederick C. Mills reiterated the findings 

of their technical committees on the Bureau’s “highly competent” 

work under Hinrichs on the cost-of-living index, in the face of the 

“extraordinarily difficult” wartime conditions. Mitchell’s description of 

Hinrichs’ performance was characteristic: “His courage in countering 

the criticisms made by the labor union statisticians commanded my 

respect He is a man of rare competence in his field and of rare 

integrity.”86

Hinrichs again considered resigning but, at the urging of the 

Bureau staff, stayed on to avoid serious consequences to the Bureau’s 

budget and operations. Schwellenbach also requested that he stay, 

again stating that his personal preference was to nominate Hinrichs, 

but that this was not immediately possible. In May, Hinrichs indicated 

that he could not appear before the Appropriations Committee in 

support of crucial postwar budgetary actions unless there were assurances that the forthcoming selection of the Commissioner would be 

based on professional competence and not on support by a special 

interest group. Schwellenbach responded in terms proposed by 

Hinrichs, giving “my full assurance that I will not recommend to the 

President the name of any person concerning whose professional 

competence and integrity there will be the slightest doubt, and that 

such recommendation will only be made after consultation with the 

President of the American Economic Association and the American 

Statistical Association.”87

176

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Lubin: Meeting Emergency Demands

O n July 1, 1946, Hinrichs tendered his resignation to Schwellenbach. In it, he noted that he had continued to maintain satisfactory 

informal relations with a number of unions, and that the establish' 

ment of a formal consultation procedure required careful consider' 

ation, one o f the im portant problem s calling for the prompt 

appointment of an excellent Commissioner. In accepting the resigna' 

tion, Schwellenbach acknowledged that Hinrichs’ appointment as 

Commissioner unow is not possible.” He reiterated his assurance of 

the selection of the next Commissioner, “given as the result of firm 

conviction on my part that the Bureau of Labor Statistics shall be free 

and independent and one upon which everyone can rely.”88 A t a press 

conference on his retirement, Hinrichs stressed the importance of 

maintaining the Bureau’s nonpolitical and impartial position: “\bu 

can’t run this organization under any political obligation from the 

outside. The man must be selected from the inside for his ability and 

competence. Later he should be cleared with the unions to be sure he 

enjoys their confidence.”89

The search for the new Commissioner was already underway, 

with Edwin E. Witte of the University of Wisconsin canvassing the 

professional associations regarding the several men under consider' 

ation. By the end of July, there was agreement on Ewan Clague.90

Hinrichs subsequendy served in the Economic Cooperation 

Administration and its successor agencies, as statistical adviser to the 

governments of Pakistan and Taiwan, and, later, as Director of Graduate Business Studies at Syracuse University. He died in 1979.

177

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter VII.

Ewan Clague:

An Expanding Role 

for Economic Indicators

E

wan Clague took office in August 1946, a difficult time for 

the Bureau. The legacy o f wartime controversies, the 

appointment of a new Secretary of Labor, and the departure 

of Lubin and Hinrichs had created a stressful transition. 

Then the sweep of the Republican Party in the fall congressional 

elections brought government budget reductions in which the Bureau 

shared heavily. About 700 of its 1,700 employees had to be dismissed, 

a loss which removed a generation of middle management personnel.

The economy also was undergoing the strains of transition. With 

the end of the war, as workers faced reduced earnings and uncertainty 

over employment prospects, labor-management difficulties mounted, 

leading to the highest strike activity on record in 1946. The onset of 

inflation in 1947 after the removal of price controls intensified the 

economic uncertainty.

New opportunities as well as problems accompanied Clague into 

office. With passage of the Employment Act of 1946, Congress had 

created two agencies—the Council of Economic Advisers in the Executive Branch and the congressional Joint Economic Committee— 

which were to introduce the regular scrutiny of economic indicators

178

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Clague: An Expanding Role for Economic Indicators

to the highest levels of policymaking and thus heighten the importance of the Bureau’s work. Further, the innovative agreement 

between General Motors and the United Auto Workers in 1948 

calling for the use of the Consumer Price Index and productivity 

measures for adjusting wages increased public concern with the 

Bureau’s statistics.

The growing use of statistics for government and private actions 

affecting millions of Americans was the subject of the 1952 presidential address to the American Statistical Association by Aryness Joy 

Wickens, the Bureau’s Deputy Commissioner. She warned that the 

statistical profession was “scarcely prepared, and certainly not organized, to meet the serious responsibilities placed upon us by these new 

uses of statistics.” She contrasted these “awesome” uses with the 

purely descriptive and analytical purposes for which they were created, and called upon the statistical and related professions not merely 

to be competent, fair, and honest, but “to be able to prove to a 

statistically unsophisticated public that, in fact, our statistics are trustworthy.”1

Maintaining public confidence was a paramount consideration for 

Clague as he adapted and extended the Bureau’s programs to meet 

changing needs during his long tenure. Almost immediately upon his 

appointment, he established formal advisory relations with the trade 

unions; contacts with the unions had been curtailed as a result of the 

wartime controversy over the cost-of-living index. And shortly thereafter, following expressions of interest from business organizations, he 

formed a business advisory committee. The committees consisted primarily of technicians in the fields of economics, statistics, and labor 

relations. Clague later suggested that it was through their experience 

with these advisory groups that General Motors and the Auto Workers gained sufficient confidence in the Bureau’s statistics to adopt the 

CPI for wage escalation in 1948.2

Clague’s success in keeping the Bureau’s statistics trustworthy 

was attested by the findings of the various commissions, committees, 

and teams of experts which examined the Bureau during his many 

years in office and upheld the integrity and impartiality of its work.

179

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

The sixth Commissioner

Commissioner Clague came to office as a trained economist and an 

experienced civil servant, an outsider but one with roots and connections in the Bureau. His ties with the Bureau extended back some 20 

years when he had joined the BLS staff to conduct pioneering productivity studies. In the early 1930’s, he had participated in major examinations of Bureau activities, serving on President Hoover’s Advisory 

Committee on Employment Statistics and Secretary Perkins’ Advisory 

Committee to the Secretary of Labor.

Clague was bom in Prescott, Washington, in 1896, the son of 

immigrants from the Isle of Man. He attended the University of 

Washington and, after serving as an ambulance driver during World 

War I, moved on to the University of Wisconsin where he studied 

under John R. Commons. O n Commons’ recommendation, Commissioner Ethelbert Stewart brought him to the Bureau in 1926 to help 

develop productivity indexes.

When that project ended, Clague worked under W.A. Berridge at 

the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. He then joined the Institute of Human Relations at Yale University, where he studied the 

effects on workers of the shutdown of rubber mills in Hartford and 

New Haven. He moved to Philadelphia as Director of Research and 

Professor of Social Research at the Pennsylvania School of Social 

Work. While in Philadelphia, he made a number of studies for the 

Lloyd Committee on Unemployment Relief and the Philadelphia 

County Relief Board.

In 1936, Clague returned to Federal employment, serving first as 

Associate Director of Research and Statistics of the new Social Security Board and then as Director. In 1940, he became Director of the 

Bureau of Employment Security, a post he held until his appointment 

as Commissioner of Labor Statistics.

The Bureau’s role

Clague gave as his first priority for the Bureau in 1947 “maintenance 

of the many recurrent statistical series,” but he also noted the Bureau’s 

continuing responsibility for a wide variety of comprehensive investigations dealing with many phases of American labor and industry.

180

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Clague: An Expanding Role for Economic Indicators

And he referred to the Bureau's role as a special statistical service 

agency for Congress and other government agencies.3

H oover Com m ission

Early in his administration, Clague's view o f the role o f the Bureau 

was affirmed and strengthened by the findings o f the Hoover Commission—the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of 

the Government—established by Congress in 1947. The commission 

was set up to examine the amalgam of emergency agencies and 

expanded programs developed under the New Deal and during the 

war, with the charge to recommend organizational arrangements to 

provide economy, efficiency, and improved service.

The commission called on the National Bureau o f Economic 

Research for a study of the various statistical agencies, which was 

conducted by Frederick C. Mills and Clarence D. Long. Mills and 

Long praised the cooperative program in which the Bureau, the Social 

Security Administration, and the State agencies joined to produce the 

employment statistics. They also spoke well o f the reimbursable work 

the Bureau performed for other agencies which solved some problems 

of overlapping jurisdiction. However, they pointed out duplication in 

other areas and noted the competition between BLS and the Bureau 

of the Census over the monthly report on the labor force.*

The commission generally accepted the recommendations of the 

National Bureau. It called on the Office of Statistical Standards in the 

Bureau of the Budget to designate the responsibilities and fields of 

operation of each of the major special-purpose statistical agencies. 

Census was recommended as the service agency for the primary collection and tabulation o f statistics on a repetitive basis "for which 

highly specialized knowledge o f the subject matter is not required in 

the collection process." For the special role o f BLS, the commission 

recommended transfer to the Bureau o f the "prevailing wage” surveys 

conducted by other agencies in setting the pay o f government bluecollar workers.3

Clague wrote the Under Secretary that the Bureau stood to gain 

from the recommendations and urged that he take action to secure 

the prevailing wage and labor force surveys. O n the other hand, he 

strongly opposed any transfer to Census o f responsibility for collecting statistics on the volume o f construction, rents, or food prices.**

181

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

The Bureau in a growing Department

The Hoover Commission also provided support for the growth of the 

Department of Labor over the following decade. Following the commission’s recommendations to restore lost functions and delegate new 

responsibilities to the Department, Congress transferred three agencies into the Department from the Federal Security Administration— 

the U .S. Employment Service, the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, and the Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board. The 

reorganization also strengthened the Secretary’s authority over all the 

Department’s agencies. Clague supported the reorganization and saw 

it as a formalization of existing operating relationships between the 

Bureau and the Secretary’s office.

Soon after Secretary Mitchell's appointment in 1953, he set up a 

team of consultants to evaluate the Department’s programs, administration, and organization. The team included J. Douglas Brown of 

Princeton University; Clark Kerr of the University of California; Eli 

Ginzburg of Columbia University; and Cyrus Ching, former Director 

of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.

Reporting late in 1954, the consultants made extensive recommendations on the Department's programs. For BLS, they called for 

enhancement of the Bureau's series, increased appropriations for its 

work, and the designation of the Commissioner as the Secretary’s 

chief statistical adviser. But, in commenting on the role of the Bureau 

in the Department, they observed that, while the Bureau devoted 

much of its efforts to the development of statistical materials which 

had some bearing on important departmental programs, “it has also 

proceeded in terms of its history, traditions, and inclinations, with the 

result that much of its work is not closely geared into the major 

programs of the Departm ent”7

For better coordination within the Department, the consultants 

recommended the establishment of a Committee on Statistics and 

Research, to be headed by the Under Secretary. The committee would 

centralize decisionmaking and work towards eliminating duplication 

in statistical work. The committee was established but apparently met 

only twice. Mitchell did make Clague his statistical adviser, as recommended.8

Mitchell gave his own view of the Bureau in an article which 

followed the consultants’ report. He pointed to the “high regard” and 

“fine reputation” which the Bureau had earned with employers, work182

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Clague: An Expanding Role for Economic Indicators

ers, and the general public. But he also stressed that “facts and figures 

must meet the growing needs of the country and the economy” and 

cautioned against “stagnation and self-satisfaction,” concluding, “Our 

goal must be constantly to increase the usefulness of the work of the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics to all our people.”9

A t various times, Department officials suggested the establish' 

ment of a periodical which would absorb the Bureau's periodical, the 

Monthly Labor Review, arguing for a “popular” journal representing all 

the Department’s activities. In 1957, following the report of another 

team of consultants which had stated, “We have encountered frequent 

expressions of hope that the MLR could be made more flexible and 

provocative of new ideas,” George C. Lodge, Director of the Department's Office of Information, proposed recasting the Review as the 

Department’s monthly periodical.10

Clague, expressing the view of the BLS executive staff, opposed 

the proposal on the grounds that it was inappropriate for the Office of 

Information to direct a research joumaL The Under Secretary 

accepted this view while directing that the Review planning board 

include representatives from other agencies in the Department, which 

should be encouraged to publish in the Review. He later established a 

departmental publications committee to set general guidelines and 

provide oversight.11

The issue of making the Review a departmental publication arose 

again in the 1960's during a comprehensive review o f departmental 

publications for reducing costs. In January 1964, Secretary Wirtz 

advised the Director of the Bureau of die Budget, “The Monthly Labor

Review, heretofore a BLS publication, is being made a departmental 

publication.” The move, he said, would save money by eliminating 

pressure for new periodicals and facilitating the consolidation of 

existing releases and reports.12

Assistant Secretary Daniel Patrick Moynihan, as chairman of the 

Department’s advisory committee on publications, pursued the idea 

through various formulations. In December 1964, he reported to the 

Secretary's staff meeting that “a new proposal” had been developed 

“for transfer of the Monthly Labor Review" to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Planning and Research. The Review, Moynihan argued, had become too closely associated with BLS and faced the 

danger of humming isolated from the rest o f the Department.1^

183

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Clague successfully opposed such a shift, charging that it would 

ruin the Review’s reputation for objectivity, as it would become a 

policy and program organ for the Department. He did accede, however, to the creation o f an expanded planning and advisory committee 

to counsel the Commissioner and the editor.

Meanwhile, the Department was expanding as Congress, concerned with manpower and labor relations issues in the late 1950’s, 

passed the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act in 1958 and the 

Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act in 1959—legislation 

for which the Bureau had conducted much of the early research. To 

administer the 1959 act, the Department created the Bureau of Labor 

Management Reports. BLS proposed a broad program of labor-management research, but the Commissioner of the new bureau decided 

instead to encourage private research by universities, a position from 

which BLS could not move him.14

In 1962, when the establishment of the Labor-Management Services Administration was under consideration in Secretary Arthur J. 

Goldberg’s term, Clague again asserted the Bureau's role in basic 

factfinding in the field o f labor-management relations. Later on, the 

Bureau was called upon for support services on a reimbursable basis.15

The formation of new agencies within the Department aroused 

heated controversy over jurisdiction, especially after the creation of 

the Office of Manpower, Automation, and Training and passage of the 

Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962. In 1963, Clague 

put the issue in stark terms. In referring to a draft of a departmental 

order establishing the Manpower Administration, he expressed the 

belief that BLS “has a most vital role to play in making certain that the 

new organization operated successfully” but that the proposed order 

“appears to be an attempt to restrict severely the role of this Bureau.” 

Continuing, he posed the choice: The new agency could be primarily 

a coordinating and promotional organization or it could combine 

coordination with substantive research responsibilities. If the Department chose the latter, he argued, it faced the prospect that the agency 

would arrogate to itself “functions, personnel, and budget to the 

detriment of other Bureaus in the Department.”16

A s Robert J. Myers, Clague's Deputy Commissioner, described it 

later, the discussions resulted in an improved, although not entirely 

satisfactory, statement of BLS responsibilities. The establishment in 

1964 of the Coordinating Committee on Manpower Research “has

184

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Clague: An Expanding Role for Economic Indicators

been quite useful in resolving jurisdictional questions and other 

problems that have arisen.” Congress also had become concerned 

about jurisdictions, and a subcommittee of the House Appropriations 

Committee asked for a comprehensive statement from the Department. In February 1964, in “Programs in Manpower Research and 

Statistics,” the Department laid out the responsibilities of the various 

agencies.17

With the launching of the “war on poverty” in 1964, the Department again gained new responsibilities, To meet the policy and administrative needs of the poverty programs, it called on the Bureau for 

data on the characteristics of the unemployed and the nature and 

extent of poverty. The Department considered cutting funds for the 

Bureau’s regular programs, presumably without eliminating “absolutely essential economic data,” to provide the resources for concentrating on the problem of unemployment.18 The Bureau did establish 

an Office of Economic Research to examine such social issues as 

poverty and the condition of minorities. The office contributed substantially to Assistant Secretary Moynihan’s much publicized report 

on the Negro family.

In 1965, the Department proposed another survey of BLS administrative procedures and programs. Clague asked for emphasis on the 

program aspect of the study, stressing that, for many years, the Bureau 

had faced competing demands from the Department of Labor, other 

Federal agencies, Congress, and the general public. The strain on the 

Bureau’s resources had been intensified, Clague stated, by employment ceilings and limitations on average salaries and the number of 

supervisory personnel.19

A study was conducted by the management consultant firm of 

Booz-Allen and Hamilton, who later reported that Department officials had become “quite critical of the Bureau’s capacity to respond to 

current economic and manpower problems and to supply innovative 

program ideas for their solution.” Therefore, the report called for a 

“thoroughgoing examination of the Bureau with the objective of 

bringing its product more in line with the thrust and emphasis of 

current lines of social and economic advance.”20

The climate within the Department at the time is suggested by 

Secretary Willard Wirtz’s final report, for fiscal 1968, which provided 

an assessment of the Department’s policies, programs, and administration over his 5-year term. The activist emphasis in the manpower

185

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred "Years

program is evident in the following excerpt from his report: “Infinitely 

more than before, most of the gain was atmospheric, attitudinal: 

reflected in the identification of a 'manpower program’ instead of an 

‘employment service,’ in attacking not just ‘unemployment’ (as an 

economic fact) but ‘poverty* (which is human) and in striking (even if 

only for one administrative generation) the phrase ‘labor market* from 

the Department lexicon. It was, in any event, the unifying and dignify' 

ing theme in the history of the Department of Labor, 1963 to 1968, 

that wage earners—and those seeking that status—are people. Not 

statistics, not drones.**21

Wirtz’s appraisal of the administration of the Department also 

commented on the relationship between the “two governments’* in 

the Federal Executive Branch—the political and the professional. It 

concluded: “(1) that a stronger central executive authority over both 

‘policymaking* and ‘operations’ was required, and (2) that better com' 

munications had to be developed between the two governments.**

As Wirtz described the communications problem, particularly in 

regard to research activities, “Various efforts to develop a flow of ideas 

and suggestions up the lines have been largely unsuccessful. The 

prevailing notion is still that what is asked for will be supplied, but 

that volunteering anything is not worthwhile. Attempts by the Secretary’s office to draw on the ideas incubating in the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics and in the research unit of the Manpower Administration 

are still disappointing. A first staff draff of testimony for a congressional committee hearing is characteristically sterile. **22

Although these criticisms reflected the dissatisfaction of top policy officials with the Bureau’s stance, and its position in the Department in terms of staff and budget was relatively diminished, the 

Bureau’s reputation for integrity and technical competence was 

secure.

The Bureau’s work

Employment and unemployment statistics

The Bureau had published national employment figures since 1916, 

based on surveys of payrolls of a sample of nonfarm establishments. In 

1945, as part of the reconversion statistics program, the Bureau began 

to develop a national series that would yield estimates for each State. 

In some States, State agencies collected the data; in others, BLS

186

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Clague: An Expanding Role for Economic Indicators

regional offices compiled the figures. All the data were sent to Washington for construction of the national series.

However, with the budget cuts of 1947, the Bureau shifted to 

complete compilation by State agencies under cooperative agreements. 

By 1949, all States were participating. BLS provided the technical 

guidance and standards and reimbursed the State agencies for half the 

direct personnel cost of the program. The Bureau of Employment 

Security also shared in the cost. In 1954, the program took over from 

the Federal Reserve Board the preparation of seasonally adjusted estimates of employment.23

Another source of data on employment was the monthly survey 

of the labor force, a survey of households which the Census Bureau 

had conducted since 1942. This survey, unlike the payroll survey, 

provided a direct measure of unemployment as well as employment. 

Increasingly, the publication and analysis of data from these two 

surveys, differing in concept and method, caused confusion and controversy. The substantial rise in unemployment in 1953 focused attention on the lack of coordination between the different agencies 

responsible for the figures. The matter came to a head when the 

Census Bureau had to reduce and restructure its survey program 

because of a cut in funds, and discrepancies cropped up even between 

its own new and old unemployment figures.

Noting these difficulties, the American Federation of Labor urged 

that BLS be given responsibility for the unemployment count, concluding, “We believe issuance by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of a 

single figure based upon statistically sound procedure will restore 

confidence in the measurement of unemployment and bring to an end 

the present uncertainty.” The Joint Economic Committee called for 

better coordination and the Council of Economic Advisers also 

expressed concern. The confusion contributed to the formation of the 

Federal Statistics U sers’ Conference.24

The controversy also gave momentum to efforts to issue a joint 

monthly news release, a course urged, for example, by Wickens and 

Clague in February 1954. Secretary of Labor Mitchell and Secretary of 

Commerce Weeks agreed to a unified release, planned with the assistance of the Council of Economic Advisers and the Bureau of the 

Budget. The new report on employment and unemployment appeared 

in May 1954 with data for April. For the next 5 years, representatives

187

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

of BLS, the Bureau of Employment Security, and the Census and 

Budget Bureaus met monthly to produce the release.25

Also in 1954, the Bureau moved to establish a Federal-State 

cooperative program for labor turnover statistics. For a number of 

years, BLS had published a national series based on turnover rates for 

selected industries which reported directly to the Bureau. Under the 

new agreements, as in the employment statistics program, the State 

agencies collected the data and transmitted the figures for the national 

series to BLS; BLS provided guidance and money; and the Bureau of 

Employment Security also allocated funds. The system proved popular, producing figures useful in both analysis and operations, and 

within 10 years all States were participating.

The recession of 1957-58 again stirred criticism of the occasional 

divergence of the figures of the various agencies in the unemployment 

release, and, in 1959, BLS finally achieved a long-sought goal. Secretary Mitchell negotiated an exchange between BLS and Census in 

which BLS gained responsibility for financing and analyzing the 

household survey (Current Population Survey) and publishing the 

results, while Census took over the BLS surveys on housing and 

construction activity.26 Census continued to conduct the Current 

Population Survey under a contract with BLS. That same year, BLS 

instituted a formal press conference to release the monthly employment and unemployment figures.

With recurrent recessions, pressure mounted for a reexamination 

of the whole program of employment and unemployment statistics. In 

November 1959, the AFL-CIO complained that part-time and discouraged workers did not appear in the monthly totals and that, 

moreover, a national figure masked conditions in the severely 

depressed areas. In May 1960, Senator Gale W. McGee of Wyoming, 

speaking for the Senate Special Committee on Unemployment 

Problems, supported the BLS request for increased appropriations to 

expand surveys and conduct studies, citing the need for data on parttime and discouraged workers; on frictional, structural, and cyclical 

causes of unemployment; on the composition of the labor force; and 

on the effect of foreign trade on employment.27

Unemployment became a major issue in the 1960 election campaign. When organized labor and the Democrats blamed the incumbent Republicans for the high rate, Secretary Mitchell responded by 

pointing to the record level of employment and arguing that teenagers

188

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Clague: An Expanding Role for Economic Indicators

and those idled for short periods added considerably to the count of 

unemployed. Both Senator Henry M. Jackson of Washington, chair' 

man of the Democratic National Committee, and George Meany, 

president of the A FL'CIO , asked the Department to release the October figure before the general election. Mitchell refused, saying that the 

normal schedule would call for a later release date.2®

However, the October unemployment figure did became public 

before the election. Bernard D. Nossiter, writing in The Washington

Post on November 3, 1960, noted that, in fact, in 1954, 1956, and 

1958, President Eisenhower had announced favorable figures before 

the voting. Then Nossiter stated—correctly, as it turned out—that 

unemployment had reached 6.4 percent, the highest since the recession year of 1958.29

Clague promised a review of procedures “to develop better ways 

of keeping the confidentiality of the data under better control.” And, 

during 1961, the Department began announcing the release dates for 

each month a year in advance.3®

With unemployment mounting to almost 7 percent in 1961, Secretary of Labor Arthur J. Goldberg proposed various legislative programs to deal with the unemployment problem, focusing even more 

attention on the BLS figures. In the fall of 1961, Reader’s Digest

published an article accusing the Department of manipulating the 

data, charging that the Bureau exaggerated the figures to build support 

for the legislative agenda.31 This prompted the Joint Economic Committee to call hearings and moved President Kennedy to establish the 

President’s Committee to Appraise Employment and Unemployment 

Statistics. Under the chairmanship of Robert A. Gordon of the University of California, the committee made an extensive study of technical and program issues, including concepts and definitions, sampling, 

seasonal adjustment, State and local statistics, labor force dynamics, 

and comparison and reconciliation of the various series.

The Gordon Committee report, Measuring Employment and

Unemployment, was issued in 1962. On the charge of manipulation, 

the committee "unanimously and categorically concluded that doubt 

concerning the scientific objectivity of the agencies responsible for 

collecting, processing, and publishing employment and unemployment statistics is unwarranted.’’ The committee commended the 

Bureau for its policy of publishing release dates in advance, but it also 

called for a sharper distinction between the release of the statistics,

189

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

with technical explanation and analysis, and policy-oriented comment, 

stressing the need to “publish the information in a nonpolitical context.”32

For the household survey, the Gordon Committee also recommended implementation of sharper definitions and collection of more 

data on persons not in the labor force. It suggested developing questions to determine if a person had taken specific jobseeking steps 

within a definite time period and that BLS publish data on those 

working part time and whether that was voluntary.

For the establishment survey, the committee called for improvements in the benchmark data, strengthened sampling techniques, and 

preparation of estimates of standard error. In addition, the committee 

urged improvement of State and local statistics and development of 

job vacancy and occupational employment series.33

In January 1963, BLS and the Bureau of the Census added questions to the Current Population Survey designed to refine information 

concerning family relationships and availability for part-time work. In 

addition, BLS and Census undertook several research programs to 

develop and test other proposed changes.

Early in 1963, following up on the committee recommendation 

for a greater separation between technical explanations and policyoriented comment, the Department announced that Bureau professionals would release the figures and that administration officials 

would make separate political statements.

Clague was obliged to protest to Secretary Wirtz on several occasions when President Johnson commented on favorable employment 

figures before their official release. On one such occasion, Gardner 

Ackley, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, wrote members of the White House staff urging them to avoid “accidental premature” release and to respect the BLS procedures as recommended by 

the Gordon Committee, thus avoiding any political implications.3*

Job vacancy statistics

Beginning in the 1950’s, BLS conducted several studies to determine 

the feasibility of collecting statistics on job vacancies—twice at the 

urging of Arthur Bum s, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. In 1956, the Bureau surveyed about 100 plants to determine 

whether such information was available. Since only six were maintaining job vacancy data, it was found impractical to initiate a program.35

190

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Clague: An Expanding Role for Economic Indicators

In the early 1960’s, Bum s returned to the idea, supported by a 

recommendation from the Gordon Committee, and in 1964 the 

Bureau again undertook feasibility studies. Clague personally surveyed 

programs in Israel and Great Britain, and the Division of Foreign 

Labor Conditions investigated reporting systems in Great Britain, the 

Netherlands, West Germany, and Sweden. In the summer of 1964, 

Secretary Wirtz proposed to the President and received approval for a 

series of pilot surveys on job vacancies in 20 labor market areas. BLS 

cooperated with the Bureau of Employment Security and State agencies to conduct the surveys, after which it concluded that collection 

was feasible and technical problems could be solved.36

The National Bureau of Economic Research and the National 

Industrial Conference Board actively supported the effort with their 

own conferences and projects. However, some criticisms of the program were voiced. The Bureau of the Budget, for example, objected to 

the combining of operating and statistical programs, the increased 

reporting burden on employers, and the high cost and hasty planning.37

The BLS Business Research Advisory Committee pointed to difficulties in establishing objective definitions and in obtaining accurate 

reports from employers and strongly opposed collaboration with the 

Bureau of Employment Security. The BLS Labor Research Advisory 

Committee expressed similar concern for defining terms and concepts 

and argued that vacancy statistics would be misused to “deflate” unemployment figures. The AFL-CIO opposed increased appropriations for 

the program, calling instead for continued research and investigation 

at the current level of funding.38

Secretary Wirtz responded to the allegation that the program 

provided “a device to centralize control of all job hiring in the U .S. 

Employment Service or to police compliance with Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964.” He stated that workers would be referred to 

employers only in response to a specific request, as in the past. The 

program, as Wirtz expressed it, had only one purpose—“to help 

reduce the still-too-high burden of unemployment on all sectors of 

our society.”39

The request to expand the program was not approved by Congress, but the Bureau continued the experimental program and 

explored additional techniques.

191

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Labor force studies

The many demands for new measurements and for improvements in 

concepts and methodology reflected increasing concern for man' 

power, or labor resource, issues. In the mid-1950’s, analysts suggested 

that the traditional cyclical problems of the economy were being 

compounded by long-term structural problems of technological 

change and economic dislocation.40 Secretary Mitchell encouraged 

research directed at the changing composition of the labor force, 

particularly the emerging problems of youth. In 1955, the Department 

published Our Manpower Future, 1955-1965, and, in 1960, its sequel, 

Manpower—Challenge of the Sixties. In 1960, the Bureau issued the 

results of a joint study with the Department, School and Early Employment Experiences of Youth. Also, at the request of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, the Bureau updated and expanded 

Employment and Economic Status of Older Men and Women, which it 

had initially published in 1952. Moreover, BLS produced a number of 

studies as part of the Department’s older worker program.41

In addition to its work on youth and older workers, BLS undertook studies of labor resource issues such as job mobility, the secondary labor force, labor surplus areas, and plant closings. Also, in line 

with its responsibility for the Monthly Report on the Labor Force, the 

Bureau began publishing data from the Current Population Survey on 

educational attainment, marital and family characteristics of workers, 

and multiple jobholders, among other topics.42

Meanwhile, at the request of the Armed Forces, the Bureau 

produced two projections of military manpower requirements. It also 

conducted several surveys of personnel resources in the sciences in 

cooperation with the Defense Department. Expanding activities in 

space research and technology, spurred by the Soviet challenge 

embodied in the launching of Sputnik in 1957, increased the demand 

for such information. In 1959, the Bureau joined with the National 

Science Foundation to launch an annual canvass of scientific and 

technical personnel.43

Consumer prices

Soon after the war, as goods reappeared on store shelves, BLS adjusted 

the weights and components of the Consumer Price Index. It also 

revised its calculations of food prices and, during the postwar inflationary surge, conducted special weekly telegraphic surveys of food

192

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Clague: An Expanding Role for Economic Indicators

prices for prompt release. However, as a result of budget cuts in 1947, 

the Bureau dropped a number of cities, eliminated some items, and 

reduced the frequency of pricing.'**

The Bureau was saved from a further slash in its appropriation 

the following year by the General Motors-United Auto Workers contract, which stipulated the use of the Consumer Price Index for wage 

escalation. The importance of the Bureau’s product to stability in this 

crucial industry was apparent even to congressional budget cutters.

In 1949, Congress approved funds for a major revision of the 

CPI. An important feature of the revision was a survey of dwelling 

units to correct for the acknowledged understatement of the rental 

component of the index arising from its failure to cover new units. 

The Bureau of the Budget proposed that BLS contract with the Census Bureau for the fieldwork in the dwelling unit survey, in line with 

the Hoover Commission recommendation that agencies use the Census Bureau to collect primary data. In response, BLS pushed for 

formulation of a govemmentwide policy and posed three specific 

objections: The loss of training experience, the threat to confidentiality, and the delay the change would cause. Department support for the 

BLS position apparently settled the question for 20 years/5

Before the CPI revision was well underway, the outbreak of the 

Korean War and the subsequent rapid inflation required a change in 

the Bureau’s plans. In October 1950, to avoid a repetition of the 

World War II controversy over the use of the CPI in adjusting wages, 

the Bureau announced a program for a temporary revision. It would 

draw on the field surveys already conducted on rents to ensure adequate coverage of new rental units and also on the results of several 

continuing expenditure surveys conducted between 1947 and 1949.

The Bureau held emergency discussions with its labor and business advisory committees, as well as with the American Statistical 

Association’s technical advisory committee to BLS on prices. All 

agreed that the interim revision should produce improvements in the 

index, but there were differences on the particulars. The ASA and the 

business advisers suggested that the interim revised index should be 

linked to the existing series as of January 1950; the labor advisers 

asked for June 1950 and also preferred a more comprehensive revision. The Bureau adopted the January 1950 linking date and issued 

the interim revised indexes in February 1951, reflecting revision of city

193

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

population weights, correction of the rent index, addition of new 

items, and revision of market basket weights.46

Shortly thereafter, in April, the United Electrical, Radio and 

Machine Workers, an unaffiliated union since its expulsion from the 

CIO for Communist domination, issued the “U E Cost of Living 

Index,” threatening a repetition of the World War II cost-of-living 

controversy and disruption of the stabili2ation program. Attacking the 

“fundamental pro-employer, anti-labor character of the BLS index,” 

the U E charged that the BLS index still had the shortcomings alleged 

in the earlier controversy and understated the substantially higher 

price level calculated by the union.47

As a result of the charges, the House Committee on Education 

and Labor established a special subcommittee to study the CPI, under 

the chairmanship of Representative Tom Steed of Oklahoma. The 

subcommittee heard testimony from Bureau officials and a variety of 

government, academic, business, and union representatives, including 

members of the Bureau’s advisory committees. The hearings became a 

comprehensive examination of the development, concepts, construction, and use of the CPI. The relationship between the interim revision and the comprehensive revision was brought out, and there was a 

full discussion of the unresolved issues, including population coverage 

and the treatment of taxes, housing costs, quality changes, and new 

products.

Before the subcommittee issued its report, Soviet delegates to the 

United Nations Economic and Social Council in Geneva attacked the 

CPI, citing the U E report. U .S. delegate and former Commissioner 

Isador Lubin informed the Council of the situation. And Clague, 

writing to Representative Steed, pointed to Communist attacks on 

cost-of-living indexes in several western countries and predicted their 

continued criticism of such measures as part of the “party line.”48

In its report, issued in October 1951, the Steed subcommittee 

noted several technical problems with the CPI and made a number of 

suggestions, including the development of estimates of place-to-place 

differences, annual sample surveys of family expenditures, and direct 

measures of homeowner costs. The report specifically rejected the UE 

criticisms, stating that the index was “the most important single statistic issued by the Government,” meriting “the widespread confidence 

which the users have expressed in it.” It concluded, “It is imperative

194

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Clague: An Expanding Role for Economic Indicators

that adequate financial support be given to the Bureau of Labor Statistics for this work.”49

The Bureau came up against another problem when the time 

arrived to publish the new CPI and discontinue both the "interim 

index” and the “old series.” In January 1953, in issuing the figures for 

December 1952, Clague noted that this was the last appearance of the 

old series, which had been published along with the interim index. 

The AFL, the railroad unions, and a number of manufacturers called 

for continuation of the old series to allow adequate time for parties to 

escalation agreements to convert to the new measure. The UAW, 

however, seeking to reopen the automobile contracts, opposed extension of the old series; the automobile manufacturers supported extension. The dispute finally came to President Eisenhower, who directed 

BLS to carry the old series for another 6 months and provided the 

funds.50

Later in 1953, BLS introduced the revised CPI. It covered a 

modernized market basket and an increased number of items. In 

addition, coverage had been expanded to include small urban places. 

Towns with a population as small as 2,500 were now included in the 

sample of cities priced; previously, no cities with a population under

50,000 had been included.

The treatment of housing costs also had been changed. The 

Bureau previously had used the rent index to approximate all changes 

in the cost of shelter, but, by 1950, 49 percent of the wage-earner and 

clerical-worker families owned their homes—up from 30 percent at 

the time of the previous survey in the 1930’s—and the homes were 

much better equipped with “modem conveniences.” Therefore, the 

Bureau began to measure all items connected with acquisition and 

operation of a home and calculated a housing index.51

The Bureau went to some lengths to make available to the public 

the detailed information from the consumer expenditure survey conducted as part of the revision program. When Congress rejected 

requests for appropriations to publish the results, the Bureau sought 

private financing and secured a grant from the Ford Foundation for 

work by the W harton School, which published 18 volumes of statistical data.52

In 1953, to provide the opportunity for questions and clarification of the monthly CPI data, the Bureau began to hold a formal press 

conference for release of the figures.

195

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

In the late 1950’s, shifting demographic and buying patterns 

prompted renewed criticisms o f the CPI, especially as prices began to 

creep upward. Further, labor disputes in the steel industry, the 1957- 

58 recession, and debates over ‘‘administered” prices all focused attention on the index.53

Business economists, for example, complained that BLS included 

too many luxury items: “Actually, the index represents what the average urban family spends to live, not what it actually costs to supply its 

reasonable needs.” In the process, the critics continued, BLS ignored 

the bargain-hunting and substitution habits of American consumers. 

They pointed to specific problem areas, such as treatment of quality 

change and introduction o f new products.54

In view of these and other concerns—and just as BLS was starting another major revision—the Bureau of the Budget sponsored a 

comprehensive review o f government price statistics by a committee 

of the National Bureau o f Economic Research headed by George J. 

Stigler of the University of Chicago. The committee surveyed the 

Consumer Price Index, the W holesale Price Index, and the Indexes of 

Prices Received and Paid by Farmers, studying such technical aspects 

as weight revision, specification pricing, sampling, and seasonal adjustment. In regard to the CPI, the committee discussed a broad range of 

issues such as the basic concept, population coverage, and treatment 

of quality change, government services, and taxes.55

The committee’s report, issued in 1961, recommended periodic 

weight revisions, increased use o f probability sampling, more prompt 

introduction of new commodities, and more funds for research. The 

committee also advocated restructuring the Wholesale Price Index 

and emphasizing actual transaction prices. As a major field of expansion, the group suggested the need for export and import price 

indexes.

For the CPI, the panel urged inclusion of single persons and 

nonfarm rural workers and renewed the call for development of a 

more comprehensive index for the entire population. Inclusion of 

single persons had been considered by BLS during planning for the 

1953 revision but had been rejected because of the great heterogeneity 

within that population group.56

The committee also recommended additional research on two 

controversial and complex aspects of the CPI. First, it suggested that 

BLS investigate the feasibility of constructing an index based on rental

196

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Clague: An Expanding Role for Economic Indicators

housing units, but representative of owner-occupied houses, which 

could be substituted for the homeownership components introduced 

in the previous revision. This prompted a union economist to argue 

that the homeownership components measured “prices prevailing in 

the marketplace” and that use of a rental equivalent would introduce 

“subjective estimates.”57

The second research area concerned the committee’s recommendation to modify the CPI “in the direction of a welfare index”; that is, 

from the fixed-market-basket concept to the constant-utility or welfare 

or “true cost of living” approach. The committee urged research to 

develop such an approach to account more accurately for the introduction of new products; changes in product quality, consumer tastes, 

and relative prices; and product substitution by consumers. While 

recognizing that the complexities involved might require die production of both the CPI and a “true cost of living” index, the committee 

favored the continuous modification of the CPI to the extent that a 

welfare index could be produced on a monthly basis. Clague and the 

Bureau staff opposed outright any alteration of the CPI fixed market 

basket or replacement by a welfare index. They stressed the necessity 

of maintaining the CPI as a pure price index in view of the many 

purposes it served, arguing that hybridization by shifting toward the 

welfare concept would destroy “the usefulness of the index as an 

acceptable, unambiguous measure of change in consumer prices.” 

However, Clague saw a welfare index, if one could be developed, as 

complementary to the C P I.58

By the time the committee made its report, BLS was deep into its 

revision program, but it did incorporate some of the committee’s ideas 

in the new index issued in March 1964. It expanded population coverage to include single-person families, introduced probability sampling 

techniques in selecting items for pricing, and developed a system for 

measuring sampling error. It also established a division of price and 

index number research. And it returned to many of the unresolved 

issues in planning for the next CPI revision in the late 1960’s.59

The usual local concerns arose during the planning for the 1964 

revision. Writing to Clague in 1960, a top officer of the Department 

pointed to a particular difficulty. Noting that 32 cities would be 

dropped in the new sample, he pointed out that 8 of these were in 

districts which had Congressmen on the appropriations committee. “I 

have explored thoroughly the probability sampling technique, and I

197

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

am not impressed by its purity to the extent that a little practicality 

cannot also be taken into consideration in the selection of cities.” The 

official reminded the Commissioner of “the problems we encountered 

when cities were changed as a result of the last revision.”60

Many letters over the period concerned New Orleans, San Diego, 

Phoenix, Denver, and others. As one response, BLS frequently tried 

to arrange for a local university to continue the work with BLS 

assistance. This avenue was used in responding to requests from 

Scranton and Portland in the early 1960’s, but, after much discussion, 

the Secretary directed BLS to continue those surveys itself.

A t one point, in view of the continuing controversies, Secretary 

Wirtz suggested eliminating all city indexes. In response, Clague noted 

that the national series depended on the city data, in that BLS first 

prepared the city indexes and then combined them to derive the 

national figure. The Commissioner recommended studying the issue 

in planning for the next comprehensive revision.61

Standard budgets

In 1945, the House Appropriations Committee had directed BLS to 

determine the living costs of workers in large cities and the differences 

between cities. In 1948, the Bureau published Workers’ Budgets in the

United States, reporting “a modest but adequate standard of living” for 

families of 4 persons in 34 cities in 1946-47. BLS priced the budget 

several times before discontinuing it in 1951, when the list of goods 

and the quantities had become obsolete.

In 1959, Congress authorized BLS to update its standard budgets. 

The Bureau priced its revised list of articles in the fall of the year in 20 

large cities then included in the Consumer Price Index, publishing 

interim budgets for a city worker’s family and a retired couple in 1960. 

Although based on a new list of commodities, the revisions were 

considered interim because the basic data reflected patterns in the 

1950 consumer expenditure survey, soon to be replaced by the I960- 

61 survey.

In 1963, recognizing the need to examine basic standard budget 

concepts while adjusting to the results of the more recent survey, BLS 

established the Advisory Committee on Standard Budget Research 

with representatives from industry, labor, State agencies, and academic 

and private research organizations. Publication of a new and greatly

198

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Clague: An Expanding Role for Economic Indicators

expanded series began in 1966 with City Worker’s Family Budget (Bub 

letin 1570'l).62

Wholesale prices

During Clague’s tenure, the Bureau regularly produced three measures of price movements in primary markets—the comprehensive 

monthly index, a weekly estimate of trends in the monthly series, and 

a daily commodity index. The Bureau completely revised the monthly 

program in 1952 and changed weights in 1955, 1958, and 196L BLS 

had introduced the daily data for the Treasury Department during the 

1930’s and developed them into a series covering 28 commodities. 

With the 1952 revision, it issued a new series reporting prices for 22 

items, either raw materials or commodities very close to the initial 

stage of production.63

In February 1952, BLS issued a revised Wholesale Price Index. 

Assisted by the advisory committee of the American Statistical Association, the Interagency Price Committee of the Bureau of the Budget, 

and its own business research advisory committee, the Bureau more 

than doubled the number of commodity series and shifted the base 

period from 1926 to an average of 1947-49. In the process, BLS added 

new major groups, split other groups into their component parts, and 

added new special-purpose indexes.

During the 1950’s, BLS twice developed industry-sector price 

indexes—in 1953 as part of the input-output project and in 1959 for 

the Census Bureau.

In its 1961 report, the Stigler Committee criticized the Wholesale 

Price Index as having a universe that was never clearly defined, with 

ease of collection a major determinant of which prices to include. To 

provide a more meaningful concept for economic analysis, the committee proposed a revision to achieve three major objectives: To cover 

every important sector of the economy dealing in commodities; to 

provide maximum detail in price reporting; and to develop price 

indexes for the subgroups of commodities most useful in economic 

analysis. After the Stigler Committee recommendation, BLS launched 

a program to develop a time series of industry prices.64

Wages and industrial relations

For many decades, BLS had conducted studies of wage rates by occupation and industry, but experience during World War II emphasized

199

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

the need for local labor market data. Thus, after the war, industry 

surveys gave greatly increased attention to local area information. 

Following the budget cuts o f 1947, however, BLS severely reduced the 

number of industry surveys and restructured the program to produce 

two types of surveys: The longstanding industry surveys and a new 

series o f community or area surveys. The industry surveys provided 

data on occupational levels and trends for the Nation as a whole and 

regions, while the community surveys covered several occupations 

common to a number o f industries in a metropolitan area.65

In 1959, the Bureau announced a revamped and enlarged wage 

program. In the industry series, BLS proposed to cover 50 manufacturing and 20 nonmanufacturing industries on a regular cycle. The 

area program, previously limited to about 20 major labor markets, 

would be expanded to 80 areas chosen to represent all Standard 

Metropolitan Statistical Areas.

A stimulus for this expansion was the proposal for a pay comparability program for Federal civil service and postal employees which 

would require national data on white-collar salaries in private industry. An interagency committee established by the Bureau of the Budget concluded that the 80-area survey design was appropriate, and, in 

1960, BLS conducted a survey of professional, managerial, and clerical 

occupations. With the enactment of the Federal Salary Reform Act of 

1962, this National Survey of Professional, Administrative, Technical, 

and Clerical Pay, or "white collar” survey, was used as a basis for 

comparing the pay o f Federal and private sector employees.66

Also as part of the community wage survey program, BLS provided other Federal agencies with information to assist in determining 

rates for blue-collar workers. In the late 1940’s, concerned for duplication among various Federal wage-setting boards, the Bureau of the 

Budget had suggested that BLS serve as the collecting agency in communities where it made wage surveys. State and local governments 

used such data, too.67

The Bureau conducted a number of studies on the effect of the 

Federal minimum wage. After the rate rose from $0.40 to $0.75 per 

hour in January 1950, BLS worked with the Wage and Hour and 

Public Contracts Divisions of the Department on a project to survey 

the economic effects, covering industries such as southern sawmills, 

fertilizer, wood furniture, seamless hosiery, and men’s dress shirts. 

When the rate rose to $1.00 in 1956, the Bureau again cooperated in a

200

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Clague: An Expanding Role for Economic Indicators

study. In the late 1950’s, the two agencies sponsored a broad program 

of industry wage studies as part of a continuing appraisal of minimum 

wage legislation by the Wage and Hour Division and Congress.68

Congress called on BLS for a special study of earnings in retail 

trade to help in determining whether the industry should be covered 

by the Fair Labor Standards Act and, if so, what the minimum rate 

should be. Congress acted to increase the minimum wage but did not 

extend coverage. BLS published the results o f its retail trade survey in 

late 1957.69

Health and other employee benefit plans were a growing area of 

study for the Bureau. During World War II and its aftermath, supple* 

mental or “fringe” benefits increasingly were used to raise workers’ 

pay. Wage controls restricted direct cash increases, and congressional 

failure to raise Social Security contributions prevented the system 

from providing health and other benefits. Therefore, labor unions 

pressed for health and welfare benefits in collective bargaining negotiations.

Early BLS benefit studies were largely descriptive rather than 

statistical. In the late 1940’s, the Bureau conducted several sample 

surveys of health, insurance, and retirement plans as part of a joint 

program with the Social Security Administration and the Public 

Health Service. In 1953, BLS contracted with the National Bureau of 

Economic Research for a feasibility study on supplementary benefits. 

By 1959, the Bureau had worked out technical and conceptual 

problems to begin a program on employer expenditures for supplementary compensation. Starting with individual industries, reports 

later covered all employees in the private nonfarm sector. In the 

1960’s, as benefits continued to grow in importance, the Council of 

Economic Advisers asked for more frequent and detailed surveys. 

With departmental support, BLS put forward a plan to expand and 

refine its program, which was pending on Clague’s retirement.70

In 1959,'when Congress passed the Welfare and Pension Plans 

Disclosure Act, BLS expressed concern over whether the administrative regulations would assign the Bureau “responsibility for the conduct of substantive research in the field of employee benefits and 

pension plans, a responsibility which we now have and exercise in a 

modest way to the benefit of the Department.’’71 Reports filed under 

the act with the Department’s Bureau of Labor Standards provided a 

wealth of information. In cooperation with Labor Standards, BLS

201

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

launched a regular program of sample studies of pension and retire* 

ment plans filed. It also published digests of health and welfare and 

pension plans derived from its industrial relations activities and analyses of collective bargaining agreements.

The provision of information on collective bargaining increased 

during Clague’s tenure. With the rapid increase in prices and wages 

after the war and the need for the most current information on 

collective bargaining developments, the Bureau began to issue a 

monthly report, Current Wage Developments, which listed by company and union the negotiated changes in wages and supplementary 

benefits. In 1953, the list was limited to agreements affecting 1,000 or 

more production and related workers. Beginning in 1954, a statistical 

summary of wage changes was prepared on a quarterly basis to supplement the listing. In 1959, another statistical summary was introduced 

covering changes in wages and benefits in manufacturing for both 

union and nonunion workers.

The Bureau introduced a series of wage chronologies in 1948, 

each providing detailed information on changes in wages and benefits 

of a specific company and union, whether through collective bargaining or unilateral management decisions. During the Korean emergency, the Wage Stabilization Board found these and the Current

Wage Developments reports particularly useful in their review of wage 

settlements.

Throughout the period, the Bureau maintained a file of collective 

bargaining agreements, as required by Section 211 (a) of the Labor 

Management Relations Act of 1947. Even before passage of the act, 

BLS had begun publication of in-depth studies on provisions of collective bargaining agreements, the Bulletin 908 series, continuing 

through 19 collective bargaining subjects before ending in 1950. Having issued many individual studies of contract provisions in the 

meantime, BLS launched a major new series in 1964 with a study of 

grievance procedures in major collective bargaining agreements (Bulletin 1425-1). In succeeding years, the Bureau produced studies on such 

subjects as severance pay, supplemental unemployment benefit plans, 

seniority, safety and health provisions, and wage-incentive provisions.

Productivity and technology

Under Clague, the Bureau resumed its work on productivity indexes 

for selected industries which had been interrupted by the war. A new

202

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Clague: An Expanding Role for Economic Indicators

program of detailed industry reports, based on direct field surveys, 

supplemented the series. However, funding cuts in the early 1950’s 

forced the Bureau to drop field collection and to rely on available 

secondary sources.

The General Motors-United Auto Workers contract of 1948, 

with its provision for wage adjustment based on an annual "improve* 

ment factor” as well as on the Consumer Price Index, was a major 

stimulus to the development of productivity measures for the economy as a whole. It was also a harbinger of the “guideposts” policy set 

forth by the Council of Economic Advisers in the 1960’s. Both the 

Council and the Joint Economic Committee «p ressed continuing 

interest in the measurement of national productivity. The Bureau of 

the Budget and the AFL also pressed for such measures.

The Bureau’s development of productivity measures for the 

economy was a long and arduous process, partly because productivity 

measurement was a very sensitive area of labor'management relations. 

Concern with the policy implications of the figures, in addition to the 

novelty and complexity of the technique and the lack of adequate 

data, made for extended discussions with the Bureau’s business and 

labor advisory groups. One issue was the effect on collective bargaining of comparisons between economywide productivity indexes and 

the productivity developments in specific industries, particularly in the 

automobile and steel industries. Both labor and management in the 

auto industry were critical of the emphasis given to the broad measures, but the consensus within both of the Bureau's advisory groups 

was finally that such productivity measures were needed.

In 1955, the Bureau published its first productivity indexes for 

the manufacturing sector as a whole, reflecting the relationship of 

output to man-hours of production workers for the period 1939-53. 

Building on this experience, the Bureau worked toward development 

of indexes for the total private economy. These were published in 

1959, covering the period 1909-58.72

The importance of productivity measurement was heightened in 

1962, when the Council of Economic Advisers, in its annual report to 

the President, offered wage and price guideposts for noninflationary 

behavior in collective bargaining, basing them on the Bureau’s data. 

The wage guidepost suggested was that “the rate of increase in wage 

rates (including fringe benefits) in each industry be equal to the trend 

rate of over-all productivity increase.” O n the price side, the Council

203

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

suggested that price increases were warranted only if an industry’s 

productivity rose less than the average for the economy.73

The labor requirements program authorized by Congress in 1959 

added a significant new project to the Bureau’s productivity work. In 

this program, BLS estimated the employment generated by—or labor 

hours required for—various types of government, or governmentfinanced, construction, such as schools, hospitals, public housing, and 

college housing. This expanded the work begun in the 1930’s to 

measure the volume o f employment created by new construction.7*

The role of labor costs in international trade was another subject 

of study for the Bureau. Increased competition in foreign trade, balance of payments problems, the outflow of gold, and other factors 

raised the question of whether the United States was pricing itself out 

of world markets. Bureau studies examined unit labor costs at home 

and abroad and the effects on collective bargaining and employment. 

As part o f its activities, BLS also prepared materials for the "Kennedy 

Round" of tariff negotiations.

The Bureau was also called upon to study the effects of—and 

adjustments to—automation and technological change. It conducted a 

series of case studies on the introduction of automatic technology and 

also produced two major studies of office automation. Then, for the 

President’s Advisory Committee on Labor Management Policy, it prepared a major study on technological trends in 36 industries. The 

Bureau also studied retraining programs and published case studies of 

workers displaced by the new technologies.

The continuing sensitivity of the productivity issue in labormanagement relations was reflected in the Bureau’s difficulty in conducting the automation studies despite the approval of its advisory 

groups. Management in the railroad and automobile industries proved 

reluctant to arrange for them. And Clague wrote of difficulties with 

union research directors who, feeling labor had an important stake in 

automation studies, demanded review of texts, participating companies, and other aspects of the work. In 1959, the research director of 

the Auto Workers attacked the BLS “surrender to big business" in the 

development of productivity materials, charging that the Bureau had 

succumbed to business pressures to “downgrade, obscure, and conceal" the facts, urging the Joint Economic Committee to investigate.75

204

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Clague: An Expanding Role for Economic Indicators

Industrial safety and health

Continuing its long interest in industrial safety and health, BLS 

expanded its annual series of injury-frequency and injury-severity 

measures covering manufacturing and nonmanufacturing industries, 

and its monthly series (collected quarterly) for manufacturing. By 

1966, the annual program covered over 650 industries and industry 

groups, and the monthly (quarterly) covered 140 manufacturing and 

industry groups. BLS also conducted intensive studies of injury rates 

and accident causes in selected industries, surveying about one industry a year.

Amendments to the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ 

Compensation Act passed in 1958 provided more work for BLS. 

These amendments authorized the Secretary of Labor to issue regulations protecting the health and safety of employees, including requirements to maintain records. The Secretary delegated the administrative 

functions to the Bureau of Labor Standards, and BLS acted as its agent 

in collecting and compiling data.76

International activities

During the late 1940’s, the Bureau cooperated with various overseas 

projects of the U .S. Government. Working with the European Recovery Program, it planned and conducted a number of productivity 

studies and gave technical assistance to European governments for 

developing their own economic statistics. During 1950 and 1951, 

about 80 European labor statisticians took 3-month courses with BLS 

under arrangements made by the Organization for European Economic Cooperation and the Economic Cooperation Administration.

The Gift of Freedom, a Bureau publication which presented a 

wide range of statistics on the economic and social status o f American 

workers, was reprinted in several foreign languages for distribution 

abroad.77

The Bureau published information on foreign labor conditions 

and statistics, introducing the monthly publication, Labor Developmerits Abroad, in 1956 and a series on labor law and practice in various 

countries in 1961. The Bureau also developed a considerable amount 

of material in collaboration with the International Cooperation 

Administration/Agency for International Development, including 

descriptions of labor conditions—primarily in developing countries— 

and a Foreign Labor Information Series. These were intended for the

205

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

use of Foreign Service staff, labor specialists assigned abroad, and 

participants in technical and exchange programs, as well as businessmen and others.78 BLS also developed several technical manuals, in 

cooperation with ICA /A ID , to help foreign countries develop statistical programs relating to consumer prices and the labor force.79

In the early 1960’s, BLS and the Department’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs collaborated to publish Labor Digest, a series of 

brief notes on labor conditions around the world.

Economic growth studies

Since the 1930’s, BLS had worked with Wassily Leontief of Harvard 

to develop “input-output" or interindustry analysis. Following the 

war, with W. Duane Evans heading the project, the Bureau projected 

employment patterns to 1950. Congress showed special interest in the 

BLS projections for steel, made in 1947.

A t the initial request of the National Security Resources Board 

and the military establishment, the Bureau joined a cooperative program with other Federal agencies, universities, and research institutions which was later financed by the Air Force. As part of the project, 

BLS produced a 450-sector input-output table based on the 1947 

Census of Manufactures.8®

During the Korean War, the program became controversial when 

some employers called it state planning, a step toward a planned 

economy. With the armistice, the new administration sought ways to 

cut the defense budget, and Air Force funding was halted. Evans and 

BLS tried without success to arrange private financing for continuing 

studies. But in the late 1950*s there was renewed interest in inputoutput studies as a means of analyzing economic problems.81

In 1962, the Bureau joined with other government agencies and 

private organizations in a wide-ranging program of studies for the 

analysis and projection of economic growth trends. The program 

represented an effort to develop a more comprehensive and integrated 

framework than had previously been available for analyzing the implications of long-term economic growth, particularly the implications 

for employment.

Other participants in the research program included the Office of 

Business Economics of the Department of Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Mines of the Department of the 

Interior, Harvard University, George Washington University, the

206

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Clague: An Expanding Role for Economic Indicators

Council of State Governments, and the National Planning Association. Guidance was provided by an interagency coordinating committee consisting of representatives from the Departments of Labor and 

Commerce, the Budget Bureau, and the Council of Economic Advisers. The chairman of the Council headed the committee.82

As one aspect of the research, BLS developed projections of the 

industrial distribution of employment based upon the input-output 

tables prepared by the Commerce Department. In late 1966, the 

Bureau published the 1970 projections of demand, interindustry relationships, and employment developed by BLS and the other participating agencies.83

Administration

Funding

After recovering from the slash in fiscal year 1948, the Bureau’s regular appropriations for salaries and expenses showed litde if any 

increase in the early 1950’s. They began to rise in die late 1950’s, then 

grew substantially in the 1960’s with the expansion in the Bureau’s 

programs (table 6). Congress provided separate funds for two revisions 

of the CPI within the period.

Outside funds, also called working funds or intragovemmental 

advances and reimbursements, added considerably to Bureau 

resources as other agencies funded statistical work done on their 

behalf. Normally providing from 4 to 7 percent of the Bureau’s total 

budget, these payments mounted during the Korean War and later, in 

the 1960’s, when the Department undertook new programs. The 

Atomic Energy Commission, the Air Force, the Office of Naval 

Research, the National Security Resources Board, the Veterans 

Administration, and the National Science Foundation, among others, 

underwrote Bureau activities.

Management

As had happened before in the Bureau’s history, in 1950 Congress 

had occasion to investigate complaints lodged by employees and former employees of the Bureau. They alleged that the Division of Prices 

and Cost of Living “was overstaffed, poorly supervised, and steeped in 

an atmosphere of employee discontent.” In the report presenting its 

findings, the House Subcommittee on Overstaffing in the Executive

207

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Table 6. Funding for Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1947-65

(in thousands)

Fiscal year ended

June 30 —

Total1 Salaries

an d expenses

1947 2$6,826 $6,268

1948 4,218 3,945

1949 4,579 4,362

1950 6,990 5,569

1951 8,702 5,722

1952 9,149 5,701

1953 7,077 5,766

1954 6,081 5,593

1955 5,974 5,441

1956 6,802 6,407

1957 7,481 6,875

1958 8,159 7,463

1959 8,597 7,989

1960 11,394 10,520

1961 13,350 11,118

1962 15,970 12,667

1963 17,655 14,590

1964 19,831 16,345

1965 20,373 18,542

•includes appropriations for CPI revision (1950-52 and 1960-64) and 

m iscellaneous, working, and trust funds.

^Includes $15,000 for a study o f conditions in H aw aii 

SOURCE: The Budget o f the United States Government

Departments and Agencies concluded that funds for the revision of 

the CPI had been “dissipated through gross overstaffing, inferior plan' 

ning, untrained supervision, and improvident administration.”8*

Secretary Tobin immediately wrote the subcommittee chairman 

of “the overall efficiency and economy of the Division’s work” in 

turning out some of the country’s “most important and most closely 

scrutinized statistics.” While challenging the charge of dissipation of 

funds, Tobin acknowledged some problems of administration, which 

had been compounded by congressional delay in funding. He stated 

that, after great effort, the revision program was now back on sched208

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Clague: An Expanding Role for Economic Indicators

ule, and was urgendy needed to avoid die controversy which had 

developed during World War II. Clague pointed out that an attitude 

survey had demonstrated that the vast majority of BLS employees 

were satisfied. Upon assurance that the Bureau would improve its 

management, the matter was dropped.85

Reconiirm adon

Clague’s administration was interrupted for about a year when Secretary Mitchell proposed his reappointment for a third term in 1954. 

Since Clague was a legal resident of Pennsylvania, his nomination 

required the assent of both Pennsylvania Senators, but Senator 

Edward Martin, the senior Senator, objected.

Senator Martin’s objection centered on two pieces o f information 

he had received about Clague’s activities in the early 1930’s—a newspaper clipping quoting Clague as saying that the economic future of 

the country would be state socialism, and his contribution to a college 

which the Attorney General had later listed as a Communist institution.

Delayed by Martin’s objection, the appointment also became 

entangled with difficulties surrounding the appointment of another 

Department official, and confirmation proceedings were held up for 

almost a year. In the interim, Secretary Mitchell named Clague as his 

special assistant, and Aryness Joy Wickens, Clague’s Deputy Commissioner, served as Acting Commissioner. A highly respected statistician, 

Wickens had had a long career in government before joining the 

Bureau in the late 1930’s. Under Lubin, Hinrichs, and Clague, she 

had moved steadily upward, from Chief of the Price Division to 

Assistant Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner. During the year of 

Clague’s absence, the work of the Bureau went on largely unaffected.

In July 1955, Clague finally had his confirmation hearing, and he 

was able to reply to Senator Martin’s implied charge of association 

with radical causes. He informed the committee that the remark 

quoted—from an extemporaneous speech—was intended as a challenge to the audience and not as an espousal o f socialism. His contribution ^o the college had been pledged in the 1920’s to help provide 

education for poor students.86

Senator Martin had already informed the committee that he was 

no longer going to oppose the nomination. In addition, the committee 

had received letters from supporters. Stephen M. DuBrul, Executive209

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

in-Charge of the Business Research Staff at General Motors, praised 

Clague’s integrity, open-mindedness, courage, and determination. 

William F. Sullivan, President of the Northern Textile Association, 

noted Clague’s "splendid record of accomplishment” as well as his 

objectivity and impartiality. Leo Teplow, Industrial Relations Consultant to the American Iron and Steel Institute, commented that Clague 

enjoyed “the wholehearted confidence of both management and 

labor.”87 Earlier, AFL President George Meany had spoken with Secretary Mitchell in support of reappointment.88 Newspaper columnists 

and editorials also supported Clague. His confirmation took only half 

an hour.

Confidentiality

Early in his tenure, Clague reaffirmed the voluntary nature of the BLS 

reporting process and the necessity for strict confidentiality of the data 

provided by respondents. He saw the Bureau’s dependence on voluntary cooperation as “a great asset in a democracy” rather than a limitation, as some others had viewed it.89

In the early 1960’s, a serious challenge arose to the Bureau’s 

policy of confidentiality. Under the provisions of the Public Contracts 

Act o f 1936, government suppliers were required to pay at least the 

locally prevailing minimum wage, and the Secretary of Labor had been 

making determinations of the prevailing minimum in various industries from data collected in BLS wage surveys. Interested parties had 

won the right to judicial review of the Secretary’s decisions. The 

Baldor Electric Company and 10 other suppliers in the electrical 

machinery industry brought the Department to court, challenging the 

Secretary’s determination on the grounds that they had been denied 

access to documents underlying the BLS tables.

Throughout, the Bureau, supported by the Department, argued 

its fundamental policy that it operated on the basis of voluntary 

reporting, that granting access would break confidentiality and endanger its whole system of data collection. The Federal District Court and 

the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the manufacturers, ruling that refusal of access to BLS documents breached 

their legal right to rebuttal and cross-examination.90

Rather than imperil the foundation of the Bureau’s data gathering system, the Secretary revoked his determination, and none have 

been issued since. Over the years, the policy of confidentiality has

210

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Clague: An Expanding Role for Economic Indicators

been maintained, and other influences on wages, such as minimum 

wage setting under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the general 

extension of collective bargaining, have lessened the importance of the 

Public Contracts Act. It now serves mainly as a statement of the 

government’s intent to be a good employer.91

Retirement

On September 14, 1965, Secretary Wirtz announced Ewan Clague’s 

retirement, saying, “Ewan Clague has built his ideals and his competence and integrity into the traditions and strength of the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics and the Department of Labor. He stands preeminent 

in his field. His colleagues have paid him every honor they command. 

. . . The staff of the Bureau is both his compliment and his legacy to 

the future.”92

Clague later described the understanding he had had with Secretary Wirtz: “When I was confirmed for a fifth term in August 1963, 

Secretary of Labor W. Willard Wirtz and I reached an agreement that 

we should be on the lookout for a successor. When Professor Arthur 

M. Ross of the University of California at Berkeley, one of the names 

on our joint list, became available in the summer of 1965,1 submitted 

my resignation, and Ross was appointed Commissioner.”93

Observers praised Clague and his accomplishments. Senator William Proxmire, a close observer of BLS from his post on the Joint 

Economic Committee, referred to his “19 immensely productive 

years,” noting the “steady improvement in quality and the constantly 

more accurate and detailed picture of our economy” provided by BLS 

data during Clague’s tenure. At Ross’ nomination hearing, Senator 

Wayne Morse, veteran of economic stabilization programs and major 

labor-management crises, commented that he could always place complete reliance on Clague’s work.94

The New York Times declared, “Integrity has been the dominant 

characteristic of the Bureau’s approach to all its assignments.” Under 

Clague, it continued, the Bureau had achieved “a remarkable degree of 

professional detachment and trustworthiness.” The Washington Post

editorialized in the same vein, commending Clague for his probity— 

his determination “to maintain the integrity of the BLS as an objective 

agency at times when there were pressures to twist results in conformity with political preconceptions.”95

211

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred l&ars

Clague had an active career for many years after his retirement. 

Initially, he served as a consultant to Secretary Wirtz. Later, he conducted and published research studies on labor force subjects, 

including the all-volunteer army, older workers, and coal miners. He 

has continued to be active in civic affairs.

212

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter V ili.

Four Commissioners: 

An Economy Going 

by the Numbers

T

here were four Commissioners of Labor Statistics in the 

two decades following Clague’s departure as a variety of 

circumstances produced limited terms for Arthur M. Ross, 

Geoffrey H. Moore, and Julius Shiskin. Janet L. Norwood 

was well into her second term in 1984. Whatever the length of service, 

the head of the Bureau faced relentless demands as public interest in 

the Bureau’s statistics heightened with continuous inflation, rising 

unemployment in four recessions, and the increased use of BLS data 

in evaluating national economic policies and distributing public and 

private funds.

The economic climate and escalating uses of statistics

In 1966, the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee stated, in 

introducing the hearings on government price statistics, that they 

would cast some light on “whether or not we have inflation.. . The 

annual rate of increase in consumer prices at that time was about 2 

percent.1 By the end of 1968, there was no longer any doubt about 

inflation—consumer prices had risen almost 5 percent over the year.

The inflationary boom of the late 1960’s was accompanied by a 

drop in unemployment, which fell below the 4-percent goal set in the 

early 1960’s. In 1969, however, unemployment started to rise, and the 

economy began to suffer from both inflation and high levels of unem213

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

ployment at the same time. Moreover, labor disputes in longshoring, 

steel, and railroads compounded the problems.

In August 1971, when less drastic measures had failed to stem the 

inflation, President Nixon, having already moved to restrain excessive 

price and wage increases in the construction industry, imposed direct 

wage and price controls. During the freeze and the ensuing control 

period, the Bureau was called upon frequently to supply data to the 

stabilization agencies—the Cost of Living Council and the Pay Board.

Controls lapsed in 1974, and inflation resumed its upward course, 

accompanied by rising unemployment, as the oil embargo and worldwide food shortages helped push the country into the steepest recession in the postwar period. As the Council of Economic Advisers 

described the decade of the 1970’s, “Each time inflation accelerated... 

a temporary boost in employment was achieved at the cost of a subsequent recession. Moreover, the recessions became more serious.”2

In recognition of these economic conditions, Congress passed 

several countermeasures to stimulate the economy and enacted the 

Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978, which reaffirmed 

and enlarged on the commitment of the Employment Act of 1946. 

The 1978 act obligated the Government to reduce the rate of inflation 

while also reducing unemployment to 4 percent.3 Meanwhile, another 

increase in oil prices led to a third inflationary wave, which lasted into 

1982 before moderating.

The economy was also undergoing a variety of structural changes 

during the period. Commissioner Norwood, during her years in office, 

highlighted these trends: The larger number of young workers and 

the dramatic increase in the participation of women; the continued 

employment expansion in the service-producing sector and in whitecollar occupations; the decline in the automobile, steel, and textile 

industries; and the general slowdown in productivity growth.4

The economic and social developments added to the importance 

of the Bureau’s work in monitoring changes in the economy. And still 

other uses for the Bureau’s data were developing which directly 

affected the pocketbooks of millions of Americans. With mounting 

inflation, pressures increased for indexation—tying money payments 

to price indexes—as a means of ensuring fairness. As President Nixon 

stated in 1969 in reference to social security benefits, “The way to 

prevent future unfairness is to attach the benefit schedule to the cost 

of living.. . . We remove questions about future years; we do much to

214

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Four Commissioners: An Economy Going by the Numbers

remove this system from biennial politics; and we make fair treatment 

of beneficiaries a matter of certainty rather than a matter of hope.”5

As early as 1962, Congress had linked Federal civil service retire' 

ment benefits to changes in the Consumer Price Index. This was 

followed by indexing arrangements for a growing number of Federal 

programs. All major retirement and disability plans came to be 

adjusted on the basis of the CPI, and components of the CPI were 

used to adjust payments for the food stamp program, the rent subsidy 

program, school meals, and nutrition programs for the elderly. In 

1981, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that “almost a third 

of Federal expenditure is direcdy linked to the CPI or related price 

measures. . . . A one'percent increase in the CPI will automatically 

trigger nearly $2 billion of additional Federal expenditures, at 1981 

program levels.”6

In addition, wages of millions of workers under collective bar' 

gaining agreements were linked to the CPI. Also, under 1981 legislation, Federal income tax rate brackets were scheduled for linkage to 

the CPI beginning in 1985.

The Bureau’s data also were used in Federal wage determinations. 

Under acts passed in 1962 and 1970, changes in the pay levels 

recorded in the BLS annual survey of professional, administrative, 

technical, and clerical pay in the private sector entered into the Fed' 

eral pay-setting process. Area wage survey data played a role in setting 

wage rates for Federal blue'collar workers and for employees of govemment contractors. The BLS measure of changes in national average 

wages affected some benefits under the social security program and 

workers’ compensation payments for longshore and harbor workers. 

In 1980, the Minimum Wage Study Commission recommended index' 

ing the Federal minimum wage to this BLS measure.7 Further, unemployment rates estimated by the States according to Bureau 

specifications determined the eligibility of States and local areas for 

funding under various Federal programs.

Additional proposals for indexation were made, although not 

everyone supported the automatic adjustment procedure. Its growth 

alarmed some policymakers and legislators, who held that indexing 

reinforced inflation and m ultiplied the problem s arising from 

mushrooming Federal budget deficits. Whether or not indexation 

would continue to be adopted, the uses already established by legislation focused the public’s attention on the Bureau’s measures.8

215

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

The four Commissioners

The four Commissioners responded to the challenges facing the 

Bureau in different ways. Ross, a professor of labor-management relations, saw it as his mandate to shake up and modernize a staid, old-line 

organization, and he sought to develop more data and analysis pertinent to social policy. Moore, a foundation research economist and 

expert business cycle analyst, emphasized production of sound figures 

and their neutral, objective release. Shiskin, a civil servant with long 

experience in government economic and statistical activities, stressed 

maintenance of the integrity of the data and independence for BLS 

from the policy concerns of the Department Norwood, also a career 

civil servant, protected and enhanced the quality and scope of the 

Bureau’s core programs in the face of widespread budget cuts. With 

inflation mounting substantially and consequent controversy over the 

Consumer Price Index, Norwood addressed the criticisms on their 

technical merits, applying the findings of the Bureau’s long-term study 

of the CPI in making revisions in the homeownership component. 

She stressed the impartial and independent public-service role of the 

Bureau in meeting these difficult problems, while giving the Bureau a 

more “human” face in her increased attention to data on minorities 

and women.

Arthur Ross, October 1965—July 1968

Arthur M. Ross succeeded Ewan Clague in October 1965. Ross had 

been a professor of industrial relations at the University of California 

at Berkeley and had served as director of its Institute of Industrial 

Relations from 1954 to 1963. For over 20 years, he had served on 

various public and private boards and commissions and as an arbitrator in several industries. Less of a bureaucrat than other Commissioners, one who had been a user rather than a producer of statistics, his 

philosophy was reflected in his comment that BLS products “will not 

simply be raw data but will be usable to labor, management, and to 

other customers.”9 Personally, Ross brought a concern for the disadvantaged and a commitment to social programs, pressing for research 

and surveys to identify and measure problems in slum areas.

From the beginning, Ross projected a new style and direction. In 

remarks at his swearing-in ceremony, he outlined six principal tasks 

for the Bureau, including maximum service to the Department;

216

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Four Commissioners: An Economy Going by the Numbers

increased analysis and interpretation; programs matched to new trends 

in the economy and labor force; improved technical quality, especially 

with enhanced computer capability; more effective communication of 

BLS activities; and development of new data and analysis on social 

issues and policy problems.10 Supported by Secretary Wirtz in this 

determination to reinvigorate the Bureau, Ross used the results of 

extensive management surveys by the private firm of Booz-Allen and 

Hamilton to reorganize the Bureau’s operations..

Ross’ views made for a crowded agenda of activities for the program offices, ranging from new measures of poverty and related 

problems to a “master plan” to integrate and improve all the Bureau’s 

price programs. The reorganization made for delay in putting the 

plans into practice, however, and they were not far along when, in the 

summer of 1968, Ross decided to return to academic life and accepted 

a post at the University of Michigan.

Rather than submit a new nominee in an election year, Secretary 

Wirtz named Deputy Commissioner Ben Burdetsky as Acting Com ' 

missioned Burdetsky had been with the Department since 1955, and 

Ross had brought him into the Bureau in 1966 to manage the reorgan' 

ization. Burdetsky served as Acting Commissioner until March 1969, 

when Geoffrey Moore was designated Commissioner.

Geoffrey Moore, March 1969-January 1973

Geoffrey H. Moore came to the Bureau from the National Bureau of 

Economic Research, where he had been the Vice President for 

Research. The immediate past president of the American Statistical 

Association, Moore had also lectured on economics at New Tibrk 

University and Columbia University.

Throughout his term, Moore worked closely with Arthur Bum s 

and Julius Shiskin. Bum s was Counselor at the White House and, 

later, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, while Shiskin was 

Chief Statistician of the Office of Management and Budget. Bum s had 

been Moore’s teacher at Rutgers. Shiskin and Moore had been class' 

mates there and, afterwards, professional collaborators in the develop' 

ment of the Index of Leading Indicators.

Early in his tenure, Moore stated his aims for the Bureau: BLS 

data should be relevant, timely, accurate, and impartial. In keeping 

with these guidelines, M oore listed specific programs needing 

improvement, including local area data, public sector labor relations,

217

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

the Wholesale Price Index, occupational safety and health statistics, 

and construction industry series. He also called for the development 

of a general wage index.11

Moore was able to make progress on many of these objectives 

during his term and, in addition, to integrate into the Bureau four 

programs on employment statistics that were transferred from the 

Manpower Administration in a govemmentwide reorganization of statistical activities. But, as described later, he was faced with a succession 

of events during his last 2 years in office that put the Bureau and its 

staff in the midst of a political maelstrom.

Moore left office in January 1973, shortly before his first term was 

to end. President Nixon accepted his pro forma resignation, which 

had been requested along with those of other political appointees, 

including Secretary of Labor Hodgson, at the start of Nixon’s second 

term.

With Moore’s departure, Ben Burdetsky again served as Acting 

Commissioner. Moore returned to the National Bureau of Economic 

Research. While at the National Bureau, he also served as adjunct 

scholar at both the Hoover Institution and the American Enterprise 

Institute. In 1979, Moore started the Center for International Business Cycle Research at Rutgers University as part of the School of 

Business. In 1983, he moved the center to Columbia University as 

part of the Graduate School of Business. Moore has continued to 

write and testify on the quality of BLS data.

Julius Shiskin, July 1973-October 1978

Julius Shiskin, an economist and statistician, was appointed Commissioner in July 1973. He was already familiar with BLS operations and 

problems through his earlier work in the Office of Management and 

Budget and the Census Bureau. As head of the Office of Statistical 

Policy of OMB, he had sought to establish procedures for ensuring 

that the release of statistical data would be free of political considerations. He had also proposed the guidelines for the reorganization of 

government statistical activities in 1971.

At his nomination hearing, called upon for his view of the Commissioner’s independence, Shiskin cited the 4-year term and promised, “I would not resign before that upon request.” Later, in refusing 

to submit a pro forma resignation when Gerald Ford succeeded to the 

Presidency, Shiskin again noted the 4-year term and likened the posi218

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Four Commissioners: An Economy Going by the Numbers

tion to that of Federal Reserve Governors. He reminded the commit' 

tee that charges of politicization had followed the replacement of 

Moore and pointed out that Ewan Clague had served under four 

Presidents without submitting a resignation.12

Shiskin committed himself to improving the basic data and 

expanding the analytical work of the Bureau while maintaining the 

highest professional standards. In addition, he re-emphasized traditional BLS neutrality, observing, "Policy is not a role for professional 

statisticians.”13

Shiskin served under three Presidents and four Secretaries of 

Labor. He encountered new and difficult problems, largely as a result 

of the Bureau’s assumption of responsibility for local area unemploy' 

ment statistics. He also faced contention on concepts and methodol' 

ogy in the revision of the Consumer Price Index.

Shiskin followed a policy of openness and full discussion of the 

Bureau’s data and methods. Faced with charges of inadequacies in the 

unemployment data, he campaigned for a national commission to 

conduct a comprehensive review of employment and unemployment 

statistics, and he appeared before the Joint Economic Committee 

almost every month to provide the opportunity for questions about 

the Bureau’s latest figures. He was closely associated with the establishment and funding of the program of continuing consumer expenditure studies.

Shiskin’s success in improving the data and in maintaining the 

credibility of the Bureau was reflected in the support for his renomination in 1977.14 With his reappointment by President Carter, Shiskin became the first Commissioner since Clague to start a second 

term. After a long period of illness, he died in office in October 1978.

Janet Norwood, May 1979—

Secretary Ray Marshall named Janet L. Norwood the Acting Commissioner during Shiskin’s illness, and President Carter nominated her 

for Commissioner in March 1979. She was confirmed in May. A 

graduate of Douglass College of Rutgers University, Norwood 

received a Ph.D. at Tufts University. Subsequently, she taught at 

Wellesley and conducted research in international economics at Tufts.

The first woman to serve as head o f the Bureau, Norwood was 

also the first Commissioner since Ethelbert Stewart to be appointed 

from the ranks. She had worked in the Bureau since 1963, primarily

219

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

in the price office, where she renewed and redeveloped the international price program and managed the consumer price program. 

Moore had named her Associate Deputy Commissioner for Data 

Analysis in 1972, and, under Shiskin, she had become, first, Deputy 

Commissioner for Data Analysis in 1973 and, then, in 1975, the 

Deputy Commissioner. The Department recognized her professional 

accomplishments with the Secretary’s Award for Distinguished 

Achievement (1972), the Secretary’s Special Commendation (1977), 

and the Philip Amow Award (1979). In 1984, the American Society 

for Public Administration and the National Academy of Public 

Administration honored Norwood with their National Public Service 

Award.15

Norwood stated that her role was not to theorize or predict the 

future, but to provide accurate statistics that were relevant to the 

country’s economic and social needs. She warned the Bureau against a 

“built-in bias against change.” “We ought to be the ones who are out 

there letting people know of changes which we think could be considered.”16

During her tenure, the economic and political climate has kept 

public attention focused on BLS statistics. In her first term, inflation 

accelerated and unemployment rose to its highest level in more than 

40 years. Members o f the Carter administration criticized the Bureau’s 

method of computing the CPI, claiming that it overstated the true rate 

o f inflation. Candidate Reagan charged the President with “jimmying” 

the Producer Price Index, and President Reagan, referring to the 

seasonal adjustment of unemployment figures, complained that the 

statisticians in Washington had “funny ways of counting.”17

Norwood was forced to rethink program priorities as both the 

Carter and Reagan administrations launched drives to cut government 

expenditures and employment. During fiscal year 1982, the Bureau 

suffered a 12-percent budget cut and lost about 10 percent of its work 

force through attrition. Norwood protected the Bureau’s core programs—those relating to major national concerns—by winnowing out 

programs of more limited application, some of which required substantially more funding to bring up to Bureau standards of validity and 

reliability.

A t the same time, Norwood obtained the resources needed to 

proceed with long-range plans for improving the scope and quality of 

data on consumer prices, producer prices, employment and unem220

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Four Commissioners: An Economy Going by the Numbers

ployment, and wage and benefit costs. She put into effect many major 

recommendations of the National Commission on Employment and 

Unemployment Statistics. Moreover, she began work on two conceptually complicated programs—multifactor productivity measures and 

another comprehensive revision of the CPI. Also, under her leadership, the Bureau assumed responsibility for administering the 

resources for national labor market information programs.

In 1983, Norwood was reappointed by President Reagan, and the 

Senate confirmed her by voice vote without holding hearings. Secretary Donovan hailed the action as assuring that “the work of the 

Bureau will continue under the highest standards of professionalism 

and integrity.” Facing her new term, Norwood commented, “The 

challenges will be even greater over the next 4 years.”18

Public release of statistics

During Clague’s tenure, the procedures for releasing BLS data had 

been changed from informal arrangements—primarily news releases 

and occasional press briefings at no set dates—to formal press conferences for the major Bureau series on dates scheduled in advance. 

Despite these new procedures, separating the release of BLS data from 

political considerations remained a continuing concern.

Just at the time Moore became Commissioner in 1969, Arthur 

Bum s, as President Nixon's adviser, addressed the need to preserve 

the credibility of government statistics. Bum s’ view was reflected in a 

memorandum the President sent to the Office of Management and 

Budget within 3 weeks after taking office, stating, “The prompt release 

on a regular schedule of official statistics is a matter of vital importance 

to the proper management of both private and public affairs.” In 

addition, it stipulated that Mas a rule, new figures should be released 

through the statistical officer in charge.”19

This program was vigorously pursued by the head of the Office of 

Statistical Policy of OMB, Julius Shiskin, who called for a rule, to be 

followed in all agencies, “that the written press release must come out 

at least 1 hour before any policy commentary.”20

The BLS press conferences for technical briefings were also considered. Moore, Bum s, and Shiskin agreed that these briefings should 

be discontinued, since they invited questions on economic policy and 

outlook—matters beyond the responsibility of career service statistical

221

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

officers. Shiskin drafted a memorandum recommending discontinuance, arguing, “The confidence of the public in the integrity of the 

statistical agencies of the government can best be maintained if all the 

statistics are routinely released on schedules in advance, in the form of 

written press releases without press conferences.” However, press 

officers at the White House and the Department of Labor argued that 

discontinuance during a period of inflation would be construed as 

politically motivated, and the press conferences were continued.21

The issue took on new dimensions beginning in late 1970, when, 

with the continuing rise in unemployment, the Bureau’s assessment of 

the contribution of the General Motors strike to an increase in the 

unemployment rate differed from that of the administration. Then, in 

February 1971, at the BLS monthly press briefing, a Bureau spokesman labeled the decline in the unemployment rate—from 6.2 to 6.0 

percent—as “marginally significant.” Secretary Hodgson, in a press 

release issued simultaneously, characterized the decline as of “great 

significance.” The next month, the Secretary’s press release called a 

0.2 percentage point decline in the unemployment rate “heartening” 

while the Bureau described the situation as “sort of mixed,” since 

employment and hours worked were also down.

Shortly after, Secretary Hodgson announced that there would be 

no more monthly BLS press briefings. As Moore outlined the new 

procedures, the statistics would be issued in written releases, reporters 

could phone technicians to ask questions, and the Secretary would 

wait at least an hour to make his statement.22

Moore and Shiskin, along with Hodgson, explained that these 

arrangements would preserve the neutrality and objectivity of the 

statistics and put the Bureau in conformity with the practices of other 

statistical agencies.23 However, there were immediate charges of 

politicization, and these set off a round of congressional hearings and 

reports, as well as investigations by the Joint American Statistical 

Association/Federal Statistics Users’ Conference Committee and by 

the Industrial Relations Research Association.

Several other events also raised the charge of politicization. In 

July 1971, now functioning without the press briefing, the Bureau 

issued the unemployment data for June. The release warned that the 

published figures possibly overstated the decline in unemployment 

because of technical problems with the seasonal adjustment factors. 

The warning, according to a later report of the Industrial Relations

222

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Four Commissioners: An Economy Going by the Numbers

Research Association, "evoked dismay and anger within the Administration. These reactions were duly reported in the press, and the 

Department of Labor was privately told of President Nixon’s anger 

concerning the incident.” Subsequently, the unemployment figures 

calculated with the revised seasonal adjustment factors showed a drop 

of half that originally reported.24

Shortly after the July incident, the Office of Management and 

Budget issued guidelines for the reorganization of Federal statistical 

activities, citing the proliferation of such activities and the recent 

recommendations of the President’s Advisory Council on Executive 

Organization.25 In the fall of 1971, in response to the OMB directive, 

Moore announced several changes in the Bureau’s organization and 

personnel. The Office of Manpower and Employment Statistics, 

whose chief had been the Bureau spokesman at press briefings on the 

employment situation, was split into two separate units. In line with 

the OMB guidelines, the Bureau abolished the positions of Chief 

Economist and Chief Statistician, and the incumbents left the Bureau. 

In their place, two new offices were established, each headed by a 

Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner for Statistical 

Operations and Processing was a Bureau staff member. The Deputy 

Commissioner for Data Analysis was new to the Bureau, having come 

from the President’s Commission on Federal Statistics.

Moore characterized the reorganization as an effort to improve 

the management of the Bureau’s programs and a refinement of earlier 

organizational changes made by Ross. But, coming on the heels of the 

termination of press briefings, the changes were attacked as politically 

inspired. Lawrence F. O ’Brien, chairman of the Democratic National 

Committee, alleged that the White House was attempting to stack 

BLS with “political appointees.” The Washington Post editorialized, 

“The Nixon Administration is bringing hand-picked political appointees into the Bureau of Labor Statistics.’’ A s the Post noted, the 

reorganization appeared to many as retribution.26

With the termination of the press briefings, the Joint Economic 

Committee began monthly hearings on the employment situation. At 

the first several of these, the committee heard testimony from officials 

of the Bureau, the Department, and the Office of Management and 

Budget relating to the press briefings and the reorganization. It 

received reports from the American Statistical Association and the 

Industrial Relations Research Association, and also called upon Ewan

223

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred 'Years

Clague and Robert A. Gordon, who had been chairman of the President’s Committee to Appraise Employment and Unemployment Statistics in the early 1960’s.

The House Committee on Government Operations concluded, 

based on a study and hearings by a subcommittee, that the reasons 

given for terminating the press briefings were unpersuasive and recommended that Hodgson immediately reinstitute the briefings and 

“make it clear in a departmental directive that the traditional objective 

role o f the BLS must be maintained.” In "additional views,” 4 of the 

committee’s 16 Republican members supported Moore’s view that the 

new procedures should be given an opportunity to be tested before 

reaching final judgment on the termination.27

The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service also issued a 

report, following an investigation by the staff of its Subcommittee on 

Census and Statistics. The staff had interviewed 65 individuals interested in Federal statistics, including present and former employees of 

government agencies, users o f Federal statistics, labor representatives, 

news media, and members of congressional staffs. While accepting the 

subcommittee finding that there was "no supportive evidence of conspiratory politicization of Federal statistics,’' the committee held that 

an incumbent administration under the decentralized statistical system 

could "politically influence and utilize the various statistical agencies.” 

This warranted "constant vigil, to insure the continuation of public 

confidence in the reliability and validity of Federal statistics and to 

avoid creating a credibility gap in government information.” The staff 

also recommended studying "the feasibility and desirability of establishing one central independent agency to. . . reduce the opportunity 

for an incumbent administration to exercise a partisan effect,” among 

other reasons.28

Moore welcomed the report as supporting the Bureau "on every 

point that had been raised.” Hodgson reiterated his commitment to 

the “scientific independence and integrity” of the Bureau and pointed 

to the procedures established to protect them.29

Shortly thereafter, however, Moore was involved in a political 

issue which was unprecedented for a BLS Commissioner. In November 1972, following his landslide reelection victory, President Nixon 

called on all Presidential appointees to submit their resignations. 

Although his term extended to March 1973, Moore, believing he had

224

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Four Commissioners: An Economy Going by the Numbers

no option, submitted his. Contrary to his expectations, it was 

accepted, becoming effective in January.

Moore’s removal caused an immediate outcry. Senator Proxmire, 

pointing to the traditionally nonpolitical nature of the commissioner' 

ship, warned, “If the preparation of our basic statistics becomes further tainted with suspicion of political manipulation, it could lead to a 

serious credibility crisis.” The Industrial Relations Research Association viewed the acceptance of Moore’s resignation “with particular 

concern... because this termination under these circumstances represents a sharp break with the long-established tradition that this position has not been regarded as a political appointment.”30

The Committee on the Integrity of Federal Statistics, a joint 

committee of the American Statistical Association and the Federal 

Statistics U sers’ Conference, reported, “During the past 2 years, the 

integrity of the Federal statistical system has come into question. . . . 

Specific steps should be taken to allay the growing fears concerning 

politicization. . . and to ensure and maintain a high level of credible, 

professional, statistical work.” Among the specific recommendations 

were that “heads of statistical agencies should be career professionals 

of demonstrated competence. . . free of political influence,” and that 

they have direct control of their program planning, budgetary priorities, and publications.31

Soon after these events, the Office of Management and Budget 

developed further the requirements for separating the technical 

release process from policy and political statements through a succession of directives added to the one first issued in 1969. The rule 

requiring a 1-hour delay between the technical release and any policy 

statement, already widely in effect, was formally stipulated by OMB in 

April 1972, along with the requirement for written releases. In October 1974, the circulation of data before their official release (BLS data 

had been given in advance to the White House and several agencies) 

was restricted to the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers 

specifically for briefing the President; other principal advisers would 

be notified at the same time as the media, subject to the 1-hour rule on 

political comment. These provisions were continued in later revisions 

of the directive.32

The procedure for clearance of Bureau releases within the 

Department of Labor paralleled the OMB requirements. In 1969, the 

Bureau was given authority for final clearance, although in the early

225

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

1970’s departmental officials participated in the clearance procedure. 

In 1970, for example, Secretary Hodgson asked Moore to hold review 

meetings in the Secretary’s office as a convenient way to “keep himself 

informed.” After several months, the meetings were moved to the 

Commissioner’s office, with the departmental group attending.33

Then, in 1974, in a move complementing a revision of the original OMB directive, Secretary Brennan specified that data should not 

be “available to me or any other official of the Department of Labor 

outside the BLS until it is released to the press about one hour before 

public release.” In 1981, an OMB directive specifically included the 

Secretary as one of the principal economic advisers to receive indicators at the same time as the press. Norwood testified in 1979, “There is 

no further review outside the Bureau.

The Bureau’s work

Consumer prices

In 1964, under Clague, the Bureau had completed a major revision of 

the CPI. In 1966, Commissioner Ross presented to the Joint Economic Committee’s Subcommittee on Economic Statistics a “master 

plan” for a comprehensive system of price indexes which included 

improvements in the CPI to fill gaps, update statistical techniques, and 

extend coverage to the entire population. In addition, the proposal 

provided for review—between major revisions—of such elements as 

outlet and reporter samples and item and specification samples, with 

appropriate reweighting. Furthermore, it called for experimentation 

with new approaches to shelter costs, substitution, new products, 

quality change, taxes, and annual consumer surveys.35 Planning for 

the next CPI revision, started in 1968, reflected extensive discussion of 

such issues.

The issue o f quality change had already been brought to Ross’ 

attention in several controversies involving the automobile industry. 

The United Auto Workers, with automatic cost-of-living adjustments 

in their contracts, kept close watch on the CPI. In 1966, with contracts up for renewal the following year, UAW President Walter 

Reuther attacked the “Big Three” automakers for their use of BLS 

data for “unjustified price increases” and called for improvement in 

the BLS technique of adjusting the CPI for quality change.36 In 1967, 

Senators Warren Magnuson and Walter Mondale also questioned the

226

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Four Commissioners: An Economy Going by the Numbers

BLS technique in their efforts to determine the cost of higher safety 

and pollution standards for automobiles. They also criticized the posh 

tion of the manufacturers in maintaining that they could not provide 

Congress with cost estimates, although they had furnished them to 

the Bureau. The Bureau refused to give Congress details and specific 

figures because the industry had submitted them in confidence, but it 

did offer summary data. In addition, it moved to refine the quality 

adjustment process with a continuing research program.37

Implementation of the plans for the CPI revision began under 

Moore. In 1970, the Office of Management and Budget directed that 

the Census Bureau—rather than BLS, as before—conduct the prerequisite consumer expenditure survey, hoping that this would increase 

efficiency since the Census Bureau was the agency specializing in the 

collection of data from households. In another change from previous 

procedures, data were collected at quarterly intervals during the year 

rather than in a single annual review on the assumption that consumers would be more likely to recall details of their expenditures over 

the shorter time span. The quarterly interviews involved about 20,000 

families. A separate sample of about 20,000 families was asked to 

complete a 2-week diary to provide additional detail. These innovations and other factors complicated and delayed the project, and data 

collection was not completed until 1973—approximately 2 years later 

than planned. A “point-of-purchase” survey, to improve item and 

outlet samples by determining where people bought various goods and 

services, was conducted in 1974, covering some 23,000 families.

Commissioner Shiskin had to resolve several major conceptual 

problems before the revision of the CPI could be carried through. 

One concerned the population to be covered. From its inception, the 

CPI had been based on the expenditures of urban wage earners and 

salaried workers. There had been proposals, notably from the Stigler 

Committee, for extending coverage to the entire urban population, in 

view of the expanded use of the CPI as a broad economic indicator. 

The growing use of the CPI for indexation also pointed up the need 

for wider coverage.

In April 1974, Shiskin announced plans to proceed with an index 

representing all urban consumers and to drop the traditional index. 

The announcement sparked a lively controversy. The BLS Labor 

Research Advisory Council, while not opposing the broader index, 

strongly objected to the discontinuance of the traditional measure.

227

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

The Business Research Advisory Council supported the broader concept but suggested that the Bureau explore the possibility of publish' 

ing more than one index.38

George Meany of the A FL-CIO criticized Shiskin’s decision, 

maintaining, “The CPI should remain firmly grounded in the experience and needs of low- and middle-income workers. . . . We have no 

objection to the Bureau o f Labor Statistics developing a separate index 

covering additional occupational categories, if funds are available.” 

Leonard Woodcock, of the United Auto Workers, also attacked the 

decision and further complained of the “secretive” way in which BLS 

reached its determination, alleging that the labor advisory group had 

only been given one opportunity to discuss the question.39

Senator Proxmire introduced a bill requiring BLS to produce the 

traditional CPI, whether it compiled other indexes or not. Citing the 

role of the CPI in collective bargaining, he stated, “If the BLS is 

allowed to dismantle the present Consumer Price Index in favor of a 

more broadly based index, it will create absolute chaos.” Shiskin, 

while acknowledging the problem, responded that, after all, the 

unions would have 3 years to adjust agreements to the new index. 

Moreover, he continued, BLS would produce “a whole family of 

indexes” if Congress would provide the money.40

The Subcommittee on Economic Statistics of the Council on 

Economic Policy supported the broader coverage and recommended 

that BLS compile both the broad and the traditional CPI for a period 

of 3 years before deciding the next step.

Shiskin then sent the Secretary a revised plan for congressional 

action to allow for the production of two indexes, a new Consumer 

Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) and the traditional 

Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers 

(CPI-W ), both to be calculated for at least 3 years. Congress provided 

an increased appropriation for the additional work in the fiscal year 

1976 budget.41

In 1978, the Bureau published the new CPI-U along with the 

traditional, though revised, CPI-W. The CPI-W was based on the 

buying patterns of about 40 percent of the civilian noninstitutional 

population; the CPI-U , on about 80 percent. The CPI-U added 

coverage of the self-employed; professional, managerial, and technical 

workers; short-term and part-time workers; and the unemployed, 

retirees, and others not in the labor force.

228

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Four Commissioners: An Economy Going by the Numbers

Even before the work was completed, the Office of Management 

and Budget sought legislation making CPI-U the index for government programs, arguing that it Mis the best measure that we now have 

in the country in a technical sense.” And later, the General Accounting Office also recommended the change. Congress did require use of 

the CPI-U to escalate tax rate brackets starting in 1985. However, 

most Federal programs and collective bargaining agreements continued to make use of the traditional CPI-W .*2

Another thorny problem facing Shiskin was the method of measuring homeownership costs. In the 1953 revision, the Bureau had 

changed from a rent-based method to an “asset” formulation based on 

five specific costs associated with homeownership: House prices, mortgage interest, property taxes, insurance, and maintenance and repair 

costs. Then, the Stigler Committee had recommended investigating 

the development of an index based on rental housing representative of 

owner-occupied homes.

The Bureau was already studying the issue of which method to 

use for the upcoming revision when, in the late 1970’s, house prices 

and mortgage interest rates rose more than other market-basket costs. 

This focused increasing attention on die BLS method of measurement. Critics felt that the investment aspects of homeownership 

should be removed from the cost of shelter. Furthermore, BLS found 

that the data provided by the Federal Housing Administration on 

home prices and interest covered only 6 percent of the housing market—a small and unrepresentative sample.

In planning the revision, the Bureau explored alternatives to 

measure only the “flow of services” and to exclude the investment 

aspects o f homeownership. One alternative, the so-called user-cost 

approach, included the prices for all five components but adjusted the 

result for appreciation and the cost of equity. Another approach, 

rental equivalence, provided for a survey of a sample o f rented homes 

similar in type and location to owned homes, using the rental price to 

represent the cost of shelter.*3

Neither of the Bureau’s research advisory groups found these 

proposals acceptable. As one labor adviser wrote in 1975, “To price 

only the ‘services’ is to price an abstraction which has no concrete 

existence and for which there are no market transaction prices.” Such 

a procedure, the economist continued, was at variance with die character of the index and even with the treatment of other durable goods.

229

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Specifically, she contended that the rental equivalence measure 

depended on faulty assumptions, since the rental market and the 

home-purchase market differed gready. And the user-cost measure 

also rested on many theoretical assumptions.44

During 1976, at the Commissioner’s request, the Bureau’s advisory groups formed a Joint Technical Group on Homeownership in 

the Revised CPI. The panel met four times between March and 

December 1976, and its spokesman reported to Shiskin: “We believe 

BLS has not yet found a satisfactory user-cost approach. . . . Further 

research on user cost should be continued.’’ The Subcommittee on 

Economic Statistics also failed to reach a consensus. In April 1977, 

citing “widespread disagreement,’* Shiskin announced that BLS would 

continue the existing treatment while also continuing research.45

In 1978, soon after the revised CPI was issued, the Bureau 

received authorization and funds for a continuing, rather than a periodic, consumer expenditure survey, a goal it had sought for 25 years. 

It also was able to institute a continuing point-of-purchase survey, 

planned to cover one-fifth of the CPI areas each year, thereby updating the entire sample of outlets for pricing within 5 years.46

Labor advisers had expressed fears that a continuing consumer 

expenditure survey would be used to revise the CPI market basket too 

frequently, violating the concept of a fixed market basket. They 

argued that, out of economic necessity in periods of rapid inflation, 

workers would substitute products—“trade down”—and, therefore, 

frequent revision would “understate price increases.’’47 Responding to 

this argument, Shiskin saw the continuing survey as having both 

immediate pertinence and a longer range use in deciding when a major 

revision of the CPI would be called for. He insisted that the data 

would only be used for a revision after an appropriate number of 

years. He also urged the continuing survey as a means of avoiding the 

substantial startup costs of periodic surveys. The Subcommittee on 

Economic Statistics of the Council on Economic Policy gave the project top priority, saying that a continuing survey would facilitate revision of the CPI, help keep weights and market baskets more current, 

assist in revising family budget estimates, and provide valuable data for 

analysis of spending patterns.48

The resurgence of inflation in 1978—about the time Norwood 

became Acting Commissioner—and its acceleration in the following 2 

years intensified concern about the rising costs of the indexation

230

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Four Commissioners: An Economy Going by the Numbers

process. Attention centered on the CPI, and specifically on its home' 

ownership components. In 1979 and 1980, the Council of Economic 

Advisers pointed out that shelter costs, which had a substantial weight 

in the index, were rising faster than most other components of the 

CPI and questioned the Bureau’s treatment of the purchase o f homes 

and the associated costs of home financing. The Council described the 

Bureau’s exploration of alternative treatments o f this component and 

the fiulure o f any of these to satisfy major users o f die CPI. It suggested that using a rent index to represent the costs of using the 

services of a house might provide a better measure of changes in the 

cost of living to the average consumer, particularly in periods of sharp 

changes in costs of homes and home financing.'49

A t hearings of the House Budget Committee’s Task Force on 

Inflation in December 1979, government, labor, and management witnesses discussed the housing component. In her testimony, Commissioner Norwood discussed the problems of altering the index at that 

time. The following month, Norwood announced that, although no 

change would be made in the official index, the Bureau would publish 

five experimental measures for the CPI in the monthly release, using 

alternative approaches to homeownership costs. Based on the extensive staff analysis for the CPI revision, these included three flow-ofservices measures—one based on rent substitution and two on outlays.50

The treatment of homeownership continued to be debated. Some 

members of Congress urged President Carter to appoint a special 

panel of economists to study the homeownership issue. Others, especially in the Senate, suggested shifting from the CPI to some other 

measure as the indexing mechanism. Alfred Kahn, chairman of the 

Council on Wage and Price Stability, frequently attacked both the 

homeownership component and congressional inaction on severing 

the linkage» between the CPI and the entitlement programs.51 President Carter’s last economic report in January 1981 stated that the CPI 

had overstated significantly the actual rise in the cost of living because 

of the way it treated housing and mortgage interest costs.52

The New York Times exhorted Carter to change the housing 

measure: “Since the index has been overstating inflation, it has triggered billions in excessive increases in wages and pensions. Thus the 

index not only measures inflation but contributes to it.” Early in 1981, 

the General Accounting Office recommended that BLS substitute for

231

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

the homeownership component some measure of the cost of consuming housing services—either rental equivalence or nominal outlays.53

Norwood testified before several congressional committees examing the effect of the CPI on Federal expenditures. During the debate, 

she maintained: “It is for the Congress—Congress and the administration—to determine what the purpose of the indexation should be.” 

She noted that escalation “sometimes produces results that were not 

anticipated.” A s to the CPI itself, she pointed out that BLS had raised 

the housing issue during the revision process but had been unable to 

obtain a consensus among its advisory groups and users. Summarizing, 

she concluded, “Some people would like an index that doesn’t go up 

so much, and other people would like an index that goes up more. 

And when they don't have that which they want, they feel there must 

be something wrong with the indicator itself.”54

In October 1981, Norwood announced that BLS would shift to 

the rental equivalence approach for the housing component. Noting 

that BLS had called attention to the issue over a period of 10 years, 

she cited immediate factors requiring implementation of the change 

before the next overall revision of the index. There had been changes 

in the financial markets affecting the availability, arrangement, and rate 

of mortgage money. In addition, the FHA sample caused increasingly 

serious estimation problems. Furthermore, the Economic Recovery 

Tax Act o f 1981 directed use o f the CPI-U to adjust income tax 

brackets. This, Norwood said, obliged the Bureau to produce “a CPI 

which reflects the experience of consumers to the fullest extent possible.”55

The change, Norwood said, would be implemented at different 

times in the two CPI's. It would be introduced into the CPI-U with 

the data for January 1983, largely because the Economic Recovery Tax 

Act mandated advance announcement of tax bracket changes by 

December 15, 1984, based on CPI-U data for the prior 2 years. For 

the CPI-W , widely used in collective bargaining, the shift would be 

delayed until January 1985 to provide time to adjust the provisions of 

labor-management contracts.56

Both the change and the split timetable sparked controversy. 

Almost immediately, bills were introduced in Congress, one requiring 

continuance of the current methods for 5 years beyond the change 

dates and another requiring congressional approval of changes that

232

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Four Commissioners: An Economy Going by the Numbers

would cause “reduction of benefits to retirees and disability programs.”57

Business spokesmen generally supported the changes as “a web 

come improvement in the accuracy of the CPI that is long overdue.” 

The BLS Business Research Advisory Council favored the shift but 

recommended that the Bureau produce “one single measure at the 

earliest possible date.” Labor union representatives, still critical of the 

rental equivalence approach, welcomed the 2-year grace period that 

allowed further study and evaluation.58

The complete implementation o f the rental equivalence 

approach, following full public discussion and improvement of the 

rental sample, was carried out on schedule and without further controversy.

In fiscal year 1984, the Bureau received funds to begin another 

major revision of the CPI, scheduled for completion in 1987. As 

planned, the CPI for January 1987 would include a new market basket 

and reflect data from the 1980 Census of Population; improved measures of price change, especially homeownership and rental costs; modernization of the computer system; and enhanced error measurement 

and quality control.59

Standard budgets

BLS issued new standard—or family—budgets during 1967 and 1968 

for a family of four and for a retired couple, using data from the 

1960-61 consumer expenditure survey. Bach of these budgets was 

calculated at three levels—a medium or moderate standard, a lower, 

and a higher. Federal and State governments wrote the budgets into 

legislation on social security, unemployment insurance, public welfare, 

and employment and training programs.

The Bureau, however, increasingly questioned its role in making 

the normative judgments underlying the series. As Moore wrote in 

1969, “I do not think the BLS should set itself up as an authority on 

what is adequate or inadequate, what is a luxury and what is not, etc., 

no matter how reasonable the position may seem to us.” Thus, in 

1971, Moore proposed to suspend preparation of the estimates for a 

few years until data from the next consumer expenditure survey 

became available. At that time, suggested Moore, the Bureau would 

“expand its program of publishing and analyzing data on actual spending patterns for families of different sizes and types at different

233

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

incomes and expenditure levels and for different regions and sizes of 

place.”60

“Consistent and considerable pressure” forced BLS to continue 

issuing estimates for use in a variety of social programs. For example, 

Nelson A. Rockefeller, Governor of New 'fork, wrote, “The possibility that the Bureau o f Labor Statistics will discontinue periodic publication o f family budget data threatens New fork and many other 

States with the loss of a valuable, irreplaceable administrative tool.” 

Therefore, Moore suggested that either the Office of Management and 

Budget or an interagency committee set the standards for which BLS 

could collect the prices. Later, Shiskin argued that an operating 

agency such as the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 

should develop the standards, rather than a statistical agency. 

Although OMB accepted the idea, HEW refused to take the responsibility.61

Moreover, a lack of funds compounded the problem. Shiskin 

posed the dilemma faced in 1974: “The Bureau’s professional reputation and credibility are dependent on the maintenance of data of high 

quality, fot, in this case, the Bureau has no resources with which to 

protect the quality of this program.”62

In 1978, after considering a number of alternative approaches to 

the standards issue, the Bureau contracted for a complete review of 

the family budget program with the Wisconsin Institute for Research 

on Poverty, which then appointed the Expert Committee on Family 

Budget Revision. In its 1980 report, the committee, recognizing the 

problem confronting the Bureau, recommended four new budget 

standards to be defined on the basis of actual expenditures of families 

at different income levels, rather than the older procedure based on 

judgments as to the adequacy of quantities and expenditures. In 1981, 

however—as part of a substantial program reduction required during 

the fiscal 1981 budget cycle—Norwood decided to halt the production 

of these data for lack of the additional resources needed either to 

implement the recommendations of the Expert Committee or to bring 

the quality of the budgets up to Bureau technical standards.63

Wholesale prices

In 1976, BLS started the first comprehensive revision of the Wholesale Price Index by surveying index users to determine their needs and 

their views of shortcomings in the measure. The Bureau had substan234

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Four Commissioners: An Economy Going by the Numbers

tially revamped procedures twice, in 1914 and 1952; it had instituted a 

major expansion and reclassification in 1967; and it had most recently 

reweighted the index in January 1976. But BLS wanted a “general 

price index” that would be more broadly based and more accurate, 

utilizing probability sampling.6*

Critics had pointed to inadequacies from time to time. Jules 

Backman and Martin Gainsbrugh, in 1966, had noted several short' 

comings. Others wrote of out-of-date weights, double and triple 

counting, and list (rather than transaction) prices. Also, such groups as 

the National Association of W holesaler Distributors pushed for a 

change of name to more accurately describe the data. In 1975, Albert 

Rees, director of the Council on Wage and Price Stability, attacked the 

index for presenting “totally inadequate data” and announced that 

Richard Ruggles of Yale would lead an examination. Ruggles issued 

his report in 1977, proposing a number of improvements in the program.65

The outside recommendations for improvement in the index 

were taken into account in the extensive planning for the multiyear 

revision of the series. To set the measure on a firmer theoretical 

foundation, the revision plans were based on a model of a fixed-input 

output price index. The new system consisted of four major components: Industry output price indexes, detailed commodity price 

indexes, stage-of-processing price indexes, and industry input price 

indexes. It rested on collection of actual transaction prices, expansion 

of coverage, and elimination of multiple counting of price changes.66 

In 1978, to emphasize that the index was a measure of change in 

selling prices received by producers at the level of the first significant 

commercial transaction in the United States, the Bureau changed its 

name from W holesale to Producer Price Index.

The Bureau continued to introduce new producer price indexes, 

with the goal of covering all 493 industries in the mining and manufacturing sectors. By 1983, the Producer Price Index Revision program 

covered 191 industries, accounting for almost 60 percent of the value 

of all domestic mining and manufacturing production, with over

18,000 price quotations for over 3,500 commodities. BLS used 

probability sampling techniques to select companies by size and location and to identify individual items and transaction terms for the 

firms. Estimates of sample error were also being constructed. Budget

235

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

cuts, however, postponed completion of the project as well as further 

developmental work on new indexes for the services sector.

Petroleum prices. O n several occasions during 1973, when major 

petroleum exporting countries imposed an oil embargo, the New 

England congressional caucus complained to the Secretary of Labor of 

the failure of BLS to provide “adequate wholesale or retail price data” 

on petroleum products—even at a time of acute shortages. The Secretary initially responded by noting that BLS had been working on the 

problem for more than a year, contacting companies and helping them 

develop reporting procedures, but that response had so far been disappointing. In December, the Secretary reported that the first data 

would soon be published. Indeed, on December 21, with the release of 

CPI figures for November, BLS presented the expanded and improved 

gasoline component, along with monthly retail gasoline price measures.67

But continued difficulties in developing voluntary reporting from 

the companies—especially on wholesale prices—at a time of shortages 

and embargoes encouraged those demanding mandatory reporting of 

energy statistics. In March 1974, the Joint Economic Committee recommended, “Unless corporations producing petroleum products provide full and immediate cooperation with the requests of the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics, Congress should provide BLS with authority to 

require submission of corporate data with appropriate safeguards to 

prevent competitive injury.”68

However, following considerable discussion, the Bureau’s Business Research Advisory Council upheld the principle of voluntary 

reporting and offered to encourage increased participation. The petroleum industry representative to the Business Advisory Council on 

Federal Reports made a similar offer.69

In June 1974, in presenting the Wholesale Price Index for May, 

the Bureau introduced improved data for refined petroleum products. 

Even so, the New England congressional caucus still complained of 

the lack of detail specific to their region. Commissioner Shiskin 

explained that more detail was not feasible, as BLS collected statistics 

from a sample and would not issue numbers that would identify 

reporters.70

236

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Four Commissioners: An Economy Going by the Numbers

Export and import prices

Following World War II, BLS had started development of indexes of 

prices for U .S. exports and imports, but had terminated the work in 

1948 due to budget cuts. Research on concept and methodology 

resumed in the late 1960’s. The Bureau published export price indexes 

in 1971 and import price indexes in 1973. As of June 1982, coverage 

accounted for 71 percent of the value of exports and 96 percent of the 

value of imports. By the end of 1983, BLS had expanded coverage to 

100 percent of the value of products in U .S. foreign trade—but with 

less detail than originally planned because of budget reductions.71

Employment and unemployment statistics

The Gordon Committee—set up in 1961 to review employment and 

unemployment data—had called upon the Bureau for major improvements in its statistics. During the next 20 years, recurring recessions 

and the legislation passed to alleviate them increased the demand for 

more detailed and accurate employment data. In addition, the reorganization of government statistical activities gave the Bureau added 

responsibilities; in 1972, it took over from the Manpower Administration the preparation and publication of local area unemployment statistics, occupational employment statistics, employment and wage data 

for workers covered by unemployment insurance, and data on the 

characteristics of the unemployed. The Bureau also expanded its analysis and publication of labor force data relating to minorities, women, 

and families.

In the 1980’s, the Bureau worked to carry out the recommendations of another group of experts empaneled to review the government’s statistics—the National Commission on Employment and 

Unemployment Statistics. The National Commission, headed by Sar 

Levitan, issued its report, Counting The Labor Force, in 1979, after 

extensive public hearings, preparation of 33 background papers, and 

much discussion. “By and large,” the commission stated, “the most 

important national statistics are timely, objective, and reasonably accurate, and they have unquestionably played a crucial role in guiding 

policy formulation. The commission’s review of existing data, however, has led it to several areas in which the information system might 

be improved.” The commission’s 90-odd recommendations covered all 

the Bureau’s employment and unemployment statistics programs.72

237

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Secretaries of Labor Ray Marshall and Raymond Donovan, as 

required by the law establishing the commission, submitted reports to 

Congress evaluating the desirability, feasibility, and cost of each recommendation. Under Norwood, a number of major recommendations 

were put into effect, but others were found to be too costly or impractical, and implementation of others awaited the results of testing and 

the development of programs.

Current Population Survey. In January 1967, the Bureau put into effect 

some of the major recommendations of the Gordon Committee for 

the CPS. It introduced sharper definitions; a minimum age of 16, 

rather than 14; and a larger sample.

One element of the new definitions proved controversial. Under 

the new terminology, persons were classified as unemployed only if 

they had searched for work within the previous 4 weeks and were 

currently available for work. If no job search had been conducted, a 

person was classified as “not in the labor force” rather than unemployed.

Union economists charged that the new procedure, which had 

been tested in a survey of 13,000 households in September 1966, 

would aggravate the “existing undercount” of unemployment by 

excluding those who were discouraged—those who were no longer 

searching because they believed no work was available. They advocated increased efforts to identify and learn more about discouraged 

workers. Although the new definition of unemployment remained in 

force, the Bureau did add a series of questions to the CPS designed to 

collect data on discouraged workers. The results were published quarterly thereafter.73

The size of the CPS sample, increased in 1967, had to be 

decreased in 1971, but the Bureau obtained funds to increase it substantially in 1978 and again in 1980, largely to provide the detail 

needed to improve State and local estimates. In 1981, the sample had 

to be reduced again but remained considerably higher than it was 

before 1980. New methods of seasonal adjustment were introduced in 

1973 and refined in 1980.

In 1976, the Bureau—to allay outside criticism of the unemployment concept—began to publish in its monthly release on the employment situation an array of unemployment rates, U -l through U -7, 

each based on a different definition. The U -5 rate remained the official

238

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Four Commissioners: An Economy Going by the Numbers

definition, but, as Shiskin explained, “No single way of measuring 

unemployment can satisfy all analytical or ideological interests.”74

As the National Commission had recommended, the Bureau 

added military personnel stationed in the United States to the 

national labor force and employment figures, although not to the State 

and local data, and included them in the computation of the overall 

unemployment rate. Further, all industry and occupational data in the 

CPS were classified according to a new system developed for the 1980 

census. In addition, the estimation methods were revised along the 

lines the commission had recommended.

BLS also added monthly questions to the CPS on the school 

attendance of 16- to 24-year-olds, another recommendation of the 

commission, to learn more about their work and school choices and 

their labor market attachment. The commission had also recommended improving the identification of discouraged workers by collecting more specific information on recency of job search, current 

availability, and desire for work, but the Bureau postponed this work 

indefinitely because tests of the feasibility of introducing pertinent 

questions into the CPS questionnaire were inconclusive. Discouraged 

workers continued to be counted as outside the labor force and 

excluded from the official unemployment figure, in line with the commission’s recommendation reached after much debate.

The commission had called upon BLS to prepare an annual 

report containing national data on economic hardship associated with 

low wages, unemployment, and insufficient participation in the labor 

force. The Bureau issued the first report, Linking Employment

Problems to Economic Status, in January 1982, with annual reports 

thereafter. Congress, in the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 

(PL97-300), specifically authorized the Secretary of Labor to develop 

such information.

In the early 1980’s, the Bureau started a major project to redesign 

the CPS in cooperation with other Federal sponsors of household 

surveys and the Census Bureau. By July 1985, an entirely new sample 

will have been phased in, based on materials from the 1980 census.75

Establishment survey. The Bureau continued to expand its monthly 

series on employment, hours, and earnings in nonagricultural establishments. In 1965, it had covered a sample of 135,000 establishments; 

by 1975, the sample had grown to 160,000 and by 1983, to 190,000.

239

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

In 1979, the National Commission criticized the sample design 

and other basic statistical underpinnings of the establishment survey, 

but urged caution in making major changes that might disrupt economic series essential for current analyses and as building blocks for 

important indicators. Basic shortcomings noted by the commission 

included inadequate sample size, poor documentation, and lack of 

quality control measures. With the support of the Secretary, BLS 

established a long-range project for a full-scale modernization of the 

survey. Major changes would await development of an overall systematic redesign.

The commission specifically recognized the inadequacy of industry detail for the large and growing service-producing sector of the 

economy, and the Bureau moved to improve the sample. Cooperating 

State agencies responded with a buildup of coverage so that, by 1984, 

BLS expanded publication of industry detail in the service sector by 82 

additional industries.76

Occupational employment statistics. The Vocational Education Act of 

1963 required the States to develop information on future occupational requirements for use in planning education and training programs. To help State officials, the Bureau prepared a series of 

occupational projections for the year 1975, published in Tomorrow's

Manpower Heeds (1969).

Also, at the urging of the Gordon Committee, the Bureau began 

to develop occupational statistics through industry studies. Then, in 

1971, BLS mailed questionnaires to 50,000 manufacturing establishments, marking the start of the Occupational Employment Statistics 

survey conducted in cooperation with the Employment and Training 

Administration and the State employment security agencies. Between 

1971 and 1981, the Bureau completed three survey cycles for manufacturing; various nonmanufacturing and service industries; and government services. By 1982,48 State agencies had joined the effort.

Since 1980, the survey has been an important source of data for 

the Bureau’s national industry-occupational matrix, one of its basic 

tools for occupational employment projections and occupational outlook studies.

Local area unemployment statistics. Among the Bureau’s most intractable problems has been the inadequacy of local area unemployment

240

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Four Commissioners: An Economy Going by the Numbers

data. Before the program was turned over to the Bureau, the figures 

had been used primarily to identify areas of labor shortage or surplus 

by the Bureau of Employment Security and its successor agencies. 

They had been developed through a complicated series of computations—the 70-step or Handbook method—relying heavily on data 

derived from administrative records of the unemployment insurance 

system. Beginning with passage of the Comprehensive Employment 

and Training Act (CETA) in 1973 and later under additional legislation, these data were incorporated in the formula used for the regular 

and direct distribution of Federal funds to States and local areas. The 

Bureau, assigned technical and publication responsibility for the data, 

found them of questionable quality for the new purpose.

Shiskin summarized the difficulties: “These unemployment statistics have been severely criticized because they lack conceptual uniformity and consistency, are of uneven reliability, and cannot be fully 

reconciled with data from the national survey of employment and 

unemployment. ”77

In 1974, BLS instituted new procedures to improve the data, 

including benchmarking the annual estimates to the Current Population Survey and improving the Handbook procedures to provide 

greater uniformity among the States in concepts and methods. States 

facing reduced CETA funding challenged the new procedures. New 

Jersey attacked the methodology, Maryland attacked the implementation, and both charged specifically that the Secretary of Labor, in 

instituting the changes, had violated the advance-notice requirement 

of the Administrative Procedures Act and had exceeded his authority.

The Bureau’s statistical methods were upheld in the New Jersey 

case. In the Maryland case, a lower court upheld the Department 

position that it was not required to give advance notice in the Federal

Register of changed methods for gathering unemployment statistics, 

but the decision was reversed by the U .S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia. In so ruling, the court found that “the development of statistics no longer serves merely informational purposes” in 

view of their use in allocating billions of dollars under the CETA 

program.78

The Bureau continued efforts to improve the data, although it 

recognized the limited possibilities in view of the lack of funds. Shiskin acknowledged many shortcomings, stating in 1977, “When you 

get to those very small areas we’re talking about, we worry about

241

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

whether we’re giving any better than random numbers.” He estimated 

that accurate State-by-State figures would require an additional annual 

appropriation of $40-$50 million—which still would not provide 

dependable city and county data.79

In 1978, BLS again introduced improvements. The monthly 

unemployment rates for 10 States and 2 metropolitan areas were now 

drawn directly from the Current Population Survey. With these revisions, Congress, in reauthorizing CETA, provided that the Secretary 

should ensure that areas within Standard Metropolitan Areas and 

central cities would not lose funds as a result of changes in statistical 

methodology.80 In addition, the Bureau and the States began work to 

standardize the underlying unemployment insurance claims data to 

provide greater consistency with the concept of unemployment used 

in the CPS.

In 1979, after reviewing the local area unemployment statistics 

program, the National Commission concluded, “There is no way, at 

reasonable cost, to produce accurate employment and unemployment 

statistics for thousands of areas every month.” Thus, it suggested 

“only incremental” improvements: Expansion of the CPS, enhancement of the Handbook procedures, and congressional review of the 

allocation formulas.81

The very large sums of money required for a major overhaul 

constituted a critical obstacle. Even so, in 1982, Norwood commented, 

“The local unemployment statistics program is one which clearly 

needs more work.”82 The Bureau continued an intensive research 

effort.

Job vacancy statistics. The Bureau continued its efforts to develop job 

vacancy statistics, although methodological and conceptual problems 

and budget restraints plagued the program from the beginning. In 

1967, the Bureau began collection of job vacancy data in Phoenix and 

Oklahoma City in connection with the regular labor turnover survey. 

At about the same time, however, funding for the turnover program 

was cut in half as part of general budget reductions.83

Shortly after assuming office in January 1969, President Nixon, at 

the urging of Arthur Bum s, directed BLS to develop plans for a 

national system of job vacancy statistics. Building on the Bureau’s 

earlier efforts, Commissioner Moore developed a Federal-State cooperative program of statistics on job openings and labor turnover. The

242

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Four Commissioners: An Economy Going by the Numbers

first data on job openings were published in 1970. BLS had to terminate the program in 1974, however, after the Manpower Administration withdrew its supporting funds on the basis that the data were not 

useful to the placement activities of the State employment security 

agencies.84

In the late 1970’s, Congress authorized the Bureau to plan for a 

survey of job openings. A pilot study demonstrated that, while a 

national program could be developed, the cost would be “in excess of 

$25-$30 million a year”—twice the budget for the national household 

survey. Then, the labor turnover program, which had been the vehicle for the pilot study, became a casualty of the 1982 budget cut, in 

view of its overall technical limitations, particularly its failure to cover 

service industries, where turnover rates were highest.85

This checkered history reflected the difficult and controversial 

nature of job vacancy statistics. The Labor Research Advisory Council 

expressed grave reservations because of the difficulty in defining basic 

terms and the belief that industry would use vacancy statistics to 

“deflate” unemployment figures. Somewhat more supportive of the 

program, the Business Research Advisory Council nevertheless 

opposed connections with local employment offices and sought assurances that the Employment Service would not use vacancy data to 

direct referrals. In its report, the National Commission “found no 

evidence that useful job vacancy statistics can be collected in a costeffective manner.”86

Poverty and urban problem s

BLS accomplished some of its most innovative work in special surveys 

related to poverty and urban problems. In February 1966, the Bureau 

canvassed food prices in six large cities for the National Commission 

on Food Marketing and also for Esther Peterson of the President’s 

Committee on Consumer Interests on the question, “Do the Poor Pay 

More?”8^

At about the same time, the Bureau launched a new quarterly 

series of data on conditions in urban poverty neighborhoods. Beginning with data from the Current Population Survey of March 1966, 

the Bureau compiled special tabulations of poverty tracts and compared the findings with characteristics of other city dwellers. Census 

had developed the classification system for the Office of Economic 

Opportunity, basing it on 1960 census data for cities of 250,000 popu243

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

lation or more and for a range of variables such as income, education, 

skills, housing, and family conditions.

Then, in response to a directive of Secretary Wirtz that the 

Bureau and the Manpower Administration "provide the information 

necessary for a concerted attack on individual and social problems,” 

the agencies conducted a series of pilot projects. The Manpower 

Administration financed a joint BLS-Census survey of slum areas in 

six large cities covering the period July 1968 through June 1969, a 

study specifically designed for use in the President's Concentrated 

Employment Program o f jobs and training activities. In October 1969, 

BLS published Urban Employment Survey: Employment Situation in 

Poverty Areas of Six Cities, following with special articles in the 

Monthly Labor Review. The Bureau conducted a second urban 

employment survey but, despite its desire to continue the work, was 

unable to reach agreement with the Manpower Administration on 

methodological issues and policy priorities.88

In 1971, Moore announced that BLS would suspend production 

of the quarterly series on poverty areas the following year to improve 

accuracy by allowing for introduction o f 1970 census data when they 

became available. The suspension was criticized by Senator Hubert 

Humphrey and George Meany because it would occur in a Presidential election year. Roy Wilkins, chairman of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, wrote the Secretary, “The BLS has enjoyed a 

deserved reputation for integrity. Recent developments have raised 

doubts. . . . The decision to abandon the ghetto unemployment data 

. . . reinforces these doubts and raises new questions of political 

interference with BLS.”89 In 1973, once data from the 1970 census 

had been introduced, BLS resumed publication of the quarterly data 

but based solely on an income definition of poverty.

Earnings statistics

Since 1947, BLS had published a series on gross and spendable average 

weekly earnings based on the establishment survey. Spendable earnings were derived by adjusting average gross weekly earnings of all 

production or nonsupervisory workers for Federal taxes and Social 

Security payments for a worker with no dependents and for one with 

three dependents. Adjusted by changes in the CPI, “real” gross and 

spendable earnings series were developed to indicate changes in the 

purchasing power of money earnings. In 1982, the spendable earnings

244

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Four Commissioners: An Economy Going by the Numbers

series was discontinued because of conceptual inadequacies. Many 

critics—among them former Commissioner Moore—had faulted the 

series as “misleading” because it rested on the unwarranted assumption that a worker with three dependents had the same weekly earnings as the average for all workers. The National Commission had 

recommended discontinuance, explaining, “This hybrid figure does 

not measure what it purports to measure.”90

Instead, the commission urged development of earnings statistics 

derived from the Current Population Survey. BLS then published 

quarterly reports of median earnings of workers and their families 

derived from the CPS. Some observers characterized these statistics as 

“soft,” noting that they were based on subjective, oral responses, in 

contrast to the “hard” numbers derived from establishment reports. 

Furthermore, the CPS samples were rather small, with a substantial 

nonresponse rate, and the statistical variance for earnings was relatively high.91

Earnings data were also derived from the reports filed by employers covered by the unemployment insurance program. From these 

reports, BLS developed and published statistics on average annual pay 

by State and industry. The data were used by the Employment and 

Training Administration and State agencies to construct projections of 

total and taxable wages and by the Commerce Department in developing the personal income estimates in the gross national product 

accounts.

For a number of years, up to data for 1975, BLS also published 

another series on annual earnings, developed from a 1-percent random sample of the records of the Social Security Administration and 

the Railroad Retirement Board.

W ages, benefits, and industrial relations

In 1965, the Bureau’s wage program included three principal types of 

surveys which produced occupational wage information: Area wage 

surveys, industry wage surveys, and the national survey o f 

professsional, administrative, technical, and clerical pay (the PATC or 

white-collar survey). Although differing in industrial, geographic, and 

occupational coverage, and originating for different purposes at different times, they were developed into an integrated program based on 

common concepts and definitions, a common set of administrative 

forms, and a single manual of procedures.

245

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

In the area wage survey program, statistical techniques were 

improved in the early 1970’s. By 1982, the program included about 70 

Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, statistically selected to rep' 

resent all metropolitan areas of the United States, excluding Alaska 

and Hawaii.

The Bureau also conducted wage surveys in 86 areas on behalf of 

the Employment Standards Administration for use in administering 

the Service Contract Act of 1965. The act required payment of the 

prevailing wage by employers providing services to the Federal Government under contracts of $2,500 or more.

For several years after World War 13, BLS added detail to its area 

wage surveys for use by the Department of Defense and other agencies 

in setting wage rates for their blue-collar employees. However, in 

1965, President Johnson directed the Civil Service Commission to 

work towards developing a uniform system for all Federal agencies. In 

the negotiations that followed, BLS rejected proposals that it actively 

participate in these surveys, noting a potential conflict of interest and 

violation of confidentiality, since representatives of employee unions 

and agency management customarily participated in the detailed planning and conduct of the surveys. Therefore, under the Coordinated 

Federal Wage System, established administratively in 1968 and enacted 

into law in 1972, BLS provides some statistical support, but local wage 

survey committees, consisting of management and labor representatives, conduct the studies.92

Various groups have suggested that BLS become the data collection agency for both the white- and blue-collar pay systems. This was 

the recommendation of the Federal Job Evaluation and Pay Review 

Task Force in 1971. In 1979, the General Accounting Office recommended that BLS work with the Office of Personnel Management to 

improve the system.93

Industry wage surveys, conducted in each industry on a 3- or 5- 

year cycle, covered about 40 manufacturing and 25 nonmanufacturing 

industries by 1982. Following the budget cuts for fiscal year 1982, the 

program was reduced to 25 manufacturing and 15 nonmanufacturing 

industries.

The PATC survey was made the basis for carrying out the principle of comparability o f Federal and private-sector pay under legislation 

passed in 1962 and 1971. The Bureau acts as the data collector for the

246

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Four Commissioners: An Economy Going by the Numbers

President’s Pay Agent, which sets the specifications for the survey and 

makes the recommendations on pay adjustment.94

Several investigations of the Federal pay system have touched on 

matters relevant to the Bureau’s role. In 1973, the General Account' 

ing Office, after a review of the comparability process, emphasized the 

need to expand the coverage of the PATC survey and to clarify the 

definitions and terminology. In 1975, the President’s Panel on Federal 

Compensation (Rockefeller Panel) called for the inclusion of data from 

State and local governments, a change which would require amending 

the Federal pay laws. Also at that time, the Council of Economic 

Advisers urged the separation of managerial or political interests— 

those of the President’s Pay Agent and the Federal Employees Pay 

Council—from the technical side o f pay comparability, with the 

Bureau assigned responsibility for developing a mechanism for deter' 

mining the wage rates and benefits of workers doing "comparable 

work” to that o f government employees.95

With increases in appropriations, BLS extended the occupational 

coverage of the PATC survey from 72 occupational work levels in 

1975 to approximately 100 such categories in 1982. However, critics 

still complained that the survey covered mainly large, high paying 

firms, and also objected to the continued exclusion of State and local 

government workers.96

The review groups also had recommended that the Federal pay 

comparability system be expanded to include benefits. The Office of 

Personnel Management, in developing its Total Compensation Comparability project, called on the Bureau to gather data on benefit plans 

in the private sector. The Bureau conducted a pilot project in 1979 

and then developed an annual survey o f the incidence and characteristics of employee benefit plans in medium and large firms.

The Bureau added another type o f occupational wage survey in 

1970 with a program o f surveys of wages and benefits of municipal 

government employees. The series eventually covered 50 occupations 

in 27 large cities before it was eliminated in the budget cuts of fiscal 

year 1981.

Economic policymakers had long felt the need for a current, 

broadly based measure o f change in wage costs in the economy, com' 

parable in scope to the consumer price and employment measures. 

The urgency increased with the wage-price spiral of the Vietnam era. 

In 1969, the Bureau asked Albert Rees of Princeton University to

247

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

make recommendations for improving its measures of wage change. 

While questioning whether a new series could be developed on a cost' 

effective basis, Rees suggested that the Bureau develop an index from 

the «risfing data on average hourly earnings in the establishment 

survey, adjusted to exclude overtime payments in manufacturing and 

employment shifts between high' and low-wage industries. He also 

stressed the importance o f obtaining information on the changes in 

the earnings o f government employees.97

The Hourly Earnings Index was developed in 1971, responding 

to the Rees suggestion. W hile it represented a step forward, the index 

was limited to earnings of production workers, excluded supplementary benefits, did not adjust for part-time workers, and did not provide 

separate detail for occupational groups.

Pressure continued for the development of a broad, general wage 

measure to serve as an economic indicator. Shiskin explained that 

government officials responsible for monitoring the economy and 

evaluating the effectivenesses of economic policies had pressed BLS to 

produce a measure which included benefits. Although the labor advisers questioned the proposed measure, complaining of the lack of tfa 

well-constructed, theoretical framework,” they participated in the 

technical, development of what came to be called the Employment 

Cost Index.98

The Employment Cost Index, measuring quarterly changes in 

wages and salaries, was first published in 1976. Designed as a fixed 

weight index at the occupational level, it eliminated the effects of 

employment shifts among occupations. Developed in stages, the ECI 

included benefits in 1980 and, by 1981, presented indexes by occupational group and industry division for State and local government 

workers as well as for the private nonfarm sector. It also provided 

detail by collective bargaining status, region, and area size. In October 

1980, the Office of Management and Budget designated the ECI a 

“Primary Federal Economic Indicator.”99

The series on current changes in wages and supplementary benefits agreed to in collective bargaining continued as an indicator in this 

more limited but significant sector. Since 1982, BLS has followed 

about 1,900 bargaining situations involving actions covering 1,000 

workers or more. Initially limited to wage adustments, the series now 

covers changes in total compensation in agreements covering 5,000 

workers or more in all industries and 1,000 workers or more in

248

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Four Commissioners: An Economy Going by the Numbers

construction. Also, beginning with 1979, BLS has published data on 

total compensation under negotiated agreements covering 5,000 work' 

ers or more in State and local government employment.

Bureau wage programs of long standing were eliminated during 

the budget tightening of 1979-82, however. The series of wage chronologies, which provided a continuous record of wage and benefit 

changes negotiated in about 30 major firms or associations of firms, 

was discontinued, along with the series on union wage rates and 

benefits in the building and printing trades, in local transit and trucking, and in grocery stores.

Industrial relations programs were also substantially affected. The 

Bureau's file of collective bargaining agreements was maintained only 

for contracts covering 1,000 workers or more, and, while the file 

continued as a basis for BLS reports on wage negotiations, in-depth 

studies of contract provisions were no longer conducted. The directory of unions and employee associations was discontinued, and strike 

statistics were reduced in coverage.

Productivity and technology

Economic conditions focused increasing attention on the productivity 

of U .S. industry and its workers. Concern over the consequences of 

technological change and foreign competition, the use of productivity 

improvement factors in collective bargaining agreements, and the 

implementation of wage-price guidelines as national economic policy 

gave productivity measurement heightened importance. With the slow 

rate of productivity increase during the 1970's, productivity measures 

remained in the spotlight.

To meet the demand for more information, the Bureau's ongoing 

work on productivity measures was expanded. The number of industries for which BLS prepared productivity indexes increased to 116 

over the period, reflecting in part extended coverage in trade and 

services. Productivity measures for the economy as a whole and major 

sectors, first published on an annual basis in 1960, were introduced 

quarterly in 1968.

Innovative work was stimulated by the National Academy of 

Sciences Panel to Review Productivity Statistics, which recommended 

in 1979 that BLS “experiment with combining labor and other inputs 

into alternative measures of multifactor productivity." The General 

Accounting Office seconded the suggestion in a 1980 report.10®

249

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

In 1983, die Bureau published its first multifactor productivity 

indexes for major sectors o f the private economy, covering the period 

1948-81. These estimates measured the annual change in output per 

unit of combined labor and capital input. The Bureau explained that 

this “more inclusive measure” represented the first step in trying to 

quantify the contribution o f a number o f major factors underlying 

productivity change. Comparing movements of the multifactor index 

with those of the more familiar measure—output per hour of all 

persons—would indicate how much of the growth or falloff in output 

per hour was due to changes in the use of capital—capital productivity—and how much was due to a combination of the other factors, Le., 

changes in technology, shifts in the composition of the labor force, 

changes in capacity utilization, and so forth.101

The Bureau also played a leading role in developing statistics on 

productivity in the Federal Government. The Joint Economic Committee initiated the project in 1970 by asking the General Accounting 

Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Civil Service 

Commission to establish a task force to collect information and construct indexes. BLS provided assistance and, in 1973, assumed full 

responsibility for collecting data and developing measures. By 1982, 

the program covered about 450 organizational units in almost 50 

Federal departments and agencies.102

Meanwhile, BLS continued its interest in the impact of automation and technological change. In 1966, it released an expanded and 

updated version of its study o f 36 major industries. It followed with 

new studies on computers, railroads, and energy, while continuing to 

update the earlier work in a series o f publications.

The Office of Productivity did lose one of its programs in the 

latter part of the period. Since 1959, the Bureau had surveyed various 

types of federally assisted construction to determine labor and materials requirements in order to estimate the total employment generated. 

Over the years, it had conducted some 28 studies, covering, for example, highways, hospitals, college housing, Federal office buildings, and 

sewers—extending the scope to include private housing construction. 

The data were used in projecting training needs and occupational 

outlook, shortages and surpluses in labor supply, material demands, 

and input-output matrixes. During the 1982 budget austerity, BLS 

eliminated the program, largely because of the time lag between survey

250

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Four Commissioners: An Economy Going by the Numbers

dates and publication and the extensive use of estimation and imputation.103

Econom ic growth and employment projections

Since the 1960’s, the Bureau had produced projections of the labor 

force, industry output, and employment. The Bureau prepared projections on a 2-year cycle covering five areas: Labor force, aggregate 

economic performance, industry final demand and total production, 

industry employment levels, and occupational employment by industry.104

The Bureau continued to publish revised editions of the Occupational Outlook Handbook, a comprehensive reference volume for 

career guidance first produced in 1949 at the urging of the National 

Vocational Guidance Association and with the financial support of the 

Veterans Administration. In 1957, BLS had added the Occupational

Outlook Quarterly to supplement the biennial Handbook.

The projections work was coordinated with the occupational 

outlook programs, although the functions were located in separate 

offices. In November 1979, the Bureau brought the work together 

under the umbrella of the Office of Economic Growth and Employment Projections, making for closer integration of the work on labor 

force, industry output, employment, and occupational projections.105

Industrial safety and health

Historically, BLS had conducted frequent studies of occupational 

safety and health problems and had worked closely with safety and 

inspection groups. By 1966, it was publishing both quarterly and 

annual statistics on the frequency and severity of work injuries in 

many industries.

Passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 greatly 

altered the field of industrial safety statistics. The act directed the 

Secretary of Labor to issue regulations requiring covered employers to 

maintain accurate records of work-related deaths, injuries, and illnesses. In 1971, the Secretary delegated to BLS the responsibility for 

developing the underlying statistical system, in coordination with the 

Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health.

The Bureau moved quickly to construct a cooperative FederalState program to gather statistics necessary under the new law, providing grants to States for planning and development. The specialized

251

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

treatment formerly accorded the collection of data on occupational 

injuries of longshore workers was discontinued, superseded by the 

more comprehensive program. By 1976, the annual survey of occupational injuries and illnesses had become the largest annual sample 

survey conducted by the Bureau. In the following years, BLS sought 

to reduce the reporting burden on employers while refining the survey. In 1982, it sampled about 280,000 establishments in 48 participating States.

The Bureau also developed procedures to provide additional 

information from State workers' compensation records on the characteristics o f the injuries and illnesses and the workers involved. The 

Supplementary Data System, introduced in 1976, became fully operational in 1978, and by 1982,34 States were participating in the cooperative program.106

h i addition, to help fill gaps in the knowledge of how and why 

on-the-job accidents occur, in 1977 the Bureau began a series of direct 

surveys o f injured workers. Each survey in the Work Injury Report 

program was designed to cover a specific type of accident being studied 

by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. From 1978 on, 

the Bureau conducted four such studies each year, publishing, for 

example, Accidents Involving Eye Injuries and Back Injuries Associated

with Lifting.

International activities

In the 1960’s, with the growing importance of foreign trade and 

concern for competition in world markets, the Bureau published two 

studies presenting international comparisons of unit labor costs, one 

for the manufacturing sector as a whole and the other covering the 

iron and steel industry. The Bureau also participated in a joint project 

of the Department of Labor and the Japanese Ministry of Labor, a 

comparative study of wages in Japan and the United States. Janet 

Norwood, as Chief of the Wage and Labor Cost Section of the Office 

of Foreign Labor and Trade, led BLS activities for the project.107

However, in 1969, BLS dismantled the Office of Foreign Labor 

and Trade and distributed its constituent units throughout the 

Bureau. Then in 1972, as a result of budget cuts and staff reductions, 

one o f the units was abolished and the periodical Labor Developments

Abroad, begun in 1956, was suspended. To fill the gap, the Monthly

252

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Four Commissioners: An Economy Going by the Numbers

Labor Review expanded its coverage of foreign labor conditions. The 

Office of Productivity and Technology continued the work on interna' 

tional comparisons of employment, earnings, and productivity.

The Bureau continued to provide training and technical assist' 

ance to developing countries. The training programs for foreign tech' 

nicians were restructured in the early 1970’s, when it became apparent 

that the developing countries no longer needed basic statistical train' 

ing as much as they needed more advanced training on practical 

applications. At the recommendation of a 1972 task force representing 

the U .S. Agency for International Development and the Department 

of Labor, BLS instituted short-term seminars on specific topics in 

applied labor statistics. By the early 1980’s, about a dozen seminars of 4 

to 8 weeks duration were being held each year. Moreover, the BLS 

international training program held two seminars overseas in 1977. 

Since then, about 20 such seminars have been conducted throughout 

the world on various topics in labor statistics.

Administration

Funding

Generally, the Bureau’s budget fared relatively well until Federal 

appropriations tightened in the 1980’s. BLS appropriations increased 

about eightfold between 1966 and 1985, although this reflected mandated salary increases in addition to growth in programs and personnel (table 7). The number of staff positions increased by one-third over 

the period. In 1983, the Bureau was given full financial responsibility 

for the labor market information system, and an initial sum of $20.4 

million in unemployment insurance trust funds was included in the 

Bureau’s budget for fiscal year 1984.

With the tightening of the Federal budget in the 1980’s, Norwood gave priority to assuring the quality and adequacy of the Bureau 

programs providing major national indicators. Other programs were 

trimmed to accommodate to the loss of funds. In fiscal year 1982, 

when Congress added a cut of 4 percent to the 12 percent proposed 

by the administration, the Bureau considered furloughing its work 

force as other agencies had done, but managed to avoid that step 

through advance planning of new hires and replacements. With support from labor and business groups and the Joint Economic Commit253

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Table 7. Funding for Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1966-85

(in thousands)

Fiscal year ended— Total1 Salaries and expenses

June 30 —

1966 $21,995 $19,967

1967 23,519 20,588

1968 24,311 20,985

1969 27,071 21,933

1970 30,433 24,653

1971 32,644 28,096

1972 42,033 37,300

1973 48,874 44,451

1974 53,261 48,635

1975 62,324 54,422

1976 75,841 65,846

September 30 —

19772 90,363 75,617

1978 93,410 84,015

1979 103,869 94,752

1980 124,395 102,890

1981 121,792 111,081

1982 120,170 113,067

1983 130,001 121,743

1984 157,740 137,340

1985 173,260 152,860

’Through fiscal year 1984, includes the direct appropriation together with 

advances and transfers o f Federal funds and payments from trust funds. For 

fiscal years 1984 and 1985, includes, in addition to the direct appropriation, 

the trust fund supplem ent o f $20.4 m illion transferred to BLS for management o f the labor m arket inform ation program . The 1985 figure does not 

include other advances and transfers.

^Includes funds for transition quarter.

SOURCE: The Budget o f the U nited States Government.

tee, Congress appropriated supplemental funds to restore the initial 

administration levels.

Management

In 1966, Secretary Wirtz’s management consultants, Booz-Allen and 

Hamilton, recommended that BLS become “a more integral part of 

the Department.” Also, characterizing BLS as too compartmentalized 

and inflexible to meet new demands, the consultants suggested 

stronger central leadership for the Bureau, with a Chief Economist

254

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Four Commissioners: An Economy Going by the Numbers

responsible for products and planning and a Chief Statistician responsible for standards and techniques.108 Ross accepted these recommendations and put them into effect, also separating the operations 

functions from the program and planning functions in the Bureau’s 

regional offices.

Implementing another Booz-Allen recommendation, the Bureau 

established a central Office of Publications to help the Commissioner 

and the program offices plan, prepare, and disseminate public information. The Office used computer languages created by the Bureau’s 

systems staff to generate photocomposed statistical tables, charts, and 

text, making the Bureau a pioneer in the photocomposed production 

of statistical publications from existing data bases.109 Moreover, BLS 

now makes available major data series at the time of initial release 

through electronic news releases and, more comprehensively, through 

magnetic tape.

Indeed, the Bureau had emphasized improving its electronic 

information systems. Booz-Allen had stressed the need for broader 

and more aggressive use of electronic data processing and had recommended the centralization of all data collection and processing, which 

were then being conducted separately in the various program offices. 

BLS had installed a second-generation computer system in 1963. 

Under Ross, the Bureau encouraged computer language training for 

its professionals to promote expanded use of the computers for analysis and interpretation and worked with the Department to plan a 

system based on a third-generation facility.

During the early 1970’s, the Office of Systems and Standards 

developed Table Producing Language (TPL), a system designed to 

select, restructure, cross-tabulate, and display data. Installations 

around the world have acquired this tabulating system, including commercial enterprises, State and municipal agencies, major universities, 

and other national statistical agencies. In fiscal year 1978, BLS initiated 

LABSTAT (LABor STATistics), its greatly expanded data base or 

general pool of statistical information which gives users direct on-line 

computer access to more than 150,000 time series.

Meanwhile, the Bureau had moved into time-sharing on mainframe computers at the National Institutes of Health and, later, with a 

commercial computer center. This boosted processing capabilities in 

major programs and greatly increased opportunities for analytical 

research, while also facilitating transmissions between BLS headquar255

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

ters and the field offices—without committing scarce resources to 

expensive and soon-outdated equipment.

Having already reorganized under Ross, the Bureau largely conformed with proposals issued by the Office of Management and Budget several years later for improving the organization of all Federal 

statistical activities. In 1971, when OMB called for centralized data 

collection and processing activities within the statistical agencies and 

the establishment of separate units for planning and data analysis, 

Moore replaced the positions of Chief Economist and Chief Statistician with two Deputy Commissioners, one in charge of data analysis 

and the other in charge of statistical operations. Shiskin altered the 

arrangement somewhat by establishing a single Deputy Commissioner 

in 1975.110

During her term, Norwood refined the BLS organizational structure. She enlarged the role of the Office of Research and Evaluation, 

which she expanded in 1982, reflecting increased interest in mathematical statistics and concern for improving the quality of the Bureau’s 

data. In 1982, she also created the position of Deputy Commissioner 

for Administration and Internal Operations. In 1983, she announced 

the recombination of the two program offices dealing with employment statistics, forming the Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics.111

Field operations

The tremendous growth in demand for local data and the accompanying expansion of Federal-State cooperative programs enhanced the 

role of the Bureau’s regional offices. In 1967, as part of the Department’s effort to establish uniform regional organizations and boundaries, BLS changed the location of one of its regional offices from 

Cleveland to Kansas City. In 1968, it established new offices in Philadelphia and Dallas, for a total of eight.

The incoming Nixon administration pushed decentralization of 

government activities, prompting the Department to issue orders to its 

agencies to delegate authority to the field. In 1973, when the Bureau’s 

regional directors were designated Assistant Regional Directors, Shiskin complained of the “apparent subordination of the Bureau staff to 

political appointees,” namely the Department of Labor Regional 

Directors.112 In 1975, Secretary Dunlop made a change, establishing 

Regional Commissioners along with Regional Solicitors and Regional

256

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Four Commissioners: An Economy Going by the Numbers

Administrators. At about the same time, Shiskin created the position 

of Assistant Commissioner for Field Collection and Coordination in 

the national office.

The regional offices now exercise several basic functions: They 

collect and process primary data required for the Consumer Price 

Index, the Producer Price Index, the Employment Cost Index, the 

international price program, and the occupational wage survey program. They supervise and assist cooperating State agencies in collect' 

ing labor force and occupational safety and health statistics and also 

assist in the preparation of area estimates of labor force, employment, 

and unemployment. In addition, they disseminate Bureau publications and data. The Regional Commissioners represent the CommiS' 

sioner and the Bureau in the regions and advise the Department’s 

Regional Director.

Advisory groups

The Business and Labor Research Advisory Councils, established in 

1947, continued to play active roles as advisers and disseminators of 

the Bureau’s data. Most recently, Norwood has stressed the impor' 

tance of their role and her desire to see that they become more helpful 

to the Bureau in carrying out its mission.

Over the years, there have been proposals for extending the 

Bureau’s formal advisory arrangements. Moore proposed setting up 

some means of obtaining advice from the staffs of universities and 

research institutes, but these were not implemented. In 1979, the final 

report of the National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics contained a proposal for a panel “broadly representative of the data-using community.” In his comments on the report, 

Secretary Marshall noted that BLS sought means of obtaining advice 

from State, county, and municipal leaders, as well as CETA prime 

sponsors, State employment security agencies, and others interested in 

State and local statistics. However, in his report on the National 

Commission recommendations, Secretary Donovan rejected the suggestion for a “new permanent advisory council.”113

257

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter IX.

History as Prologue: 

The Continuing Mission

T

he mission of the Bureau of Labor Statistics since its found' 

ing 100 years ago has been to collect information on eco' 

nomic and social conditions and, in the words of Carroll 

Wright, the first Commissioner, through “fearless publication o f the results,” to let the people assess the facts and act on them. 

It was the belief of its founders that dissemination of the facts would 

lead to improvement of the life of the people.

O n the occasion of the Bureau's centennial, Janet L. Norwood, 

the tenth Commissioner, summed up the Bureau’s past—and continuing—role: “The Bureau stands for—

—Commitment to objectivity and fairness in all of its data gathering 

and interpretive and analytical work;

—Insistence on candor at all times;

—Protection of confidentiality;

—Pursuit of improvements;

—Willingness to change; and

—Maintenance of consistency in the highest standards of performance.”

258

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
History as Prologue: The Continuing Mission

These principles, Norwood stressed, must be steadfastly applied 

in monitoring “our programs to ensure that they remain accurate, 

objective, and relevant. We must modernize our statistical techniques 

because a statistical agency that does not constandy move ahead in the 

use of new techniques quickly moves backward.”

As an institution, the Bureau has evolved from the original and 

sole labor agency in the Federal Government, with a broad factfinding 

scope, to one among many specialized labor agencies. Serving as a 

quasi-Department of Labor during its first two decades, it was called 

upon to study and report on issues such as the violent strikes and 

lockouts of the period and the harsh conditions of employment for 

women and children. Today, the Bureau is a general-purpose statistical 

agency, gathering, analyzing, and distributing information broadly 

applicable to labor economics and labor conditions.

While the focus and perspectives of Bureau studies have changed 

over the years, most areas of investigation have remained germane— 

the course of wages and prices, the state o f industrial relations, 

problems of unemployment and the effects of technological and demographic change, and safety and health conditions in the workplace. 

Some areas of study, such as child labor, have been rendered unnecessary by legislation. In others, newer, specialized agencies have taken 

over the work the Bureau began.

The Bureau’s role has been to provide data and analyses that 

contribute to the development of policy without crossing the line into 

policy formulation, but the line is a fine one. Certainly Neill and 

Lubin, through their personal relations, advised Presidents and Secretaries on specifics of labor and economic policy. And at times the 

Bureau has found itself in the midst of controversy, its findings and 

objectivity challenged by one set of partisans or another. Wright’s 

wage and price studies were attacked as products of political manipulation, and, during World War II, labor unions challenged the cost-ofliving index because of their dissatisfaction with the government’s 

wage stabilization policies.

Professional integrity is essential to a government agency which 

provides information for public and private policy needs, and the 

Bureau’s institutional probity has been a constant concern of the 

Commissioners and their staffs. Over the years, the Bureau’s objectivity has been affirmed and reaffirmed upon review of its work by 

congressional committees, Presidential commissions, and professional

259

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

associations of economists and statisticians. All noted areas needing 

improvement, but none found reason to question the independence 

and integrity of the Bureau.

For the first half-century of its existence, the Bureau’s appropriations changed only when special funding was provided for particular 

programs, such as the woman and child study of 1907-09, and development of a cost-of-living index during World War I. The emergency 

demands of the depression of the 1930’s and the accompanying social 

legislation also led Congress to increase appropriations to expand and 

improve the Bureau’s statistics. And, similarly, World War II needs 

generated increased resources and programs.

After the war, the climate was vastly different. Government policy concerns required data produced on a frequent and regular basis. 

The Employment Act of 1946, which established the congressional 

Joint Economic Committee and the Council of Economic Advisers, 

epitomized the new conditions. A s government social and economic 

policies developed and expanded, legislation frequently incorporated 

Bureau statistics as escalators or other administrative devices. There 

was now a regular demand for new and improved statistics, with 

support for resources to make them available. While increases in 

resources have not always been forthcoming, and programs have been 

cut on occasion to make room for new and expanded series, the 

postwar trend has been one of provision of funds for such expansion 

and improvements.

Bureau programs have changed to meet changing conditions. 

Ongoing statistical series such as the Consumer Price Index have been 

adjusted periodically to assure that concepts and coverage reflect 

altered societal patterns. Along with regular planned revisions, the 

Bureau has made interim revisions, as in the case of the treatment of 

the homeownership component in the CPI. New series, including the 

Employment Cost Index and the multifactor productivity indexes, 

have been developed.

Meeting these vastly increased requirements has been made possible through the development of sophisticated statistical techniques of 

sampling and the computerization of statistical operations. Bureau 

personnel now include mathematical statisticians, computer programmers, and computer systems analysts as well as economists and clerical 

staff.

260

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
History as Prologue: The Continuing Mission

In addition, close coordination with other Federal agencies and 

with the States, evolving from Wright’s early efforts, has improved the 

quality of the data and efficiency in collection and processing.

Bureau respondents generally have given their full cooperation 

because of the assurance of confidentiality for reported information, a 

guarantee which has been assiduously enforced. In its communication 

with the public, the Bureau has emphasized frankness regarding limitations of the data and the provision of detailed information on concepts and methods. There has been a constant striving to improve the 

timeliness, regularity, and accuracy of the data and their public presentation.

While well established, the principles have needed regular reiteration, particularly during unsetded times. There have been many 

occasions when the messenger has been buffeted by the storms of 

rapid economic and social change. This has been especially true when 

the Bureau’s data have been used in implementing and monitoring 

policy, as in the wartime use of its cost-of-living index for wage stabilization. On other occasions, Bureau staff efforts to explain technical 

limitations have collided with policymakers’ unqualified use of the 

data. In such circumstances, the Bureau has been sustained by the 

widespread recognition that its nonpartisanship and objectivity must 

be assured and protected. Congress, successive Secretaries of Labor, 

the Bureau’s labor and business advisory groups, the professional 

associations, and the press have supported the independence and 

impartiality of statistical research in government agencies.

The roots of this independence and professionalism are deep and 

strong. The tradition of impartiality has been underwritten by both 

Democratic and Republican administrations over die century of the 

Bureau’s existence, during which Commissioners have been selected 

for their technical competence without regard to partisan considerations.

The Bureau faces great challenges in the years ahead as the phenomena it measures grow in complexity in the dynamic economy of 

the United States. It will require openness to new methods and 

techniques and adherence to the standards already set to carry out its 

mission during the next century.

261

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix:

BLS Publications

F

rom its beginning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has com 

ducted a substantial publications program. Initially, the 

Bureau published annual reports, issuing 25 volumes for the 

years 1885-1910. Each presented the comprehensive findings 

of a specific survey or study, covering such topics as strikes and 

lockouts, convict labor, industrial education, and technological displacement of workers.

Supplementing these, the Bureau conducted special investigations, frequently at the direction of Congress, producing 12 special 

reports between 1889 and 1905. These covered such subjects as marriage and divorce, slum condititions, social insurance, and labor legislation.

The Bureau also provided Congress with reports on such topics 

as labor disputes and pension systems, later published as House or 

Senate documents. Two notable examples were the 19-volume Report

on Condition of Woman and Child Wage-Earners in the United States 

(1910-13) and the 4-volume Report on Conditions of Employment in the

Iron and Steel Industry (1911-12).

From 1895, when Congress authorized publication of a periodi262

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix: BLS Publications

cal, until 1912, the Bureau issued the bimonthly Bulletin. This 

presented original work, digests of State reports, summaries and 

digests of foreign labor and statistical papers, and summaries of current legislation and court decisions.

In 1912, the Bureau discontinued the annual reports and the 

bimonthly Bulletin, issuing instead a series of bulletins, published 

irregularly, each covering a specific program area. In 1915, BLS introduced the Monthly Review, changing the name to Monthly Labor

Review in 1918.

Over the years, BLS added such periodicals as Labor Information

Bulletin and Labor Developments Abroad and published such special 

volumes as Activities of the Bureau of Labor Statistics in World War II

(1947), The Gift of Freedom (1949), and BLS Centennial Album (1984).

At present, BLS publishes bulletins, numbered continuously 

from 1895; reports, a series started in 1953; and one quarterly and five 

monthly periodicals. These periodicals, reflecting the importance of 

the major recurring statistical series, are CPI Detailed Report, Current 

Wage Developments, Employment and Earnings, Monthly Labor Review,

Occupational Outlook Quarterly, and Producer Price Indexes.

In addition, BLS issues some 200 national and 1,300 regional 

news releases each year and summaries of survey results in advance of 

fuller publication in bulletins, providing timely distribution of the 

Bureau’s latest data.

There have been several special sections in the Monthly Labor

Review giving historical perspective: “50 'fears’ Progress of American 

Labor” (July 1950), “Seventy fears of Service—The Story of BLS” 

(January 1955), and “Fifty fears of the MLR” (July 1965). The Bureau 

has published subject indexes for the MLR—Bulletins 695 (1941), 696 

(1942), 1080 (1953), 1335 (1960), 1746 (1973), and 1922 (1976). In 

addition, there are indexes to each volume, now presented annually in 

the December issue.

The Bureau also has produced numerical listings and subject 

indexes for the bulletins and reports, including BLS Publications,

1886-1971, Bulletin 1749 (1972) and BLS Publications, 1972-77, Bulletin 1990 (1978).

Periodically, BLS has published bulletins explaining its statistical 

methods and procedures, beginning with Methods of Procuring and

Computing Statistical Information of the Bureau of Labor Statistics,

Bulletin 326 (1923). In the 1950’s, the Bureau issued two editions of

263

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Techniques of Preparing M ajor BLS Statistical Series, Bulletin 993 in 

1950 and Bulletin 1168 in 1954. Under the title BLS Handbook of

Methods, the Bureau continued with Bulletins 1458 (1966), 1711 

(1971), 1910 (1976), and 2134-1 (1982) and 2134-2 (1984).

BLS published Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 439, in 1927 

as a compendium of historical data, issuing the most recent edition, 

Bulletin 2217, in 1985.

In sheer volume, the largest number of bulletins have presented 

wage data, published currently as Industry Wage Surveys and Area 

Wage Surveys (previously Occupational Wage Surveys). Two major 

series on contract provisions were the 19-volume set, Collective Bargaining Provisions, Bulletin 908 (1947-50), and the 21-volume series, 

M ajor Collective Bargaining Agreements, Bulletin 1425 (1964-82). In 

1947, the Bureau issued the first Directory of Labor Unions in the

United States, Bulletin 901, publishing the last edition in 1980.

One of the Bureau’s most popular bulletins is the Occupational

Outlook Handbook, which it revises every 2 years—most recently as 

Bulletin 2205 (1984).

In recent years, BLS has expanded its analysis and publication of 

labor force data on women, minorities, and families. For example, in 

1978, it introduced the quarterly report Employment in Perspective:

Working Women and, in 1980, another quarterly report, Employment

in Perspective: Minority Workers, with data on blacks and Hispanics.

264

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source Notes

C h ap ter 1. O rigin s

1 James C . Sylvis, The Life, Speeches, Labors and Essays of W illiam H. Sylvis

(Philadelphia: Claxton, Remsen & Haffelfinger, 1872), p. 74.

2 Terence V. Powderly, Thirty Years of Labor (Columbus, Ohio: Excelsior Publishing House, 1889), pp. 302-303.

3 U . S. Congress, House, Select Committee on Depression in Labor and Business, Investigation Relative to the C auses o f the General Depression in Labor and

Business (46C, 2S, 1879), pp. 8-9,118-119.

4 American Federation of Labor, Proceedings, 1881, p. 4, and Proceedings, 1883, p. 

14; Joseph P. Goldberg and William T. Moye, “The A FL and a National B LS,” 

Monthly Labor Review, March 1982, pp. 21-29.

5 U . S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Education and Labor, Labor and C apital (48C, 1885), Vol. I, pp. 87,271,327,382,790-791,1142.

6 Ibid., pp. 570-571; ibid., Vol. m , pp. 278-280.

7 Congressional Record (48C, IS), Apr. 19,1884, p. 3140.

8 Congressional Record (48C, IS), Mar. 7, 1884, pp. 1675-1676; Apr. 19, 1884, p. 

3139; May 14,1884, p. 4157.

9 The New York Times, Feb. 10,1884, p. 6; Apr. 10,1884, p. 8.

10 Journal of United Labor, May 25, 1884, p. 702; Powderly, Thirty Years, pp. 

314-315.

11 National Archives Record Group (NARG) 48, Secretary o f the Interior, 

Appointments Division, Powderly to President Arthur, June 30,1884.

12 N A RG 48, Secretary of the Interior, Appointments Division, Anonymous, re. 

labor question and appointment o f a Commissioner, stamped received Mar. 16, 1885; 

The New York Times, July 24, 1884, p. 4; July 29, 1884, p. 4; Aug. 15, 1884, p. 5; Nov. 

27,1884, p. 1.

13 AFL, Proceedings, 1884, p. 14.

^ The New York Times, July 1,1884, p. 4.

15 N A RG 48, Secretary of the Interior, Appointments Division, Henry Feuerbach to President Arthur, Aug. 14,1884.

16 N A RG 48, Secretary o f the Interior, Appointments Division, Wright to Secretary, Aug. 26, 1884; Anonymous, Mar. 16, 1885; and National Labor Convention, July 

30, Chicago, received Oct. 18,1884.

17 The New York Times, Jan. 20,1885, p. 4.

Chapter II. Carroll Wright

1 James Leiby, Carroll Wright and Labor Reform: The Origin of Labor Statistics

(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960), pp. 204-205.

2 Joseph Dorfman, The Economic Mind in American Civilization, Vol. Ill,

1865-1918 (New \fork: Viking Press, 1949), pp. 123-130.

265

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

3 Wendell D . Macdonald, "The Early History o f Labor Statistics in the United 

States,” Labor History, Spring 1972, p. 275; Read Bain and Joseph Cohen, "Trends in 

Applied Sociology,” in George A. Lundberg, Read Bain, and N ek Anderson, eds., 

Trends in American Sociology (New ìb rk : H arper and Brothers, 1929), p. 350.

4 Carroll D . Wright, The Relation of Political Economy to the Labor Question

(Boston: A. W illiams and C o., 1882), pp. 11-12,16-17.

5 M assachusetts Bureau o f Statistics o f Labor, Eighth Annual Report, 1877, p- vii; 

Wright, Popular Instruction in Social Science (Boston: Geo. E. Crosby & C o., 1886), p. 

11.

6 Wright, "The Factory System as an Element o f Civilization,” Journal of Social

Science, December 1882, p. 125; M assachusetts Bureau, Sixteenth Annual Report, 1885,

p. 26.

7 Wright, “Factory System” (1882), p. 110.

8 Wright, Outline of Practical Sociology (New "fork: Longmans, Green and Co., 

1909, seventh edition, revised), pp. 251,256-257.

9 Wright, "The Relation o f Invention to Labor,” The Liberal Club, Buffalo (Buffalo: The Matthews-Northup C o., 1893), p. 32; W ight, "The Factory as an Element in 

Social Life,” Catholic University Bulletin, January 1901, p. 64.

10 Wright, Relation of Political Economy, pp. 25, 27; W ight, “Why Women Are 

Paid Less Than M en,” Forum, July 1892, p. 637.

11 Wright, “D oes the Factory Increase Immorality?” Forum, May 1892, pp. 

344-349.

12 Wright, Outline, p. 295.

13 W ight, The Battles of Labor (Philadelphia: G.W. Jacobs & C o., 1906), pp. 174,

176.

14 W ight, Batdes of Labor, p. 186; Wright, Outline, p. 299.

15 M assachusetts Bureau, Eighth Annual Report, 1877, p. v i

16 W right, “The W orking o f the United States Bureau o f Labor,” Bulletin (54), 

September 1904, p. 978.

17 John R. Commons, Myself (New Tbrk: The Macmillan C o., 1934), p. 93.

18 Walter F. W illcax, "Development o f the American Census Office since 1890,” 

Political Science Quarterly, September 1914, p. 11; S.N .D . North, “The life and Work 

o f Carroll Davidson W right," American Statistical Association Journal, June 1909, p. 

461.

19 Wright, “The W orking,” pp. 976-977.

20 Great Britain, Royal Com mission on Labour, Fourth Report, 1893-1894, Voi. 

X X X IX , Pt. 1, Minutes of Evidence (c.7063.1) (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery 

Office, 1893), pp. 478,491,493.

21 Wright, “The W orking,” p. 977.

22 National Archives Record Group 257, BLS, Telegrams, 1897-1902, Wright to 

J. B. Crockett, Mar. 30,1896.

23 E.R.L. Gould, “The Progress o f Labor Statistics in the United States,” International Statistical Institute Bulletin (Rome, 1892), p. 188.

24 Wright, “A Basis for Statistics o f C ost o f Production,” A SA Journal, June 1891, 

p. 258.

25 American Federationist, June 1897, p. 76.

266

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source Notes

26 Wright, “The Work o f the U .S. Bureau of Labor,” Association of Officials of 

Bureaus of Labor Statistics, Proceedings, 1885, pp. 129,132-133.

27 Leiby, Carroll Wright, pp. 80-82.

28 Henry Jones Ford, The Cleveland Era (New Haven: Yale University Press, 

1921), pp. 131-132; Denis Tilden Lynch, Grover Cleveland (New "fork: Horace Liveright, Inc., 1932), p. 328.

29 National Labor Tribune, Feb. 25, 1888, p. 1; June 30, 1888, p. 1; Journal of

United Labor, Sept. 20,1888, p. 2702.

30 Terence V. Powderly, The Path I Trod, ed. by Harry J. Carman, Henry David, 

and Raul N. Guthrie (New Y>rk: Columbia University Press, 1940), pp. 230-232; 

Journal of United Labor, May 5,1888, p. 2672.

31U . S. Congress, House, Select Committee on the Tenth Census, Result of the

Tenth Census (House Report 2432, 48C, 2S, 1884), p. 3; House, Committee on the 

Census, Permanent Census Bureau (House R ept 262, 57C, IS, 1902), Appendix A, 

Part 1, Historical Summary.

32 Wright with William C. Hunt, The History and Growth of the Untied States

Census (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1900), p. 81; U .S. Congress, Senate 

(52C, IS, 1891), Senate Executive Document No. 1, Letter from the Secretary o f the 

Interior, A Permanent Census Bureau, pp. 65-66.

33 W illcox, “Development,” pp. 444-445.

34 S.N .D . North, “The Life," p. 459.

35 W illcox, “Development,” p. 443.

36 Ibid., pp. 445-446; Wright and Hunt, The History and Growth, pp. 82-83; 

House, Committee on Appropriations, Hearings, Permanent Census (54C, 2S, 1897), 

pp. 3, 7,11.

37 Senate, Committee on the Census, Permanent Census Service (54C, 2S, 1897), 

p. 28; House, Committee on Appropriations, Report The Twelfth and Subsequent

Censuses (House R ept 2909, 54C, 2S, 1897), p. 2; House, Committee on the Census, 

Permanent Census (House R ept 262), Historical Summary.

38Congressional Record (55C, 2S), Jan. 5,1898, p. 316; Feb. 21,1898, p. 1965.

39 Ibid., pp. 1965,1967.

40 Ibid., p. 1965.

41 Wright and H un t The History and Growth, p. 84.

42 Albert K. Steigerwalt, The National Association of Manufacturers, 1895-1914

(Ann Arbor: Bureau o f Business Research, Graduate School o f Business Administration, University o f Michigan, 1964), pp. 83-84.

43 American Federation o f Labor, Proceedings, 1896, p. 81; Proceedings, 1897, p. 

22; Library o f Congress, American Federation o f Labor Papers, Samuel Gompers 

Letterbooks, Gompers to Frank Hall, New Orleans, Feb. 10,1899.

44 U .S. Department o f Commerce and Labor, Organization and Law of die

Department of Commerce and Labor (Washington: Government Printing Office, 

1904), pp. 501 and 520; Henry F. Pringle, Theodore Roosevelt (New Y>rk: Harcourt, 

Brace & Co., 1931), pp. 244-246; Thomas Beer, H anna (New Y>rk: Octagon Books, 

1973), p. 275.

45 AFL, Proceedings, 1901, p. 27; Congressional Record (57C, IS), Jan. 22,1902, p. 

863.

267

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

46 House, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Hearing, Department

of Commerce (57C, 1902), pp. 30,40,105.

47 Ibid., p. 34.

48 Ibid., pp. 6,22.

49 Ibid., pp. 506,547-548,552.

50 Ibid., p. 501.

51 Ibid., pp. 492, 495; N A RG 257, BLS, Letters Sent, Wright to Fawcett, Jan. 31, 

1902.

52 Francis E. Rourke, “The Department o f Labor and the Trade U nions," The

Western Political Quarterly, 1954, p. 660.

53 The Works of Theodore Roosevelt, Presidential Addresses and State Papers (New 

\ork: RF. Collier & Son Publishers), VoL HI, pp. 126-127.

54 Wright, “The W orking* (1904), p. 975.

55 Wright, “The W orking o f die Department o f Labor," Cosmopolitan, June 1892, 

p. 236.

56 House, Committee on A ppropriations, Hearings, Legislative, Executive, and

Judicial Appropriations, F Y 1897 (54C, 1896), p. 83; ibid., F Y 1903 (1902), p. 290.

57 U .S. Com missioner o f Labor, First Annual Report, Industrial Depressions

(1886), pp. 290-293.

58 Wright, “The W orking," Cosmopolitan, p. 233.

59 A FL, Proceedings, 1887, p. 9.

60 Richmond Mayo-Smith, “The National Bureau o f Labor and Industrial 

Depressions,” Political Science Quarterly, September 1886, p. 441.

61 Com missioner o f Labor, First Annual Report, p. 291; Alvin H. Hansen, Business Cycles and National Income (New York: W.W. Norton &. Co., Inc., 1951), pp. 

64-65,222-224.

62 Com missioner o f Labor, Thirteenth Annual Report, Hand and Machine Labor

(1898), pp. 5-6.

63 Macdonald, “Carroll D. Wright and H is Influence on the B LS," Monthly Labor 

Review, January 1955, p. 8.

64 Locomotive Firemen’s M agazine, August 1896, pp. 99-100.

65 Locomotive Firemen’s M agazine, September 1903, pp. 457,460-461.

66 Senate, A Report on Labor Disturbances in the State of Colorado, from 1880 to

1904, Inclusive (Senate Doc. 122,58C, 3S, 1905). Also, NARG 257, BLS, Letters Sent, 

May 17 to July 20, 1904, G. W. W. Hanger to President, June 15, 1904; and July 21 to 

Sept. 24,1904, Wright to President, Sep t 8,1904.

67 Com missioner o f Labor, Eleventh Special Report, Regulation and Restriction of

Output (1904), p. 27.

68 Clyde O . Fisher, Use of Federal Power in Settlement of Railway Labor Disputes,

Bulletin 303 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1922), pp. 18-19.

69 U . S. Strike Commission, Report on the Chicago Strike of June-July, 1894 

(1895), pp. 194-201.

70 Ibid., p. 52.

71 American Federationist, December 1894, p. 231.

268

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source Notes

72 House, Committee on Labor, Carriers Engaged in Interstate Commerce (House 

Rept. 1754, 53C, 3S, 1895), Wright to L. E. McGann, Feb. 1, 1895, p. 4; Locomotive

Firemen’s Magazine, March 1895, p. 262.

73 House, Labor, Carriers (1895), p. 4.

74 Congressional Record (54C, 2S), Feb. 26,1897, pp. 2388-2389.

73 House, Committee on Labor, Carriers Engaged in Interstate Commerce and

Their Employees (House Rept. 454,55C, 2S, 1898), pp. 2-3.

76 United Mine W orkers of America Journal, Sept. 11,1902, pp. 1, 2,4.

77 “O ur Splendid Labor Com missioner,” Current Literature, December 1902, p. 

689; “Colonel W right’s Inconsistent Awards,” American Federationist, November 

1903, p. 1156; UMWA Journal, April 21,1904, p. 4.

78 Commissioner of Labor, Fourth Annual Report, Working Women in Large Cities

(1888), p. 10.

79 Ibid., pp. 70, 73.

80 Association of Officials o f Bureaus, Proceedings, 1895, p. 21.

81 Commissioner o f Labor, Eleventh Annual Report, Work and Wages of Men, 

Women and Children (1895-96); H. L. Bliss, “Eccentric Official Statistics, HI,” American Journal of Sociology, November 1897.

82 Commissioner o f Labor, Seventeenth Annual Report, Trade and Technical Education (1902), p. 10.

83 Congressional Record (52C, IS), May 20,1892, p. 4474.

84 Wright, Relation of Political Economy, p. 33.

85 Commissioner o f Labor, Fourteenth Annual Report, Water, Gas, and ElectricLight Plants Under Private and Municipal Ownership (1899), p. 7; Association of 

Officials o f Bureaus, Proceedings, 1902, p. 77.

^W right, “The Industrial Progress o f the South,” Association o f Officials of 

Bureaus, Proceedings, 1897, pp. 116-117; Leiby, Carroll Wright, p. 107.

87 N A RG 257, BLS, Letters Sent, Jan. 2 to Feb. 26, 1901, Wright to Reuben S. 

Smith, Washington, D .C ., Feb. 8,1901.

88 N A RG 257, BLS, Letters Sent, Aug. 11 to O ct 28, 1903, Wright to Du Bois, 

Aug. 24,1903.

89 Dorfman, The Economic Mind, pp. 350-351.

90 John Higham, Strangers in the Land (New 'fork: Atheneum, 1971), pp. 90-91.

91 Senate, Committee on Finance, Retail Prices and Wages (Senate Rept. 986, 

52C, IS, 1892), p. I.

92 25 Stat. 183.

93 Senate, Committee on Finance, Retail Prices and Wages; and Wholesale Prices,

Wages, and Transportation (Senate Rept. 1394,52C, 2S, 1893).

94 “Retail Prices under the McKinley A ct" Quarterly Journal of Economics, October 1892, p. 105; “Notes and Memoranda,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, October 

1893, p. 104; Frank W. Taussig, “Results o f Recent Investigations on Prices in the 

United States,” A SA Journal, December 1893, pp. 487-488; Mayo-Smith, Science of

Statistics, part II, Statistics and Economics (New Tfork: Columbia University Press, 

1899), pp. 207,316-317.

269

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

95 Frederick C . Waite, Prices and Wages (Washington, 1894), pp. 7-12. An 

address delivered before the National Statistical Association at the Columbian U ni' 

versity in November 1894.

96 Roland P. Falkner, “W holesale Prices: 1890 to 1899," Bulletin (27), March 1900, 

p. 270; Taussig, in "N otes and Memoranda,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 

1900, p. 432.

97 “Course o f W holesale Prices, 1890 to 1901," Bulletin (39), March 1902, p. 234.

96 Wesley C . M itchell, “The Making and U sing o f Index Numbers,” Index Numbers of Wholesale Prices in die United States and Foreign Countries, Bulletin 284 

(Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1921), p. 127.

99 Com missioner o f Labor, Eighteenth Annual Report, Cost of Living and Retail

Prices of Food (1903); “Retail Prices o f Food, 1890 to 1904," Bulletin (59), July 1905.

100 Com missioner o f Labor, Nineteenth Annual Report, Wages and Hours of

Labor (1904); “Wages and C ost o f Living,” Bulletin (53), July 1904, p. 703; “Wages and 

H ours o f Labor in Manufacturing Industries, 1890 to 1904,” Bulletin (59), July 1905, 

pp. 1-3; Harry M. Douty, The Development of Wage Statistics in the United States

(Ithaca: Cornell University, New fork State School o f Industrial and Labor Relations, 

Bulletin No. 64,1972), pp. 11,18-19.

id “Wages and C ost Living,” 1904, pp. 722-723; The New fork Times, Aug. 8, 

1904, p. 5; UMWA Journal, Dec. 29, 1904, p. 4; Amalgamated Meat Cutters and 

Butcher Workmen, Official Journal, August 1904, p. 22.

102 International Association o f Machinists, Machinists’ Monthly Journal, September 1904, pp. 776-777,823.

103 Ernest Howard, “Inflation and Prices,” Political Science Quarterly, March 

1907, p. 81.

104 Mitchell, “M ethods o f Presenting Statistics o f Wages,” A SA Journal, December 1905, pp. 328, 330; and “The Trustworthiness o f the Bureau o f Labor’s Index 

Number o f Wages,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1911, p. 613; National Civic 

Federation, Monthly Review, Sept. 15,1904, p. 8.

103 E. H. Phelps Brown and Margaret H. Browne, “Carroll D. Wright and the 

Development o f British Labour Statistics,” Economica, August 1963, pp. 279-280.

106 Wright, “The Evolution o f W ige Statistics,” Quarterly Journal of Economics,

January 1892, pp. 185-186; G.W.W. Hanger, “Bureaus o f Statistics o f Labor in Foreign 

Countries,” Bulletin (54), September 1904, p. 1023.

107 Great Britain, Royal Commission (c.7063.1), Minutes of Evidence, pp. 

435-464.

108 Brown and Browne, “Carroll D. W right,” p. 283; House, Committee on 

Labor, Report, Bulletins of die Department of Labor (House Rept. 1752, 53C, 3S, 1895), 

W ight to L. E. M cGann, Feb. 1,1895, p. 1.

109 James Myers, “American Relations with the International Labor Office, 

1919-1932,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, March 

1933, p. 135.

110 Hanger, “Bureaus o f Statistics,” pp. 1080-1086; Historical Survey of International Action Affecting Labor, Bulletin 268 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1920), pp. 54, 

87,89-90.

270

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source Notes

111 M assachusetts, Committee on Relations Between Employer and Employee, 

Report (1904).

112 M assachusetts, Commission on Industrial and Technical Education, Report

(1906); Wright, “The Work o f the National Society for the Promotion o f Industrial 

Education,” A nnals of the A m erican Academy o f Political and Social Science, January 

1909, p. 13.

113 Wright, “The W orking” (1904), pp. 987-989.

Chapter III. Charles Neill

1 Theodore Roosevelt, The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, selected and edited by 

Elting E. M orison and others (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1952), Vol. VI, p. 

1301, to P. H. Grace, Oct. 19,1908.

2 U . S. President, Message, Beginning of die First Session of the Fifty-ninth Congress

(Dec. 5,1905), pp. 14-15.

3 President, Message, Beginning of the First Session of die Fifty-seventh Congress

(Dec. 3,1901), pp. 10 and 12.

4 President, Message, Beginning of the Third Session of die Fifty-eighth Congress

(Dec. 6,1904), p. 5.

5 William Howard Taft Papers, M anuscript Division, Library of Congress, 

Charles P. Neill to Rudolph Forster, Assistant to Secretary to President, Sep t 12, 

1911.

6 U .S. Congress, House, Committee on Agriculture, Hearings: Beveridge Amendment (59C, IS, 1906), pp. 94-95.

7 George M. Kober, compiler, Charitable and Reformatory Institutions in the

District of Columbia (69C, 2S, Senate Document 207, 1927), pp. 9-11, 20; Constance 

McLaughlin Green, Washington, Capital City, 1879-1950 (Princeton: Princeton U niversity Press, 1962), p. 73.

8 Catholic University, Charles P. Neill Papers, Neill—Articles, Neill, “The Economic Evolution o f Soceity,” in “The Evolution o f Industry” (Washington: The 

University Extension Committee, Civic Center Lectures, 1900); Green, Washington, 

p. 71; Walter F. Dodd, The Government of the District of Columbia (Washington: John 

Byrne & Co., 1909), p. 269.

9 Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, An Autobiography (New \brk: The Macmillan 

Co., 1919), p. 509; Richard G. Balfe, “Charles P. Neill and the United States Bureau of 

Labor,” Ph.D. dissertation (University o f Notre Dame, 1956), pp. 38-39.

10 Balfe, “Charles P. Neill,” p. 58; Catholic University, Neill Papers, Correspondence, 1895-1942, Edward A. Moseley to Marshall Cushing, Nov. 22, 1904; and 

Review of Reviews, January 1905, p. 9.

11 National Conference o f Charities and Correction, Proceedings, 1901, p. 376.

12 Neill, “Standard o f Living,” Charities and Commons, July 22, 1905, pp. 

942-943.

13 Neill, “Child Labor at the National Capital,” in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, March 1906, pp. 270 ft; Charities and Commons,

271

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Mar. 3, 1906, pp. 795 ff.; and National Child Labor Committee, Child Labor, A

Menace to Industry, Education, and Good Citizenship: Proceedings, 1906, pp. 12 ff.

14 Neill, “The Prospects o f Industrial Peace," Collier’s Weekly, Aug. 22,1903, p. 9.

15 Neill, “Some Ethical Aspects o f the Labor Movement," in his The Social

Application of Religion (Cincinnati: Jennings and Graham, 1908), pp. 69-70,76,83.

16 Review of Reviews, July 1906, pp. 6-12; and William H. Harbaugh, Power and

Responsibility, The Life and Times of Theodore Roosevelt (New 'fork: Farrar, Straus and 

Cudahy, 1961), pp. 255-260.

17 Roosevelt, The Letters, V ol V , p. 190, to James W ilson, Secretary o f Agriculture, Mar. 22, 1906; Theodore Roosevelt Papers, M anuscript Division, Library of 

Congress, Roosevelt to “My Dear Commissioner Neill,” Mar. 22,1906; Balfe, “Charles 

P. Neill,” pp. 79-82.

18 Current Literature, July 1906, pp. 1-9.

19 U . S. Congress, House, Special Committee to Investigate the Conditions in 

the Stock Yards o f Chicago, Conditions in Chicago Stock Yards (59C, IS, House Doc. 

873,1906); House, Agriculture, Hearings: Beveridge, pp. 261-271.

20 House, Agriculture, Hearings: Beveridge, p. 128.

21 Current Literature, July 1906, p. 8.

22 American Federationist, May 1906, pp. 293-296; Roosevelt, The Letters, Vol. V, 

pp. 190-191, to Frank M orrison, Mar. 22,1906.

23 Roosevelt, The Letters, VoL V , pp. 379-380, to Neill, Aug. 21, 1906; Theodore 

Roosevelt Papers, Neill to the President, Aug. 16, 1906, and Press Release, Sept. 19, 

1906; Taft Papers, Neill to Taft, Aug. 28,1907.

24 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen, Butchers’ Journal, September and October 1906, p. 1.

25 International Association o f Machinists, Machinists’ Monthly Journal, November 1906, p. 981.

26 Roosevelt, The Letters, V ol V, p. 323, to Neill, June 28, 1906; and Balfe, 

“Charles P. N eill," pp. 116-119.

27 Naomi Wiener Cohen, A Dual Heritage, The Public Career of O scar S. Straus

(Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society o f America, 1969), pp. 158-160; Oscar 

S. Straus Papers, M anuscript Division, Library o f Congress, Correspondence, 

Roosevelt to Straus, Jan. 18,1907.

28 Straus Papers, Diary Materials, Vol. I, 1906-1907, p. 54, Mar. 12; Balfe, 

“Charles P. Neill,” pp. 116-118.

29 Taft Papers, Neill to Charles D. Hilles, Secretary to the President, Apr. 10, 

1911; H ouse, Committee on Appropriations, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial

Appropriation Bill for 1910, Hearings, p. 12.

30 American Federation o f Labor, Proceedings, 1907, p. 40.

31 U . S. Department o f Commerce and Labor, Labor Conference (Washington: 

Government Printing Office, 1909), p. 26; Neill, “Distribution o f Immigrants,” 

National Civic Federation Review, M arch-April 1907, p. 10.

32 Taft Papers, Neill to the President, Sept. 11,1909.

33 U . S. Commissioner o f Labor, “Third Report of the Commissioner o f Labor 

on Hawaii,” Bulletin (66), September 1906, p. iii; and "Fourth Report o f the Commissioner o f Labor on Hawaii,” Bulletin (94), May 1911, pp. 762-763.

272

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source Notes

34 Selig Perlman and Philip Taft, History of Labor in the United States, 1896-1932,

Vol. IV, Labor Movements (New \brk: The Macmillan C o., 1935), pp. 262-265; The

New York Times, Sept. 7,1909, p. 1, and Sept. 11,1909, p. 1.

35 A FL, Proceedings, 1909, p. 209.

36 Perlman and Taft, Labor Movements, pp. 139-143; Taft Papers, Neill to the 

President, Sept. 11,1909, and Taft to Neill, Sep t 13,1909.

37 U .S. Bureau o f Labor, Report on Strike at Bethlehem Steel Works, South Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (61C, 2S, Senate Doc. 521,1910), pp. 10-16.

38IAM, Monthly Journal, June 1910, p. 499; The New York Times, May 12, 1910,

p .9 .

39 Bureau o f Labor, Report on Conditions of Employment in the Iron and Steel

Industry (62C, IS, Senate Doc. 110).

40 IAM, Monthly Journal, September 1911, p. 836.

41 “Report on Wages and H ours in the Iron and Steel Industry, Issued by the U . 

S. Bureau o f Labor,” American Federationist, March 1912, p. 227; Samuel Gompers, 

Seventy Years of Life and Labor (New 'fork: E. P. Dutton, 1925), V ol II, pp. 129-130.

42 Bureau o f Labor, Report on the Miners* Strike in Bituminous Coal Field in 

Westmoreland County, Pa. in 1910-11 (62C, 2S, House Doc. 847, 1912), pp. 5-10, 

14-18.

43 Bureau o f Labor, Report on Strike of Textile Workers in Lawrence, M ass, in 1912

(62C, 2S, Senate Doc. 870, 1912), pp. 7-9; House, Committee on Rules, The Strike at

Lawrence, M ass., Hearings (62C, 2S, 1912), p. 3.

44 Balfe, “Charles P. Neill,” p. 150.

45 Survey, Dec. 30, 1911, p. 1407; Jan. 13, 1912, p. 1563; Mar. 9, 1912, p. 1898; 

President, Message Concerning the Work of die Interior Department and Other Matters

(Feb. 2, 1912), pp. 11, 12; House, Committee on Labor, Hearings: Industrial Commission (62C, 2S, 1912), pp. 25-26.

46 Timothy Shea, “The Southern Pacific Strike,” Brotherhood o f Locomotive 

Firemen and Enginemen, Locomotive Firemen an d Enginemen’s M agazine, February 

1907, p. 265.

47 House, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, The Erdman Act,

Hearings on Amendments (62C, 2S, 1912), p. 38; Samuel P. Orth, "The Battle Line of 

Labor,” The World’s Work, November 1912, p. 60.

48 M artin A. Knapp, “Government M ediation in Railroad Labor Disputes,” 

National Civic Federation, Proceedings, 1912, pp. 29,31.

49 Dept, o f Commerce and Labor, Reports, 1912, pp. 15-16; Neill, “M ediation and 

Arbitration o f Railway Labor Disputes in the United States,” Bulletin (98), January 

1912, p. 26.

50 House, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Erdman Act (1912), 

pp. 21,42.

51 Frederick L. Hoffman, “Industrial Accidents,” Bulletin (78), September 1908, p. 

417.

52 National Safety Council, Transactions, 1912, pp. 3-8; and 1913, pp. 75-79 and 

101-103.

53 International Association for Labor Legislation, Report o f the 5th General Meeting, Lucerne, 1908, Appendix No. 1, “Report o f the Board,” p. 47.

273

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

54 National Archives Record Group 40, Dept, o f Commerce, Office o f the Secretary, Secretary Cortelyou to Dr. H . Scherrer, President, International Association for 

Labor Legislation, May 2,1904.

55 John B. Andrews, “Phosphorus Poisoning in the Match Industry in the United 

States,” Bulletin (86), January 1910, pp. 31, 145-146; House, Committee on Interstate 

and Foreign Commerce, Hearings: Health Activities of die General Government (61C, 

2S, 1910), p t V I, p.408.

56 N A RG 40, D ep t o f Commerce, Office o f die Secretary, Nagel to Neill, Apr. 

21,1910.

57 Survey, June 11, 1910, p. 427; D ec 23, 1911, p. 1397; NARG 40, D ept of 

Commerce, Office o f the Secretary, Taft to Nagel, May 16, 1910, and P. Tecumseh 

Sherman to Neill, May 27,1910; and Don D. Lescohier, Working Conditions, Voi. m 

o f History of Labor in the United States, 1896-1932 (New "fork: The Macmillan 

Company, 1935), pp. 361-362.

58 Survey, Apr. 13,1912, p. 86; and Lescohier, Working Conditions, p. 362.

59 International Association for Labor Legislation, Report, Lugano, 1910, p. 14; 

Andrews, "Report o f Work: 1910, American Association for Labor Legislation," 

American Labor Legislation Review,January 1911, pp. 96-98.

60 A FL, Proceedings, 1910, pp. 41 and 274.

61 Isaac M. Rubinow, “Accident Com pensation for Federal Employees,” Survey, 

Aug. 16,1913, pp. 624-627.

62 N A RG 257, BLS, General Letter Book, V oi I, Jan. 3, 1905-May 16, 1905, p. 

303, Neill to Lawrence O . Murray, Mar. 21,1905; VoL m , O ct 2 8 ,1905-May 5,1906, 

pp. 209-210, Neill to Sophonisba P. Breckinridge, Jan. 29, 1906; and House, Appropriations, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Bill for 1907, Hearings (Feb. 24,1906), pp. 

622-623.

63 House, Appropriations, LEJ for 1907, p. 621.

64 Roosevelt Papers, ca. Jan. 15,1907, C . P. Neill, “Memo on Child Labor."

65 House, Appropriations, LEJ for 1907, p. 617; Congressional Record (59C, 2S), 

Jan. 21,1907, p. 1458.

66 H ouse, Appropriations, LEJ for 1907, pp. 617-618.

67 Congressional Record (59C, 2S), Jan. 21,1907, pp. 1457-1458.

68 Balte, “Charles P. Neill,” p. 130.

69 Roosevelt, The Letters, V oi V , pp. 594-595, to Oscar S. Straus, Feb. 20,1907.

70 N A RG 40, D ept o f Commerce, Office o f the Secretary, Straus to Tawney, 

Feb. 21,1907.

71 The New York Commercial, May 22, 1907, p. 1, quoted in Balte, “Charles P. 

N eill,* p. 133.

72 National Child Labor Committee, Third Annual Report, 1907, p. 11; American

Federation of Labor Records: The Samuel Gompers E ra (Microfilming Corporation of 

America, 1979), Convention Files, 1909 Convention, Res. 67, Woman and Child 

Labor, Gom pers to Executive Council, D ec 21,1909.

73 Bureau o f Labor, Report on Conditions of Woman and Child Wage-Earners in 

the United States (61G, 2S, Senate Doc. 645), Voi. I, Cotton Textile Industry (1910), pp. 

14-15,192-195.

274

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source Notes

74 Catholic University, Neill Papers, Bureau o f Labor Data, Mary McDowell to 

Neill, Sept. 28,1907.

75 Summary of the Report on Condition of Woman and Child Wage Earners in the

United States, Bulletin 175 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1915), p. 32.

76 Ibid., pp. 28-29.

77 Report on Condition, Vol. XVI, Family Budgets of Typical Cotton'Mill Workers

(1911), p. 9.

78 Ibid., pp. 25,133-137, and 178.

79 Thomas R. Dawley, Jr., The Child that Toileth Not, The Story of a Government

Investigation (New York: Gracia Publishing Co., 1912); Daniel J. B. Mitchell, “A Furor 

Over W orking Children and the Bureau of Labor,” Monthly Labor Review, October 

1975, pp. 34-36.

80 Judson MacLaury, “A Senator’s Reaction to Report on W orking Women and 

Children,” MLR, October 1975, pp. 36-38; Congressional Record (62C, 3S), Jan. 24, 

1912, p. 1249, and Feb. 26,1912, p. 2438.

81N A RG 174, Dept, o f Labor, Charges vs. Chas. P. Neill, Original Transcript, 

Mar. 15,1913, pp. 36-41.

82 Ibid., p. 30.

83 Congressional Record (62C, 3S), Jan. 24,1912, p. 1249.

84 “More Reports Needed,” Survey, Aug. 5,1911, p. 638.

85 Warren M. Persons, “Recent Publications on Women in Industry,” Quarterly

Journal of Economics, May 1911, pp. 601,602,608.

86 A FL, Proceedings, 1911, p. 35.

87 “Seventh Annual Report, 1911,” Child Labor Bulletin, June 1912, p. 200.

88 N A RG 174, D ept o f Labor, Charges vs. Chas. P. Neill, Original Transcript, p. 

44.

89 Ibid., p. 48.

90 Ibid., pp. 46-51; Retail Prices, 1890 to 1911, Bulletin 105, part 1 (Bureau of 

Labor, 1912), p. 4; Retail Prices, 1907 to December 1914, Bulletin 156 (Bureau o f Labor 

Statistics, 1915), p. 359.

91 Retail Prices, Bulletin 105, pp. 4-6; Retail Prices, 1890 to June 1912, Bulletin 106 

(Bureau o f Labor, 1912), pp. 5-6; The Consumer Price Index, History and Techniques,

Bulletin 1517 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1966), p. 2.

92 N A RG 174, D ept o f Labor, Charges vs. Chas. P. Neill, Original Transcript, p. 

51.

93 Ibid., pp. 51-52.

94 N A RG 40, Dept, o f Commerce, Committee on Statistical Reorganization, 

“Replies to the Questions o f the Interdepartmental Statistical Committee,” p. 7.

95 N A RG 257, BLS, General Correspondence, 1908-15, probably by Neill in 

January 1910.

96 N A RG 40, D ept o f Commerce, Office erf the Secretary, Assistant Secretary 

and Solicitor to Secretary, Dec. 13,1909.

97 N A RG 174, Dept, o f Labor, Charges vs. Chas. P. Neill, Exhibits, Exhibit A, 

Geo. A. Traylor to Sen. Lee S. Overman, Mar. 3, 1913, with “Summary o f Charges 

Preferred Agajnst Charles P. Neill.”

275

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

98 N A RG 174, D ep t o f Labor, Charles P. Neill, William S. Waudby to William B. 

W ilson, Mar. 11,1913.

99 N A RG 174, D ep t o f Labor, Charges vs. Chas. P. Neill, Tillman to W. B. 

W ilson, Mar. 8,1913; and Neill, Overman to President Mar. 21,1913.

100 N A RG 174, D ep t o f Labor, Charges vs. Chas. P. Neill, Report, "preliminary” 

dated Mar. 20,1913, and "final” dated Mar. 27,1913.

101A FL Records (MCA), Executive Council Records, Minutes, Jan. 22, 1913, p. 

42; N A RG 174, D ept o f Labor, Neill, A. B. Garretson, telegram to W. B. Wilson, 

Mar. 7,1913.

101 N A RG 174, D ep t o f Labor, Neill, editorial, Washington Times, Mar. 11,1913. 

103 Ibid., A. J. McKelway, telegram to President Mar. 11, 1913; National Child

Labor Committee, Proceedings, 1913, p. 155.

10* Taft Papers, President to Sen. Borah, Feb. 27,1913.

105 N A RG 174, D ep t o f Labor, Neill, Ralph M. Easley, telegram to W. B. W ilson, 

Mar. 6,1913.

106 Ibid., Clinton Ahrord, President W orcester Loom Company, to the Presiden t Mar. 15,1913.

107 Woodrow W ilson fbpers, M anuscript Division, Library o f Congress, W ilson 

to B. R. Tillman, Mar. 21,1913; N A RG 174, D ept o f Labor, Neill, Commission, dated 

Mar. 22,1913.

106 Woodrow W ilson Papers, Tillman to W ilson, Mar. 24, 1913; Catholic University, Neill Papers, Correspondence re Charges, B. R Tillman to Prof. D. D. Wallace, 

Mar. 13,1913; N A RG 174, D ept o f Labor, Neill, James M. Barker, Secretary, Senate, 

May 1,1913.

109The New York Times, May 14, 1913, p. 2; N A RG 174, D ept o f Labor, Neill, 

Neill to the President May 12,1913, and Neill to the Secretary o f the same date.

110 N A RG 174, D ept o f Labor, Neill, Secretary to Neill, May 14,1913.

111 Isaac F. M arcosson, M etal M agic, The Story of the American Smelting &

Refining Company (New Tfork: Farrar, Straus and Company, 1949), p. 264.

112 National Civic Federation, National Civic Federation Review, Dec. 1, 1913, p.

2.

113 M arguerite Green, The National Civic Federation and the American Labor

Movement, 1900-1925 (Washington: The Catholic University o f America Press, 1956), 

pp. 456,457; Review of Reviews, November 1922, p. 467.

114 Anthracite Board o f Conciliation, Addresses by John L. Lewis and J. B. Warriner at 50th Anniversary Dinner, delivered O ct 1, 1953 (Hazleton, Pennsylvania), pp. 

16,19.

115 Catholic University, Neill Papers, Correspondence, 1895-1942, Supreme 

C ourt o f the District o f Colum bia to Dr. Charles P. Neill, Jan. 9,1920.

116 John O ’Grady, Catholic Charities in the United States, History and Problems

(Washington: National Conference o f Catholic Charities, 1930), pp. 336-338 and 

340-341.

276

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source Notes

Chapter IV. Royal Meeker

1 Royal Meeker, “The Relation o f Workmen’s Compensation to O ld Age, 

Health, and Unemployment Insurance,” International Association of Industrial A cci' 

dent Boards and Commissions, Proceedings, 1916, Bulletin 210 (Bureau o f Labor 

Statistics, 1917), p. 248.

2 Woodrow W ilson Papers, M anuscript Division, Library of Congress, Meeker to 

W ilson, May 10, 1905; W ilson to Meeker, Sep t 13, 1911, and Jan. 3, 1912; and 

National Archives Record Group 174, D ept o f Labor, Meeker, Meeker to W. B. 

W ilson, Aug. 21,1913, and Aug. 28,1913.

3 W ilson Papers, W ilson to Meeker, Dec. 3, 1912; Meeker to the President, Mar. 

21, 1913; and the President to Meeker, Mar. 26, 1913; also Ray Stannard Baker, 

Woodrow Wilson, Life and Letters: President, 1913-1914 (Garden City, New \fork: 

Doubleday, Doran &. Co., Inc., 1931), pp. 146-147.

4 W ilson Papers, President to Meeker, June 23,1913.

5 The New York Times, July 23, 1913, p. 6; N A RG 257, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

General Correspondence, 1908-15, C . H. Verrill to Mrs. Elizabeth L. Otey, O ct 10, 

1913.

6 N A RG 174, Dept, of Labor, Meeker, Meeker to W. B. W ilson, June 23,1913.

7 Ibid., Meeker to W. B. W ilson, July 7, 1913; W ilson Papers, President to 

Meeker, June 23,1913.

8 Meeker, “The Promise o f American Life,” Political Science Quarterly, December 1910, pp. 689,695,697,699.

9 Meeker, “The Work of the Federal Bureau o f Labor Statistics in Its Relation to 

the Business of the Country,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social

Science, January 1916, pp. 265 and 271.

10 Ibid., pp. 263 and 265.

11 Ibid., p. 264.

12 Meeker, “Address,” Proceedings of die American Association of Public Employment Offices, Bulletin 192 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1916), pp. 42-47.

13 U . S. Congress, Joint Committees on Labor, Hearings, National Employment

System (66C, IS, 1919), pp. 326, 333.

14 Meeker, “Social Insurance in the Untied States,” National Conference of 

Social Work, Proceedings, 1917, pp. 528, 534-535; comments, Proceedings of die Conference on Social Insurance, Bulletin 212 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1917), p. 912; and 

“Distributing the Burden o f Sickness,” American Labor Legislation Review, June 1918, 

p. 158.

15 Meeker, comments, Proceedings of die Conference on Social Insurance (212), pp. 

911-912.

16 Congress, House, Appropriations Committee, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Appropriation Bill, 1915, Hearings, p. 770; Meeker, “Lacks in Workmen’s Com ­

pensation,” American Labor Legislation Review, March 1919, pp. 35, 39-44; “Social 

Insurance,” National Conference, Proceedings, 1917, pp. 531-533; and “The Relation 

o f Workmen’s Com pensation,” pp. 245-247.

277

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

17 Meeker, “Minimum Requirements in Compensation Legislation," IAIABC, 

Proceedings, 1919, Bulletin 273 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1920), p. 14 (also in 

Monthly Labor Review, November 1919, pp. 280 ff).

18 Senate, Committee on the District o f Columbia, Hearings, Child Labor in the

District of Columbia (66C, 2S, 1920), pp. 59,61.

19 Meeker, “Com pulsory Civic Service," The New York Times, Apr. 6,1913, V , 4.

20 Meeker, “The Connection o f O ur School System and O ur Prison System,” 

n.d., pp. 5-6.

21 Meeker, “Com pulsory Civic Service."

22 Meeker, “A Plan for More Effective Cooperation Between State and Federal 

Labor Offices," Association o f Governmental Labor Officials o f the United States and 

Canada, Proceedings, 1915, p. 83; “The Promise o f American Life,” p. 697.

23 Meeker, “Employees’ Representation in Management o f Industry,” American 

Economic Review, March 1920 (Supplement), pp. 96 and 101.

24 N A RG 174, D ep t o f Labor, Department Committee on Correlation, Minutes 

o f Meeting, Apr. 1, 1914, p. 2; Intermediate Report No. 2, May 28, 1914, p. 2; 

Memorandum, W. B. W ilson, Secretary, Aug. 14,1914.

25 Senate, Report, Bureau of Labor Safety (Senate R ept 712, 63C, 2S, 1914); 

House, Committee on Labor, Report, Bureau of Labor Safety (House R ept 44, 64C, 

IS, 1916), p. 1; N A RG 174, D ep t o f Labor, Bureau o f Labor Safety, “Activities o f the 

Federal Government Along the Lines o f Safety and Sanitation,” apparently by F. H. 

Bird, marked C . M. E. 12.15.14.

26 N A RG 174, D ept o f Labor, Bureau o f Labor Safety, Secretary to Rep. David J. 

Lewis o f Maryland, Aug. 27,1913.

27 N A RG 174, D ept o f Labor, Women's Bureau, Secretary to M iss Agnes Nestor 

o f National Women’s Trade U nion League, May 24, 1916: M iss Zip S. Falk to the 

Secretary, July 19, 1916; Edith Abbott, review, Summary of die Report on Condition of

Woman and Child Wage Earners in the United States (that is, BulL 175, 1916), 

American Economic Review, September 1916, pp. 663-664.

28 N A RG 174, D ep t o f Labor, Women’s Bureau, Stewart to Secretary, June 27, 

1916, transmitted by Secretary to Rep. Lewis, June 28.

29 N A RG 174, D ep t o f Labor, Women’s Bureau, Secretary to Rep. Lewis, July 

26,1916.

30 H ouse, Committee on Labor, Woman’s Division in Department of Labor

(House R ept 1205,64C, 2S, 1916), pp. 3-4.

31 N A RG 257, BLS, General Correspondence, 1916-24, Meeker to Mary Van 

Kleeck, Dec. 15,1916.

32 H ouse, Appropriations, LEJ for 1918, p. 495; Joint Committees on Labor, 

Hearings, Women’s Bureau (66C, 2S, 1920), p. 40.

33 W ilson Papers, Meeker to Tumulty, Oct. 20,1913.

34 House, Appropriations, LEJ for 1915, p. 750; W ilson Papers, Meeker to Presiden t Aug. 15,1914; Senate, A ppropriations, LEJ for 1916, p. 227.

35 N A RG 174, D ept o f Labor, D ep t Committee on Correlation, Stew art 

“Report on Jurisdictional Conflict Between the Bureau o f Labor Statistics and the 

Public Health Service, A Bureau in the Treasury D epartm ent” pp. 1, 7, 14; Advisory

278

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source Notes

Council, Meeker, for the Secretary, June 24, 1918; Senate, Appropriations, LEJ for

1916, p. 228.

36 W ilson Papers, Meeker to Tumulty, Feb. 4 and Feb. 6,1914.

37 N A RG 174, Dept, o f Labor, Child Labor Law, Stewart to Secretary, Sept. 12, 

1916.

38 W ilson Papers, Meeker to President, Feb. 16,1915.

39 U . S. Dept, o f Labor, Report Relating to Section 10 of Act Creating die Department of Labor (64C, 2S, House Document 1906,1917).

^M eeker, “A ddress," National Safety Council, Proceedings, 1914, p. 76; comments, “The Statistical Work of the United States Government," American Economic

Review, March 1915 (Supp.), p. 173.

41 Meeker, “A Plan for More Effective Cooperation,” p. 80.

42 Meeker, “Introduction,” IAIABC, Proceedings, 1916 (210), p. 6.

43 Meeker, “Address,” American Association of Public Employment Offices (192), 

pp. 46-47.

44 Meeker, comments, “The Statistical W ork," p. 174.

45 Retail Prices, 1907 to December 1914, Bulletin 156 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 

1915), pp. 357,364.

46 Irving Fisher, assisted by Harry G . Brown, The Purchasing Power of Money

(New York: Macmillan Co., 1913), pp. 203,228; Wesley C . Mitchell, “The Making and 

U sing o f Index Num bers,” Bulletin 173 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1915), pp. 

112-113.

47 Meeker, “O n the Best Form o f Index Number,” American Statistical Association Journal, September 1921, p. 915.

48 Senate, Appropriations, LEJ for 1915, p. 92; W ilson Papers, Meeker to President, Mar. 23, and July 8,1914.

49 N A RG 174, D ept o f Labor, Stewart to Secretary, Jan. 9, 1914; Senate Appropriations, LEJ for 1916, p. 185; Union Scale of Wages and Hours of Labor, May 1,

1915, Bulletin 194 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1916), p. 222; House, Appropriations, 

Further Urgent Deficiency Bill, F Y 1916 (64C, IS, 1916), p. 240.

50 House, Appropriations, LEJ for 1915, pp. 741,743.

51 Senate, Committee on Education and Labor, Report, Cost of Living in the

District of Columbia (Senate Rept. 377,63C, 2S, 1914), pp. 1-2.

52 House, Committee on the District o f Columbia, Hearing, Authorizing and

Directing the Department of Labor to Make an Inquiry into the Cost of Living in the

District of Columbia (64C, IS, 1916), p. 25.

53 House, Committee on the District o f Columbia, Hearings, Minimum Wage for

Women and Children (65C, 2S, 1918), p. 14.

54 “C ost o f Living in the District o f Columbia, Second Article: Summary o f 

Family Expenditures,” M LR, November 1917, p. 2; “C ost o f Living in the District of 

Columbia, Fourth Article: Wage-Earning Women, W ho They Are and W hat They 

D o.” MLR, January 1918, p. 7; William F. O gbura, “Analysis o f the Standard o f Living 

in the District o f Columbia in 1916,” A SA Journal, June 1919, p. 389.

55 International Association on Unemployment, Reports, Ghent: Statistics of

Unemployment, pp. 83-84.

279

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

56 American Federation o f Labor Papers, Samuel Gompers Letterbooks, Manuscript Division, Library o f Congress, Gom pers to Meeker, Sep t 9 and Sep t 12,1914.

57 House, Appropriations, LE J for 1915, p. 759.

58 “Committee to Deal with Unemployment," Survey, Dec. 12, 1914, p. 281; 

"New "fork's Program for Unemployment,” Survey, Dec. 26, 1914, p. 329; Unemployment in New folk City, New fork, Bulletin 172 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1915), pp. 

6- 8.

59 Unemployment in die United States, Bulletin 195 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 

1916), p. 6; N A RG 257, BLS, General Correspondence, 1908-15, Shillady to Stewart, 

July 7,1915.

60 Meeker, "The W ork," Annuls, January 1916, p. 268; "A Problem in Eclipse,” 

The Annalist, Jan. 3,1916, p. 9.

61 House, Committee on Labor, Hearings, National Employment Bureau (64C, 

IS, 1916), pp. 29-30; Proceedings of die Conference on Social Insurance (212, 1917), p. 

838.

62 Meeker, "The C ost o f Industrial Accidents," MLR, April 1920, p. 9.

63 Stewart, "Informal Remarks,” Proceedings of die Conference of Employment

M anagers’ Association of Boston, M ass., Held M ay 10, 1916, Bulletin 202 (Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, 1916), p. 8.

64 Meeker, “The W ork,” Annals, January 1916, p. 267.

65 M eeker, “Introduction,” Proceedings of Employment M anagers’ Conference,

Bulletin 1% (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1916), p. 5.

66 Meeker, “Introduction,” Proceedings of the Employment M anagers’ Conference,

Philadelphia, Pa., April 2 and 3, 1917, Bulletin 227 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1917), 

p. 5.

67 W ilson lepers, M eeker to President, Mar. 3,1916.

68 House, Committee on the Judiciary, Hearings, Federal Employees’ Compensation (63C, 2S, 1914), p. 19; Hearings, Federal Employees’ Compensation (64C, IS, 

1916), pp. 29-30; D ep t. o f Labor, Reports of the Department of Labor, 1915, pp. 97-98; 

W ilson Papers, Meeker to President, Nov. 15,1915.

69 W ilson Papers, Meeker to Tumulty, Feb. 6,1914.

70 Meeker, "Introduction,” IAIABC, Proceedings, 1916 (210), p. 5; Report of Committee on Statistics and Compensation Insurance Cost, Bulletin 201 (Bureau o f Labor 

Statistics, 1916), pp. 8-9; D ept o f Labor, Reports of die Department of Labor, 1916, pp. 

146-147.

71 Dept, o f Labor, Reports of the Department of Labor, 1917, p. 167.

72 Meeker, "The C ost o f Industrial Accidents,” p. 4.

73 Joseph Dorfman, The Economic Mind in American Civilization, Vol. HI, 

1865-1918 (New fork: Viking Press, 1949), p. 477.

74 N A RG 1, War Labor Policies Board, War Industries Board, Memorandum 

Regarding Conference on Industrial Survey, Oct. 5,1918; Bernard M. Baruch, American Industry in the War, A Report of die War Industries Board (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1921), p. 45.

75 N A RG 1, W LPB, Committees, Statistics Committee, Meetings o f June 5, 13, 

and 19, 1918; Bureau o f Labor Statistics, etc., Frankfurter to Gay, June 29, 1918; and

280

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source Notes

Zenos L. Potter, “The Central Bureau o f Planning and Statistics,” A SA Journal,

March 1919, pp. 275-276.

76 Willard E. Hotchkiss and Henry R. Seager, History of the Shipbuilding Labor

Adjustment Board, 1917 to 1919, Bulletin 283 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1921), p. 10.

77 George E. Barnett, “Index Numbers o f the Total C ost o f Living,” Quarterly

Journal of Economics, February 1921, p. 241.

78 W ilson Papers, Fisher to Meeker, Oct. 7, Oct. 24, Nov. 1, Nov. 9, Nov. 12, 

Nov. 22, and Dec. 11, 1912; Fisher, “A Compensated Dollar,” Quarterly Journal of

Economics, February 1913, pp. 214, 220-221.

79 NA RG 174, Dept, o f Labor, Fisher to Post, May 15,1917; Meeker to Assistant 

Secretary, July 21,1917.

80 W ilson Papers, Meeker to President, Nov. 27, 1917; Nov. 28, 1917; Dec. 1, 

1917 with initials “W W ” dated Dec. 5, 1917; and May 8, 1919; NARG 257, BLS, 

Appropriations Ledger, 1913-19.

81 Hotchkiss and Seager, History (283,1921), pp. 24, 33, 39, and 44; U . S. Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board, Decision as to Wages, Hours and Other Conditions

in Pacific Coast Shipyards (Oct. 1,1918), pp. 1 ,3 ,5 -6 .

82 N A RG 174, D ept o f Labor, Seager to Post, Feb. 27,1918.

83 National War Labor Board, Bulletin 287 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1921), pp. 

31-33.

84 N A RG 174, Dept, o f Labor, Wage Stabilization Conferences, Secretary to 

President, Aug. 7,1918; Secretary to John R. Alpine, Acting President, AFL, Sep t 13, 

1918; and Frankfurter to Secretary, O ct 15,1918.

85 Meeker, “The Possibility o f Com piling an Index o f the C ost o f Living,” American Economic Review, March 1919 (Supp.), pp. 109-115.

86 Meeker, “W hat Is the American Standard o f Living?” National Conference of 

Social Work, Proceedings, 1919, p. 165.

87 Ibid., p. 172.

88 “The American Standard,” editorial, The New York Times, O ct 29,1919, p. 12.

89 Hugh S. Hanna, “Summary o f Increased C ost o f Living, July 1914 to June 

1919,” MLR, October 1919, pp. 989-996; “Index Numbers o f Changes in Wages and 

C ost o f Living,” MLR, November 1919, pp. 191-193; “Changes in C ost o f Living in 

the United States,” MLR, June 1920, pp. 76-79.

90 Barnett, “A Critique o f Cost-of-Living Studies,” A SA Journal, September 

1921, p. 909.

91 Meeker, “W hat Is the American Standard?” National Conference, Proceedings,

1919, pp. 164-165; “Need for and U ses o f a Standard Minimum Quantity Budget,” 

National Conference of Social Work, Proceedings, 1920, p. 83.

92 House, Congressional Joint Commission on Reclassification o f Salaries, Report

(66C, 2S, 1920, House R ept 686), pp. 40-41,178-179,196.

93 “Tentative Quantity-Cost Budget Necessary to Maintain Family o f Five in 

W ashington, D .C .,” MLR, December 1919, pp. 22-25; “Quantity-Cost Budget Necessary to Maintain Single Man or Woman in W uhington, D .C .," MLR, January 1920, 

pp. 35 ff.

94 “Minimum Quantity Budget Necessary to Maintain a Worker’s Family o f Five 

in Health and Decency,” MLR, June 1920, pp. 1-18.

281

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

95 D ept o f Labor, Annual Report, 1920, p. 263.

96 U . S. President, Address, The Cost of Living (Aug. 8, 1919), p. 8; Senate, 

Secretary of die Treasury, Letter: Estimate of Appropriation to Investigate Cost of Living

(Senate R ept 108, 66C, IS, 1919), p. 2; N A RG 174, D ept o f Labor, Monthly Report 

o f Bureau, Louis F. Post, Memorandum for die Secretary, Sep t 27,1919.

97 N A RG 1, W LPB, War Industries Board, Meeker and Lamson, “Memorandum 

in re the Need for More Com plete Wage Statistics,” Oct. 28,1918.

96 Ibid., Secretary o f Labor and Chairman, War Industries Board, to President, 

Nov. 4, 1918, and Meeker to Secretary, Nov. 5, 1918; Bureau o f Labor Statistics, etc., 

Meeker to Gay, Nov. 26,1918.

99 Industrial Survey in Selected Industries in the United States, 1919, A Preliminary 

Report, Bulletin 265 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1920), pp. 5,24.

100 W. C . Mitchell, comments, "The Statistical W ork,” American Economic

Review, March 1915 (Supp.), p. 182.

101 House, Appropriations, LE ] for 1918, pp. 490-491.

102 N A RG 257, BLS, General Correspondence, 1916-1924, Stewart to Hon. 

Reed Sm oot, Feb. 15,1917.

103 House, Appropriations, LEJ for 1919, pp. 1011-1013; LEJ for 1920, p. 589.

104 Survey, Mar. 27,1920, p. 798.

105 House, Committee on Reform in the Civil Service, Hearing, Retirement of

Employees in the Federal Classified Service (64C, IS, 1916), pp. 7-8.

106 N A RG 257, BLS, General Correspondence, 1916-1924, Meeker to Senate 

Committee on A ppropriations, Jan. 22,1919.

107 “Introductory,” MLR, July 1915, p. 6.

108 The Official Bulletin, July 8, 1918, p. 9; N A RG 174, D ept o f Labor, Secretary’s Cabinet, Meeker, Memorandum for the Secretary, Aug. 10, 1918; Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, 1916-21, Secretary, Memo for the Commissioner, Oct. 5,1918.

109 N A RG 257, BLS, General Correspondence, 1916-1924, Meeker to Secretary, 

May 15,1920; Meeker, "Announcement,” MLR, July 1920, p. ii.

110 N A RG 174, D ept o f Labor, Meeker to Secretary, May 24,1919.

111 Dept, o f Labor, Reports of die Department of Labor, 1919, pp. 216-217.

112 House, Appropriations, LEJ for 1922, p. 1275.

113 W ilson Papers, Meeker to President, May 5, 1920; Meeker to President, June 

16,1920.

114 W ilson Pipers, W. W ilson to Meeker, June 19,1920.

115 “Announcem ent," MLR, August 1920, p. H.

Chapter V. Ethelbert Stewart

1 Chester McA. Desder, “A Coffin W orker and the Labor Problem, Ethelbert 

Stewart and Henry Demarest Lloyd,” Labor History, Summer 1971.

2 National Archives Record Group 174, Department o f Labor, C hief Clerk’s File, 

Louis F. Post, A ssistant Secretary, to A ll Officers and Employees o f the Bureau of

282

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source Notes

Immigration and Immigration Service in the Department o f Labor, Mar. 11,1920, and 

various correspondence between Post and Stewart in March and A pril 1920.

3 Warren G . Harding Papers, M anuscript Division, Library o f Congress, Ohio 

Historical Society Microfilm, James J. Davis to the President, Mar. 17,1921.

4 Ethelbert Stewart Papers, University o f North Carolina, Southern Historical 

Collection (Microfilm), General Correspondence, Apr. 22,1927; James J. Davis Papers, 

M anuscript Division, Library o f Congress, "Introductory Statement o f Secretary of 

Labor James J. Davis before the Meeting o f the Advisory Committee on Employment 

Statistics, Oct. 22,1930."

5 Stewart, "The Value o f Labor Statistics,” International Association o f Govern' 

mental Labor Officials, Proceedings, 1918, pp. 64-65.

6 Gilbert E. Hyatt, "A Human Statistician,” The Locomotive Engineers Journal,

January 1927, p. 17.

7 Stewart Papers, Speeches and Essays, Undated, "C ost o f Living For What?” pp. 

4,6.

8 Stewart, “The Value,” IA GLO , Proceedings, 1918, pp. 62-63; “The Future of 

Labor Statistics,” IA GLO , Proceedings, 1921, pp. 15,19,21.

9 N A RG 257, Bureau o f Labor Statistics, Correspondence with Secretary of 

Labor, 1925-27,1929, Commissioner, Memo for Secretary, Aug. 8,1929.

10 Stewart, "Need for Statistics as a Measure o f Industrial Changes,” American

Federationist, January 1930, pp. 89-90.

11 Stewart, “The Value,” p. 64; “The Wastage o f M en," IAGLO , Proceedings,

1924 (also Monthly Labor Review, July 1924), p. 4; Stewart Papers, Speeches and 

Essays, Undated, “The Wage System and the Interest System ,” pp. 3-4.

12 Stewart, “Occupational Diseases and Workmen’s Compensation Laws,” MLR, 

February 1930, p. 95.

13 Stewart, “Long W orking H ours o f Certain Municipal Employees," MLR, 

August 1929, p. 1; U .S. Congress, House, Committee on Labor, Employment of Labor

on Federal Construction Work, Hearings (71C, 2S, 1930), pp. 16-17.

14 Stewart, “Discussion: Women and Children in Industry," IA GLO , Proceedings, 1923, p. 41.

15 Stewart, “A Family Wage-Rate vs. A Family Social Endowment Fund,” Social

Forces, September 1927, pp. 121,123-125.

16 Stewart, “Ultim ate Effects o f Automatic Machine Production,* MLR, March 

1929, p. 49.

17 Stewart Papers, Speeches and Essays, “Report to Second National O utdoor 

Recreation Conference,” p. 6; Baltimore Sun, Jan. 21, 1926; Washington Daily News,

Apr. 16,1926; Jefferson County Union, Fort Atkinson, Wts., Apr. 23,1926.

18 Stewart, “Present Situation in Textiles," American Federationist, June 1929, p. 

690.

19 Bureau o f Efficiency, Report on die Statistical Work o f the United States Government, 1922, pp. 5-16.

20 “Final Report o f the Joint Committee o f the American Statistical and the 

American Economic Associations to the Director o f the Census, 1922,” American 

Statistical Association Journal, March 1923, pp. 641-642.

283

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

21 The New York T im «, May 11, 1921, p. 3; Jan. 11, 1922, p. 11; “The Labor 

Department Attacked,” Survey, June 25,1921, pp. 426-427.

22 N A RG 174, Department o f Labor, C hief Clerk’s File, Herbert Hoover to the 

Secretary, June 18, 1921; Stewart, Memorandum for the Secretary, June 20, 1921; 

Secretary to the Secretary o f Commerce, June 21,1921.

23 Department o f Labor, Annual Report, 1923, p. 59; NARG 174, DO L, Chief 

Clerk’s File, Lord to Secretary, May 22, 1925, and Stewart to C hief Clerk, May 26, 

1925.

24 Dept, o f Labor, Annual Report, 1927, pp. 59-61.

25 U .S. Personnel Classification Board, Closing Report of Wage and Personnel 

Survey, 1931, pp. 231-232; Report of Wage and Personnel Survey, Field Survey Division 

(70C, 2S, House Doc. 602,1929), pp. 365-367.

26 Hugh S. Hanna, “The International C ost o f Living Inquiry,” Annuls of the

American Academy of Political and Social Science, March 1933, pp. 162-164.

27 H ouse, Appropriations, Departments of Commerce and Labor Appropriation

Bill, FY 1923, Hearings (67C, 2S, 1922), p. 780; Warren M. Persons and Eunice S. 

Coyle, "A Commodity Price Index o f Business Cycles,” The Review of Economic

Statistics, November 1921; and articles in subsequent years.

28 H ouse, Committee on Banking and Currency, Stabilization, Hearings (69C, IS, 

1926), pp. 605, 615, 619-621; Stabilization of Purchasing Power of Money, Hearings

(67C, 4S, 1922); Stabilization of Commodity Prices, Hearings (72C, IS, 1932), p. 262.

29 “A Constructive Program for Price Statistics,* A SA Journal, March 1932, pp. 

74-78; Senate, Committee on Manufactures, Establishment of National Economic

Council, Hearings (72C, IS , 1931), pp. 583 ff.

30 Com missioner o f Labor Statistics, Annual Report, 1930, p. 26.

31 Congressional Record (67C, IS), Aug. 5, 1921, p. 4695; NARG 174, DO L, 

C hief C lerk’s File, Stewart to Secretary, Aug. 12, 1921, and Secretary to President of 

the Senate, Aug. 12,1921.

32 The New York Times, S ep t 15,1921, pp. 14 and 29; “‘Normalcy* in Unemployment,” New Republic, O ct 11,1922, p. 163.

33 Ralph G . Hurlin and William A. Berridge, eds., Employment Statistics for the

United States (New fork : Russell Sage Foundation, 1926), pp. 24-30.

34 N A RG 174, D O L, C hief Clerk’s File, Henning to Director General of 

Employment Service, June 3, 1922, and Secretary, Memorandum for Mr. Jones, Mar. 

4,1924; N A RG 257, BLS, General Correspondence, 1916-1924, Stewart to Henning, 

Aug. 2,1922.

35 “Committee on Governmental Labor Statistics o f the American Statistical 

Association, Report for 1924,” A SA Journal, March 1925, p. 96.

36 foul H. Douglas, review o f Employment Statistics for die United States, Journal

of Political Economy, August 1928, p. 523; Royal Meeker, "The Dependability and 

Meaning o f Unemployment and Employment Statistics in the United States,” 

H arvard Business Review, July 1930, p. 396; Miriam E. West, Employment Indexes in

die United States and C anada (American Statistical Association, Committee on Governmental Labor Statistics, 1929), p. 8; “M iscellaneous N otes,” A SA Journal, September 1928, pp. 324-325; Berridge, “Employment and the Buying Power o f Consum ers,” 

The Review of Economic Statistics, November 1930, pp. 186,187n.

284

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source Notes

37 Congressional Record (70C, IS), Mar. 26, 1928, pp. 5337-5338; The New 'York

Times, Feb. 16,1928, p. 2; Mar. 27,1928, p. 1; Mar. 28,1928, p. 13; and Apr. 21,1928,

p. 16.

38 Senate, Committee on Education and Labor, Unemployment in the United

States, Hearings (70C, 2S, 1929), pp. 179-187; also Causes of Unemployment, Report

(70C, 2S, Sen. R ept 2072,1929), p. XV.

39 Senate, Education and Labor, Unemployment, pp. 491-517.

40 The New York Times, July 14, 1929, p. 20, and July 16, 1929, p. 12; DepL of 

Labor, Annual Report, 1930, p. 89.

41 Joseph W. Duncan and William C . Shelton, Revolution in United States Government Statistics, 1929-1976 (U .S. Department o f Commerce, Office o f Federal Statisti' 

cal Policy and Standards, 1978), pp. 23—24; John Bruce Dudley, “James J. Davis, 

Secretary o f Labor Under Three Presidents, 1921-1930," Ph.D. dissertation (Ball 

State University, 1971), p. 275.

42 The New Ybrk Times, Jan. 22, 1930, p. 1; Mary Vm Kleeck, "Employment 

Statistics,” IA GLO , Proceedings, 1931, pp. 77-78; Berridge, "The Employment Situation,” New York Times Annalist, Feb. 21,1930.

43 The New Ybrk Times, Jan. 23,1930, p. 11; Jan. 24,1930, p. 35; Feb. 9,1930, p. 1; 

Feb. 20,1930, p. 24.

44 The New York Times, June 28, 1930, p. 17; July 16, 1930, p. 15; “An Expert on 

Hoover’s ‘Experts,’* Neu; Republic, Aug. 20, ,1930, p. 4.

45 The New Ybrk Times, July 30,1930, p. 5; Aug. 3,1930, p. II, 18; Aug. 4,1930, p. 

14; Aug. 21,1930, p. 40.

46 U .S. Advisory Committee on Employment Statistics, Report, 1931, pp. 6-7, 

9-12,16-18.

47 Ibid., pp. 19,22.

48 Ibid., pp. 24-25.

49 Com missioner o f Labor Statistics, Annual Report, 1932, pp. 1-5; Revised

Indexes of Factory Employment and Payrolls, 1919 to 1933, Bulletin 610 (Bureau o f 

Labor Statistics, 1935).

50 D ept o f Labor, Annual Report, 1923, pp. 59,61.

51 Stewart, "Need o f a More Definite Background for Statistics in the Chemical 

Industry," National Safety Council, Transactions, 1926, pp. 541, 544; Charles E. 

Baldwin, “How to Make Statistics Uniform ," IA GLO , Proceedings, 1925, p. 149.

52 House, Committee on Labor, Division of Safety, Hearings (69C, IS, 1926), p.

16.

53 Congressional Record (69C, 2S), Jan. 27,1927, p. 2392.

54 Stewart, .“Efficiency o f American Labor,” IAGLO , Proceedings, 1922, p. 7.

55 Irving Bernstein, The Lean Years: A History of the American Worker,

1920-1933 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1960), p. 103; American Federation o f Labor, 

Proceedings, 1925, p. 271.

56 Don D. Lescohier, Working Conditions, VoL III o f The History of Labor in the

United States, 1896-1932 (New 'Ybrk: The Macmillan Co., 1935), p. 334; Joseph 

Dorfman, The Economic Mind in American Civilisation, VoL IV, 1918-1933 (New 

Ybrk: Viking Press, 1959), pp. 66-67.

285

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

57 Stewart, “Efficiency o f American Labor," p. 7, 17; “Labor Efficiency and Production,” MLR, August 1922, p. 110.

58 Stewart, “Labor Productivity and C osts in Certain Building Trades,” MLR, 

November 1924, p. 1; D ept o f Labor, Annual Report, 1924, p. 155.

59 D ept of Labor, Annual Report, 1927, p. 61.

60 Commissioner o f Labor Statistics, Annual Report, 1932, pp. 6-11.

61 House, Appropriations, Hearings, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Appropriation BUI, 1922 (66C, 3S, 1920), p. 1272.

62 House, Appropriations, Appropriations, Department of Labor, 1928, Hearings

(69C, 2S, 1927), pp. 22-23.

63NA RG 257, BLS, General Correspondence, 1916-1924, Commissioner to 

Secretary, Sept. 17, 1923; Secretary to F. J. Bailey, Chairman, Personnel Classification 

Board, Jan. 21, 1924; “Classification of Statistical Workers in Government Service,” 

A SA Journal, March 1924, pp. 91-92; “Report o f the Committee on Personnel 

Classification in the Federal Government,” A SA Journal, March 1925, p. 118.

64 “The Labor Department Attacked,” Survey, June 25, 1921, p. 426; Congressional Record (67C, 2S), Dec. 7,1921, p. 119.

65 House, Appropriations, Department of Labor Appropriation Bill for 1933, Hearings (72C, IS, 1932), pp. 31-34.

66 House, Appropriations, Appropriation, 1922, p. 1275.

67 N A RG 174, D O L, C hief Clerk’s File, Stewart, Memorandum to The Acting 

Secretary, June 2,1928.

68 “The Cabinet: Tin Can,” Time, July 11, 1932, p. 7; “Looking for a Job, Ethelbert Stewart Retired A fter 45 'fears," The Evening Star (Washington), July 2, 1932; The

New York Times, July 3,1932, p. 3.

69 Stewart Papers, General Correspondence, Stewart to von Klein Smid, undated 

draft, July 1932; Clippings, “Honesty Penalized,” San Francisco News, July 14,1932.

Chapter VI. Isador Lubin

1 Isador Lubin, “Recollections o f Veblen,” in C .C . Qualey, ed , Thorstein Veblen: 

The Carleton College Veblen Sem inar Essays (New "fork: Columbia University Press, 

1968), pp. 139-141.

2 Lewis Lansky, “Isador Lubin: The Ideas and Career of a New Deal Labor 

Economist,” Ph.D. dissertation (Case Western Reserve University, 1976), pp. 50-60; 

Isador Lubin, Miners’ W ages and the Cost of C oal (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1924); 

Lubin and Helen Everett, The British C oal Dilem m a (New fe>rk: The Macmillan Co., 

1927).

3 Lansky, “Lubin,” pp. 100-102.

4 George Martin, M adam Secretary: Frances Perkins (Boston: Houghton Mifflin 

Co., 1976), pp. 302-303.

5 U .S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Education and Labor, Unemployment in 

the United States, H earings (70C, 2S, 1929), pp. 491-517.

286

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source Notes

6 Senate, Select Committee on Unemployment Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Hearings (72C, IS, 1932), pp. 475-486.

7 U .S. Congress, Temporary National Economic Committee, Investigation of Concentration of Economic Power, Hearings, Part 1, Economic Prologue (75C, 3S, 1939), p. 

79; The New York Times, Dec. 21,1938.

8 Senate, Education and Labor, Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937, Joint Hearings

(75C, IS, 1937), pp. 309-363.

9 TN EC, Investigation of Concentration of Economic Power, Final Report and

Recommendations (77C, IS, Senate Doc. 35,1941), pp. 517-557.

10 Ibid., pp. 51-52.

11 Department o f Labor, Annual Report, 1933, p. 41.

12 Advisory Committee to the Secretary o f Labor, "Interim Report," April 1934, 

pp. 1-2; Social Science Research Council, Committee on Government Statistics and 

Information Services, Report on Government Statistics (New \brk: SSR C , 1937), pp. 

77-78.

13 Dept, o f Labor, Annual Report, 1935, p. 64.

14 Dept, o f Labor, Annual Report, 1934, p. 9.

15 National Archives Record Group 257, Bureau o f Labor Statistics, Lubin letters 

to Secretary Wallace, Mar. 26, Apr. 13, Apr. 16,1934.

16 "Report on Labor Conditions in the Automobile Industry,” Monthly Labor

Review, March 1935; Lewis L. Lorwin and Arthur W ubnig, Labor Relations Boards

(Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1935), pp. 367,380-381; N. A. Tolies and M. 

W. LaFew er, "Wages, Hours, Employment and Annual Earnings in the MotorVehicle Industry, 1934,” MLR, March 1936, pp. 521-553; Senate, Education and 

Labor, Fair Labor Standards, p. 336.

17 N A RG 257, BLS, Lubin to Perkins, Nov. 22,1933; The New York Times, Aug. 

21, 1934; Jan. 30, 31, 1935. This continued for a dozen years, until a separate Bureau 

o f International Affairs was established in the Department in 1946.

18 NA RG 174, Department o f Labor, Perkins Files, Perkins to Roosevelt, Mar. 

30,1936.

19 The New York Times, Nov. 9, 11, 14, 1937; Jan. 4, 5, 1938; NARG 257, BLS, 

Roosevelt to Lubin, June 16,1939.

20 NA RG 257, BLS, Lubin to Hinrichs, July 1,1940.

21 NA RG 174, D O L, Perkins File, Perkins to President Roosevelt, May 2,1941.

22 A. Ford Hinrichs and William A. Brown, Jr., “The Planned Economy o f Soviet 

Russia,” Political Science Quarterly, September 1931, pp. 362-402.

23 “Adjustm ent o f Federal Salaries to the C ost o f Living,” MLR, February 1934, 

pp. 376-379.

24 Faith M. Williams and Alice C . Hanson, Money Disbursements of Wage Earners

and Clerical Workers, 1934-36, Summary Volume, Bulletin 638 (Bureau o f Labor 

Statistics, 1941), p. 1.

23 "Changes in C ost of Living from December 15, 1939 to March 15, 1940,” 

MLR, July 1940, p. 139; "The Bureau o f Labor Statistics, New Index of C ost of 

Living,” MLR, August 1940, p. 383.

26 TN EC, Hearings, p. 79; The New York Times, Dec. 21,1938.

287

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

27 Family Spending and Saving in Wartime, Bulletin 822 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1945); “Expenditures and Savings o f City Families in 1944," MLR, January 1946.

28 Bureau o f Labor Statistics Annual Conference with Research Directors of 

National and International Unions, Proceedings, 1941, p. 62.

29 BLS Annual Conference with Research Directors, Proceedings, 1942, pp. 43, 

69.

30 N A RG 257, BLS, Hinrichs to William H. Davis, Oct. 16,1942.

31 N A RG 257, BLS, Davis to Hinrichs, O ct 21,1942.

32 Kathryn S. Amow, The Attack on the Cast-ofiLiving Index (Washington, D .C.: 

Committee on Public Administration Cases, 1951), p. 61.

33 Ibid., pp. 61-62.

34 BLS Annual Conference with Research Directors, Proceedings, 1943, p. 64.

35 Special Committee o f the American Statistical Association, “An Appraisal of 

the U .S. Bureau o f Labor Statistics Cost-of-Living Index, Released Oct. 10, 1943,” 

American Statistical Association Journal, December 1943, pp. 387-405.

36 N A RG 257, BLS, Davis to Perkins, Oct. 19,1943.

37 Office o f Economic Stabilization, Report of die President's Committee on the Cost

of Living, 1945, p. 2.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid., p. 3; George Meany and R. J. Thomas, Cost of Living, Recommended

Report for the Presidential Committee on the Cost of Living (Washington: Congress of 

Industrial Organizations, 1944), p. 4.

40 Office o f Economic Stabilization, Report, pp. 3-4.

41 Joseph C . Goulden, Meany (New fork: Atheneum Publishers, 1972), pp. 

113-114.

42 “C ost o f Living in Large Cities, May 1944,” MLR, July 1944, p. 180; Amow, 

The Attack, p. 134.

43 American Federationist, Weekly News Service, June 20,1944.

44 “Report o f the Technical Committee Appointed by the Chairman o f the 

President's Committee on the C ost o f Living, June 15, 1944,” in Office o f Economic 

Stabilization, Report, pp. 261-263 and 295.

45 Office o f Economic Stabilization, Report, pp. 12-35.

46 William Green, “America’s Wage Policy,” American Federationist, March 1945, 

pp. 3-4.

47 N A RG 257, BLS, Hinrichs to Perkins, Jan. 31, 1945; Perkins to Hinrichs, 

Memo o f February 8,1945.

48 Workers’ Budgets in the United States: City Families and Single Persons, 1946

and 1947, Bulletin 927 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1948).

49 A. F. Hinrichs, Wages in Cotton-Goods M anufacturing, Bulletin 663 (Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, 1938), p. XI.

50 D ep t o f Labor, Annual Report, 1936, p. 77; 1939, pp. 74-75.

51 Federal Register, May 18,1943, p. 6490.

52 N A RG 174, D O L, Perkins Files, Davis to Perkins, June 1,1943, and Perkins to 

Davis, June 16,1943.

53 N A RG 257, BLS, Standing Committee o f Union Research Directors, Subcommittee on the Release o f Wage Information, Aug. 26,1943.

288

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source Notes

54 Robert J. Myers, Harry Ober, and Lily Mary David, “Wartime Wage Movements and Urban Wage-Rate Changes,” MLR, October 1944, pp. 684-705; Activities

of the Bureau of Labor Statistics in World War II (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1947), pp. 

90-92; H. M. Douty, “A Century o f Wage Statistics: The BLS Contribution,” MLR, 

November 1984, p. 21.

55 N A RG 257, BLS, A. F. Hinrichs to Lubin, Apr. 2,1935.

56 N A RG 257, BLS, Lubin to Perkins, Sep t 3,1935.

57 “Extent and Characteristics o f Company Unions: Preliminary Report,” MLR, 

October 1935, pp. 865-876; N A RG 257, BLS, Noel Sargent, Secretary, National 

Association o f M anufacturers to Lubin, O ct 11, 1935, and Lubin to Sargent, O ct 14, 

1935; Journal of Commerce, O ct 15,1935.

58 Dept, o f Labor, Annual Report, 1940, p. 100.

59 Procedures Used in Compiling Monthly Statistics Relating to Employment and

Pay Rolls (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, May 1945), p. 1; D ept o f Labor, Annual Report,

1946, p. 57.

60 Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 694 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1942), 

pp. 182-183.

61 Joseph W. Duncan and William C . Shelton, Revolution in United States Government Statistics, 1926-1976 (U .S. Department o f Commerce, Office o f Federal Statistical Policy and Standards, 1978), p. 38.

62 Lester R. Frankel and J. Stevens Stock, “O n the Sample Survey o f Unemployment,” A SA Journal, March 1942; John E. Bregger, "The Current Population Survey, 

A Historical Perspective and BLS’ Role,” MLR, June 1984, pp. 8-9.

63 Handbook, pp. 183-184.

64 For example, Herman B. Byer, “Employment Created by PWA Construction,” 

MLR, October 1936, pp. 838-845.

65 Dept, o f Labor, Annual Report, 1941, pp. 82-83.

66 N A RG 257, BLS, Lubin to Secretary, Jan. 26,1940; President to Secretary, Jan. 

26,1940; William H. McReynolds to Sidney Hillman, June 21,1940.

67 Jerome Cornfield, W. Duane Evans, and Marvin Hoffenberg, “Full Employment Patterns, 1950,” Part 1, MLR, February 1947; ftrt 2, MLR, March 1947; Duncan 

and Shelton, Revolution, pp. 109-111; Activities in World War II, pp. 81-84.

68 N A RG 257, BLS, Boris Shishkin to Lubin, Aug. 23, 1935, enclosing copy of 

letter from William Green to Perkins, Aug. 20,1935.

69 Dept, of Labor, Annual Report, 1939, p. 77.

70 Activities in World War II, p. 144.

71 House, Appropriations Committee, Department of Labor Appropriation Bill for

1935, Hearing (73C, 2S, 1934), p. 11.

72 Ibid., p. 55.

73 Ibid., pp. 71-72.

74 Lubin, “Government Employment as a Professional Career in Economics,” 

American Economic Review, March 1937 (Supplement).

75 Dept, o f Labor, Annual Report, 1937, p. 77.

76 N A RG 174, D O L, Perkins Files, Secretary to die President, Aug. 23, 1933; 

Secretary to Hugh Johnson, Aug. 7, 1933; Resolution o f the Central Statistical Board, 

Aug. 14, 1933.

289

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

77 Ruth Aull, The Content o f NIRA Adm inistrative Legislation, Part A, Executive

and Adm inistrative O rders (Office o f National Recovery Administration, Division of 

Review, Work M aterials No. 35,1936), p. 18.

78 N A RG 257, BLS, Roscoe Edlund, Association of American Soap and Glycerine Producers, Inc., to Lubin, Mar. 22,1934; Lubin to Edlund, Apr. 4,1934.

79 N A RG 257, BLS, transcript o f meeting May 19,1934.

80 NA RG 257, BLS, Lubin to Andrew Court, Apr. 13, 1936; Lubin to Stephen 

DuBrul, General M otors, Apr. 13, 1936; DuBrul to Lubin, July 28, 1937; Lubin to 

DuBrul, July 30, 1937; Court to Lubin, Aug. 17, 1937; Lubin to Court, Aug. 21 and 

Sept. 11,1937; Lubin to W. J. Cronin, Dec. 2,1937.

81 BLS Annual Conference with Research Directors, Proceedings, 1940, p. 1.

82 N A RG 174, D O L, Schwellenbach Files, Lubin to President, Jan. 22, 1946, and 

President replies, Jan. 24,1946.

83 Martin, M adam Secretary, pp. 464-465; NARG 257, BLS, Office of Publications, Statement o f Lewis B. Schwellenbach for release Sept. 6,1945.

84 N A RG 174, D O L, Schwellenbach Files, Murray to Schwellenbach, Jan. 29, 

1946; The New York Times, Jan. 26, 1946; Mar. 29, 1946, p. 42; Mar. 30, 1946, p. 14; 

New York H erald Tribune, Feb. 25,1946.

85 N A RG 174, D O L, Schwellenbach Files, Lubin to Schwellenbach, Feb. 26, 

1946; and Lubin to Jim Abrahamson, Feb. 27,1946.

86 N A RG 174, D O L, Schwellenbach Files, Letters to Schwellenbach from Wesley C . Mitchell, Feb. 27, 1946; Frederick C . M ills, Feb. 28, 1946; other letters from 

Royal Meeker, Mar. 13, 1946; William A. Berridge, M etropolitan Life Insurance Co., 

Mar. 4, 1946; Senator Wayne M orse, Mar. 29, 1946; J. J. Moran, American Union of 

Telephone W orkers, Apr. 2, 1946; and M orris L. Cooke to the President, Mar. 19, 

1946.

87 N A RG 174, D O L, Schwellenbach Files, Memorandum from Hinrichs to the 

Secretary, May 22,1946; Schwellenbach to Hinrichs, May 23,1946.

88 N A RG 174, D O L, Schwellenbach Files, Hinrichs to Schwellenbach, July 1, 

1946; Schwellenbach to Hinrichs, July 2,1946.

89 The W ashington Post, July 3,1946.

90 N A RG 174, D O L, Schwellenbach Files, Edwin E. Witte to Schwellenbach, 

July 26,1946.

Chapter VII. Ewan Clague

1 Aryness Joy Wickens, "Statistics and the Public Interest,” American Statistical

Association Journal, March 1953, pp. 1-14.

2 Ewan Clague, The Bureau of Labor Statistics (New 'fork: Frederick A. Praeger

Publishers, 1968), p. 26.

3 Clague, “The Program of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,” International

Statistical Conference, Proceedings: International Statistical Institute, 1947, pp.

182-183.

290

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source Notes

* Frederick C . M ills and Clarence D. Long, The Statistical Agencies of the Federal

Government (New "fork: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1949), pp. 54, 57-59, 

97-99, and 128-129.

5 U .S. Commission on Organization o f the Executive Branch o f the Government, Department of Labor, March 1949, pp. 16-17.

6 National Archives Record Group 257, Bureau o f Labor Statistics, Ewan Clague 

to the Under Secretary, Feb. 10,1950.

7 N A RG 174, U .S. Department o f Labor, Mitchell, 1954, Leo Werts to John J. 

Gilhooley, Nov. 4, 1954, covering “Recommendations o f Program &. Organization 

Consultants, 1954,” including “Recommendations Concerning Employment and 

Unemployment Statistics (9/13/54).”

8 N A RG 174, U SD O L, Deputy Under Secretary, Mitchell, Secretary’s Instruction No. 57, “Responsibility for Statistical Standards,” July 14, 1955; Records of 

Deputy Under Secretary Millard Cass, Samuel R. Pierce, Jr., to Cass, Aug. 31, 1955, 

and Under Secretary to Cass, May 12, 1960, covering “BLS Statement on Consultants’ Recommendations.”

9 James P. Mitchell, “A Prefatory Note,” Monthly Labor Review, January 1955, p.

n.

10 N A RG 257, BLS, D ept o f Labor Publications Program, “The Scope o f this 

Report” (apparently November 1956) and Lodge and Cass, “Department o f Labor 

Publications Program,” Feb. 26,1957.

11 N A RG 257, BLS, M LR Planning Committee, 1951—, Under Secretary to 

Clague, “Monthly Labor Review," Oct. 18,1955; D ept o f Labor Publications Program, 

Lawrence R. Klein to Philip Amow, “Oct. 3, 1957, Meeting o f the Departmental 

Publications Com mittee,” O ct. 4,1957.

12 N A RG 174, U SD O L, W. Willard Wirtz, 1964, “Introduction, The C ost of 

Departmental Publications” (apparently John W. Leslie, Jan. 8, 1964); NA RG 257, 

BLS, Dept, o f Labor Publications Policy, Wirtz, memorandum for Kermit Gordon, 

Director, Bureau o f the Budget, Jan. 23,1964.

13 N A RG 174, U SD O L, Wirtz, 1964, “Notes on Secretary’s Staff Meeting, Dec. 

28, 1964”; N A RG 257, BLS, Monthly Labor Review, “Minutes o f Discussion on 

Proposal Relating to Monthly Labor Review, March 17,1965.”

w N A RG 257, BLS, Robert J. Myers to Assistant Secretary Daniel P. Moynihan, 

Nov. 3, 1964, “The Research Program o f BLM R”; Clague to M orris Weisz, Mar. 12, 

1965, “BLM R History —your memorandum o f D ec 30.”

15 N A RG 257, BLS, Division o f Wages and Industrial Relations, 1951-1964, 

Clague to Werts, “Labor-Management Relations Program for the Department,” Sept. 

27,1962.

16 N A RG 257, BLS, Clague to Werts, "D raft No. 3—Manpower Administration," Jan. 21,1963.

17 N A RG 257, BLS, Myers to Arthur M. Ross, “Secretary’s Orders Governing 

Manpower Research,” Oct. 8, 1965; U .S. Congress, House, Subcommittee o f Appropriations, Hearings, Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare Appropriations for 1965 (88C, 2S, 1964), pp. 291 ff, “Programs in Manpower Research and 

Statistics.”

291

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

18 N A RG 174, U SD O L, Wlrtz, 1964, Moynihan, Memorandum for the Secretary, Nov. 27,1964.

19 N A RG 257, BLS, Clague to W erts, Feb. 23 and May 7,1965.

20 Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Bureau of Labor Statistics, General Review (confidential report), 1966, pp. 7 and 14.

21 U .S. D ep t o f Labor, Annual Report, 1968, p. 23.

22 Ibid., p. 6.

23 John P. Wymer, "Industry Employment Statistics in the United States, Fifty 

"fears o f Development," Employment and Earnings, January 1966, pp. viii-x.

24 H ouse, Subcommittee o f Appropriations, Hearings, Departments of Labor and

Health, Education, and Welfare Appropriations for 1955: Testimony of Members of

Congress, Interested Organizations, and Individuals (83C, 2S, 1954), p. 37, statement of 

National Legislative Committee, American Federation o f Labor; N A RG 174, 

U SD O L, M itchell, 1954, Clague to Secretary, "Statistics o f employment and unemployment," Mar. 15,1954.

25 N A RG 257, BLS, Div. o f Manpower and Employment Statistics, Clague for 

the Secretary, Feb. 12, 1954, and News Release, "Com bined Employment Release 

Announced,’' for A pril 25,1954; Office o f Program Planning, W ickens to Clague, Feb. 

15,1954.

26 M itchell, General O rder No. 99, May 18, 1959, "O peration o f the Monthly 

Report on the Labor Force”; N A RG 257, BLS, M RLF—Historical File on Combined 

Release and Transfer o f Functions to BLS, Maurice H. Stans, Bureau o f the Budget, 

Memorandum for Secretary Strauss and Secretary M itchell, "Construction and Labor 

Force Statistics,” signed by M itchell and Strauss on Nov. 18, 1958; U SD O L, BLS, 

News Release (U SD L 2864), July 14,1959, "The Employment Situation: June 1959.”

27 N A RG 257, BLS, Productivity, Clipping, Wail Street Journal, Nov. 20, 1959, 

"Agency U rged to Revise W xf It Figures Jobless”; Senate, Subcommittee o f Appropriations, Hearings, Labor-Health, Education, and Welfare Appropriations for 1961 (86C, 

2S, 1960), pp. 1034,1037-1039; Daily Labor Report (230), Nov. 25,1959, p. BB1; (133), 

July 12,1961, pp. B1-B3.

28The New York Times, following dates in I960: Aug. 2, p. 20, Aug. 17, p. 64-, 

Sep t 21, p. 26; O ct. 16, p. 1; O ct 29, p. 12; Nov. 2, p. 80; Nov. 4, p. 23; Nov. 8, p. 19; 

Nov. 11, p. 1.

29 Bernard D. Nossiter, "Delay Seen for Unemployment Report,” The Washington Post, Nov. 3, 1960, p. 25; dipping, "Delayed Report Shows Rise in Unemploym ent”

30 N A RG 257, BLS, Clague to the Under Secretary, Nov. 9, I960; and Release of 

Statistics I, Clague to the U nder Secretary, Feb. 20,1961.

31 Jam es Daniel, "Let’s Look at Those ’Alarming’ Unemployment Figures,” 

Reader’s Digest, September 1961.

32DLR (219), Nov. 13, 1961, pp. A5 and A7; U .S. President’s Committee to 

Appraise Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Measuring Employment and

Unemployment, 1962, pp. 12,20, and 212.

33 M easuring Employment, pp. 14-15,17,23,25-26,151-152.

34 N A RG 174, U SD O L, W. Willard Wlrtz, 1964, Wlrtz, Memorandum for the 

President, not sent, filed June 4,1964; Wlrtz, 1965, Clague to Secretary, June 10,1965,

292

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source Notes

and Gardner Ackley, Memorandum for Members o f die W hite House Staff, July 2, 

1965.

35 NA RG 257, BLS, Job Vacancy Statistical Program I, Seymour L. Wolfbein to 

Clague, Jan. 12, 1956, and Clague to Charles Stewart, Nov. 6, 1956, covering Clague 

to Under Secretary, Nov. 6,1956.

36 Ibid., Clague to Moynihan, July 18, 1963; Clague to Moynihan, Oct. 28, 1963; 

Myers to Moynihan, July 7, 1964; and Wirtz to the President, July 28, 1964; President’s Committee, Measuring Employment, pp. 199-202; Raymond A. Konstant and 

Irvin F. O. Wingeard, “Analysis and U se o f Job Vacancy Statistics, Part I,” MLR, 

August 1968, pp. 22-23; “Part II,” September 1968, p. 21.

37 N A RG 257, BLS, Job Vacancy Statistical Program I, Clague to Moynihan, Dec. 

17,1963; Kermit Gordon to Wirtz, Sept. 5,1964.

38 Ibid., BLS statement, “Job Vacancy Research Program," June 9, 1964, and Van 

Auken, Memorandum to the Job Vacancy Files, Nov. 9, 1964; DLR (112), June 11, 

1965, pp. A4-A5.

39 N A RG 257, BLS, Job Vacancy Statistical Program I, Secretary, Memorandum 

to A ll Employers, Nov. 5,1964.

40 J. E. M orton, On the Evolution of Manpower Statistics (Kalamazoo, Mich.: The 

W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1969), p. 64.

41 Dept, o f Labor, Annual Report, 1959, p. 8; BLS bulletins, Employment and

Economic Status of Older Men and Women, Bull. 1213 (1956), p. HI; Older Workers

under Collective Bargaining, part I, Hiring, Retention, Job Termination, Bull. 1199-1 

(1956); Older Workers under Collective Bargaining, part II, Health and Insurance

Plans, Pension Plans, Bull. 1199-2 (1956).

42 Among the reports were: Vincent F. Gegan and Samuel H. Thompson, 

“W orker Mobility in a Labor Surplus A rea," MLR, December 1957; Robert L. Stein, 

“Unemployment and Job M obility,” MLR, April I960; Impact on Workers and Community of a Plant Shutdown in a Depressed Area, Bull. 1264 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1960).

43 BLS bulletins, Military Manpower Requirements and Supply, 1954-60, Bull. 

1161 (1954); Military Manpower Requirements and Supply, 1959-63, Bull. 1262 (1959); 

Scientific Research and Development in American Industry, A Study of Manpower and

Costs, Bull. 1148 (1953); BLS Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies, Bull. 1458 

(1966), p. 41; Employment of Scientific and Technical Personnel in Industry, 1962, Bull.

1418(1964).

44Techniques of Preparing M ajor BLS Statistical Series, Bull. 993 (Bureau o f Labor 

Statistics, 1950), pp. 1 and 5; The Consumer Price Index, Report 517 (Bureau o f Labor 

Statistics, 1978 rev.), p. 4; Dept, o f Labor, Annual Report, 1947, p- 54; House, Com ­

mittee on Education and Labor, Special Subcommittee, Hearings, Consumers* Price

Index (82C, IS, 1951), p. 19.

45 N A RG 257, BLS, CPI, Revision of, Wtckens to Secretary, Sep t 23,1949.

46 NA RG 257, BLS, C ost o f Living, Clague to the Secretary, Sep t 25, 1950; 

George W. Brooks to Clague, Nov. 3, 1950; Price Division, “Statement by the Com ­

missioner on the Interim Adjustment o f the Consumers’ Price Index,” Feb. 20, 1951,

BLS statement, “Interim Adjustment o f Consum ers’ Price Index," Apr. 11,1951.

293

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

47 N A RG 257, BLS, Price Division, Clague to die Secretary, Apr. 24, 1951; “U E 

Calls U .S. Price Index ‘Fraud’; A sks Senate Probe," UE News, Apr. 30, 1951, p. 1; 

Harvey A. Levenstein, Communum, Anticommunism, and the CIO (Westport, Conn.: 

Greenwood Press, 1981), pp. 299-301.

48 N A RG 257, BLS, Price Division, Lubin to Clague, cable, Aug. 6, 1951; also 

Clague to Lubin, cable, Aug. 6,1951; Clague to Rep. Tom Steed, Aug. 8,1951.

49 House, Subcommittee o f Education and Labor, Hearings, Consumers’ Price

Index, pp. 202, 207-208, 275, 278, 280-282, and 358 and Report, Consumers’ Price

Index (82C, IS, Subcommittee Rept. No. 2, 1951), pp. 32-33, 35, 36, and 39; Senate, 

Committee on Public Welfare, Subcommittee on Labor and Labor-Management Relations, Report, Study of Wage and Price Indexes (82C, IS, Committee Print, 1951).

50 N A RG 257, BLS, Clague, “Statement Concerning the Resumption o f the ‘Old 

Series’ Consum ers’ Price Index," before Senate Committee on Appropriations, Feb. 

23, 1953 (typed); Price Division, Walter P. Reuther to Secretary (wire), Jan. 26, 1953; 

“First Labor Issue Put to Eisenhower," The New York Times, Jan. 29,1953.

51 Helen Humes Lamale, “Housing C osts in the Consumer Price Index," MLR, 

February 1956, pp. 189-191; U .S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Economic 

Report, Report, The Consumers’ Price Index (80C, 2S, Joint Committee Print, 1949), p. 

6.

52 D ept o f Labor, Annual Report, 1953, p. 63; NARG 257, BLS, Price Division, 

“Efforts to Secure Outside Financing for the General-Purpose Tabulations o f the 

Bureau o f Labor Statistics 1950 Study of Consumer Expenditures,” Jan. 12, 1954; 

NARG 174, U SD O L, Mitchell, 1956, W. Duane Evans to Secretary, Oct. 8,1956.

53 N A RG 257, BLS, Price Division, Clague, “W hat Consumer Price Index Really 

Is,” Journal of Commerce, Aug. 16, 1956, with introductory note by H. E. Luedicke; 

clipping, “The C ost o f Living, The Index is Misleading &. Incom plete," Time, Nov. 

11, 1957; Joint Economic Committee, Hearings, Relationship of Prices to Economic

Stability and Growth (85C, 2S, 1958), and Hearings, Employment, Growth, and Price

Levels (86C, IS, 1959).

^ N A RG 257, BLS, Price Division, Clipping, J.RW ., “Newsletter: Commodity 

Report—Price Indices Not Telling Real Story," Journal of Commerce, Aug. 8, 1956; 

DLR (179), Sept. 14,1960, p. A10.

55 Joint Economic Committee, Subcommittee on Economic Statistics, Hearings,

Government Price Statistics, Part I (87C, IS, 1961), p. 2, with report and papers from 

Price Statistics Review Committee following: The Price Statistics of the Federal Government, Review, Appraisal, and Recommendations.

56 Joint Economic Committee, Hearings, Price Statistics, I, pp. 5-6; The Consumer

Price Index: History and Techniques, Bull. 1517 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1966), pp. 

8-9; N A RG 257, BLS, CPI, Revision of, Hollander to Clague, June 14, 1951; H ollander to Clague, May 26, 1952, “Treatment o f single-person consumer units in the 

revised Consum ers’ Price Index.”

57 Joint Economic Committee, Hearings, Price Statistics, I, pp. 47-48; Hearings,

Price Statistics, II, p. 680.

58 Joint Economic Committee, Hearings, Price Statistics, I, pp. 52 and 55; Hearings, Price Statistics, II, p. 560.

294

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source Notes

59NARG 257, BLS, Consumer Price Index—General, BLS statement, “Major 

Changes in the Consumer Price Index,” Mar. 3, 1964; The Consumer Price Index,

Rept. 517, p. 5.

60 NARG 257, BLS, Revision of the CPI, James E. Dodson to Clague, Sept. 14,

1960.

61 NARG 257, BLS, Price Division, Herbert Bienstock to Walter G. Keim, Jan. 3, 

1964; John R. Howard to Sen. Maurine Newberger, Feb. 20, 1964; W. W illard Wirtz, 

Memorandum to Clague, Nov. 10, 1964; Clague to Secretary, Nov. 18, 1964; Clague 

to Secretary, Feb. 4, 1965, “Elimination of Consumer Price Index for Individual 

C ities.”

62 N A RG 257, BLS, Price Division, BLS Statement, “The Budgets in Their 

Historical Perspective,” January 1965; City Worker’s Fam ily Budget For a M oderate

Living Standard, Autum n 1966, Bull. 1570-1 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1967), pp. 

vi-vii.

63 N A RG 257, BLS, Price Division, BLS, “Review of the BLS W holesale Price 

Index,” Oct. 24, 1957; Allan D. Searle, “Weight Revisions in the W holesale Price 

Index, 1890-1960,” MLR, February 1962, p. 180; Techniques of Preparing M ajor BLS

Statistical Series, Bull. 1168 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1954), pp. 82 and 93; BLS

Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies, Bull. 1910 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 

1976), p. 127.

64 Joint Economic Committee, H earings, Price Statistics, I, p. 64; Handbook, Bull. 

1910, p. 123.

65 H.M. Douty and Toivo P. Kanninen, “Community Approach to Wage Studies,” MLR, October 1949, pp. 366-367 and 369; Techniques, Bull. 1168, p. 97.

^K anninen, “New Dimensions in BLS Wage Survey W ork,” MLR, October 

1959, pp. 1081 and 1083-1084; NARG 257, BLS, DW IR, Douty to Clague, June 19, 

1959, covering additional materials; and Bureau o f die Budget, “Design for a Survey of 

W hite-Collar Pay in Private Industry,” Sept. 17,1959.

67 Clague, The Bureau, pp. 99-100; Joseph P. Goldberg, “The Government’s 

Industrial Employees, part II, Consultation, Bargaining, and Wage Determination,” 

MLR, March 1954, p. 253; NA RG 257, BLS, DW IR, Cass to HoUeman, “State Wage 

Collection Programs,” Mar. 9,1962.

68 Harry S. Kantor, “Economic Effects o f the Minimum Wage,” MLR, March 

1955, pp. 307-308; L. Earl Lewis, “75-Cent Minimum Wage: Effects on Fertilizer 

Industry,” M LR, January 1951; Norman Samuels, “Effects of the $1 Minimum Wage 

in Seven Industries,” MLR, March 1957; Factory Workers’ Earnings, M ay 1958, Bull. 

1252 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1959); Industry W age Survey, Hotel and Motels, June

1961, Bull. 1328 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1962); Industry Wage Survey, Eating and

Drinking Places, June 1963, Bull. 1400 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1964).

69 NARG 174, U SD O L, Mitchell, 1956, Mitchell to Sen. Paul H. Douglas, Jan. 

31, 1956; NA RG 257, BLS, DW IR, BLS statement (no date), “Retail Trade Wage 

Survey”; House, Subcommittee of Appropriations, H earings, Second Supplemental

Appropriation Bill, 1956 (84C, 2S, 1956), p. 341; Employee Earnings in Retail Trade in

October 1956, Sum m ary Report, Bull. 1220 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1957).

70 Problems in M easurem ent of Expenditures on Selected Items o f Supplementary

Employee Remuneration, M anufacturing Establishments, 1953, Bull. 1186 (Bureau of

295

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Labor Statistics, 1956), p. iii; Employer Expenditures for Selected Supplementary Remuneration Practices for Production Workers in M anufacturing Industries, B u ll 1308 

(Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1962); N A RG 257, BLS, DW IR, William J. Carson to 

Albert L. Moore, Jr., Aug. 26, 1953; Division o f Wages and Industrial Relations, 

1965-1971, Walter W. Heller to Wirtz, Nov. 11, 1964; Clague to Moynihan, Dec. 4, 

1964; Wirtz to Ackley, "Statistical Program o f Fringe Benefits,” Dec. 28,1964.

71 N A RG 257, BLS, Division o f Wages and Industrial Relations, 1951-1964, 

Douty to Clague, July 22,1958, "Review o f draft.”

72 Joseph W. Duncan and William G . Shelton, Revolution in United States Government Statistics, 1926-1976 (U .S. Department o f Commerce, Office o f Federal 

Statistical Policy and Standards, 1978), pp. 96-97; Clague, The Bureau, pp. 117-119; 

Trends in Output per Man-Hour and Man-Hours per Unit of Output—Manufacturing,

1939-53, R p t 100 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1955); Trends in Output per Man-Hour

in the Private Economy, 1909-1958, Bull. 1249 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1960).

73 Economic Report of the President, January 1962, together with the Annual 

Report o f the Council o f Economic Advisers, pp. 186-190.

74 N A RG 257, BLS, Reorganization o f the Productivity Division, Leon Greenberg to Henry J. Fitzgerald, S ep t 11, 1959; Techniques, B u ll 1168, p. 30; Labor

Requirements for School Construction, Bull. 1299 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1961); 

Labor and M aterial Requirements for College Housing Construction, Bull. 1441 (Bureau 

o f Labor Statistics, 1965).

75 N A RG 257, BLS, Division o f Productivity and Technological Change, 

1953-63, Nat Weinberg to Clague, Apr. 8, 1953, and Clague to Walter C . Wallace, 

Dec. 10, 1959; Productivity Division, Clague to Cass, Feb. 27, 1957; Productivity; 

UAW Controversy—BLS Productivity Report, “The Bureau o f Labor Statistics’ Surrender to Big Business.”

76 Handbook, Bull. 1458, p. 208.

77 D ep t o f Labor, Annual Report, 1949, pp. 69 and 75; Annual Report, 1951, pp. 

208-209.

78 Foreign Labor Publications, mimeograph (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1962) pp. 

i-ii; Labor Law and Practice in Honduras, R p t 189 (1961); "Summary o f Labor 

Conditions in Burma,” mimeograph (December 1952); Foreign Labor Information:

Labor in Argentina, mimeograph (June 1959); Labor in the Sudan, R ept 182 (Bureau 

o f Labor Statistics in cooperation with International Cooperation Administration, 

1961).

79 Each prepared by BLS for Agency for International Developm ent The Forecasting of Manpower Requirements, R p t 248 (1963); Conducting a Labor Force Survey

in Developing Countries, R p t 263 (1964); Computation of Cost-of-Living Indexes in

Developing Countries, R p t 283 (1964).

80 D ep t o f Labor, Annual Report, 1947, p. 59; Annual Report, 1950, p. 177; 

Duncan and Shelton, Revolution, p. 111.

81 Clague, The Bureau, pp. 128-130.

82 Ibid., pp. 130-131; Duncan and Shelton, Revolution, p. 114; Handbook, Bull. 

1458, pp. 220-221.

83 Projections 1970, Interindustry Relationships, Potential Demand, Employment,

Bull. 1536 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1966).

296

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source Notes

84 N A RG 257, BLS, Division o f Prices and C ost of Living, 1950-1964, Edward D. 

Hollander, File Memorandum, July 6, 1950; House, Committee on Post Office and 

Civil Service, Subcommittee on Overstaffing in the Executive Departments and A gen' 

cies, "Investigation o f Employee Utilization in die Executive Departments and A gen' 

d es,” Preliminary Report, part II, "The Prices and C ost o f Living Division, 

Department o f Labor” (81C, 2S, 1950, Committee Print), pp. 49 and 55.

85 N A RG 257, BLS, Division o f Prices and C ost o f Living, 1950-1964, Maurice J. 

Tobin to Rep. John Bell Williams, Dec. 21,1950; Hollander to Clague, et als., "Results 

of Employee Attitude Survey,” Feb. 7,1951.

86 Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, H earing: Nom ination of

Ew an C lague (84C, IS, 1955), pp. 2-4 ,6 , and 8.

87 Ibid., pp. 12,15, and 18.

88 NA RG 257, BLS, Bert Seidman to Ewan Clague, Sept. 7,1954.

89 Clague, “The Program,” 1947, p. 179.

90 “Appeals Court Delays Order Setting Aside Walsh-Healey Determination,” 

DLR (76), Apr. 18, 1963, p. A7; “Appeals Court Affirms Injunction Against WalshHealey Determination,” DLR (128), July 1,1964, p. A l.

91 “Wirtz Revokes M otors-Generators Wage Determination Struck Down by 

C ourts,” DLR (187), Sept. 24, 1964, p. A10; Herbert C . Morton, Public Contracts and

Private W ages, Experience under the W alsh-Healey A ct (Washington: The Brookings 

Institution, 1965), pp. 89,114, and 131.

92 DLR (176), Sept. 14,1965, pp. A9-A10.

Chapter VIII. Four Commissioners

1 U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, Subcommittee on Economic Statistics, Government Price Statistics, H earings (89C, 2S, 1966), p. 3.

2 Economic Report of the President, February 1984, together with the Annual

Report of the Council of Economic Advisers, p. 201.

3 Economic Report of the President, Jan uary 1979, together with the Annual

Report of the Council of Economic Advisers, pp. 167-169.

4 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Janet L. Norwood,

Statement before the Subcommittee on Economic Stabilization, Committee on Banking,

Finance, and U rban A ffairs, House of Representatives (Feb. 17,1983), pp. 2,4,5,6, and

16.

5 Weekly Com pilation of Presidential Documents, Sept 29,1969, pp. 1319-1320.

6 U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Indexing with die Consumer Price

Index: Problems and Alternatives, June 1981, p. xiii; Norwood, Statem ent before the

Appropriations Subcommittee, House of Representatives, FY 1984 Appropriations (Mar.

15,1983), p. 2.

7 Minimum Wage Study Commission, Report, May 24,1980, p. 84.

8 For a detailed and comprehensive catalog of indexation, see U.S. Congress,

Senate, Committee on the Budget, Indexation of Federal Program s (97C, IS, Committee Print, 1981), prepared by the Congressional Research Service.

297

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

9 Daily Labor Report(182), S ep t 21,1965, p. A4; U .S. Congress, House, Subcommittee o f Appropriations, Hearings, Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and

Welfare Appropriations for 1967 (89C, 2S, 1966), pp. 677 and 681.

10 DLR (204), O ct 21,1965, pp. E1-E2.

11 Geoffrey H. M oore, “Long-Range Program Objectives for B LS," Monthly

Labor Review, October 1969, pp. 3-6.

12 Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Hearing, Nomination of

Julius Shiskin (93C, IS , 1973), p. 12; National Archives Record Group 257, BLS, 

Under Secretary, Shiskin, Memo for the Secretary, “Pro Forma Resignation,” Aug. 13, 

1974.

13 Senate, Labor and Public Welfare, Hearing, Shiskin (1973), pp. 3,8.

14 Office o f Publications files, Shiskin, (photocopy) May 19, 1977, Senator 

Proxmire to the President; Senate, Committee on Human Resources, Hearing, Nomination of Julius Shiskin (95C, IS , 1977), pp. 1-2,26.

15 Senate, Labor and Human Resources, Hearing, Nomination of Dr. Janet L. 

Norwood (96C, IS , 1979), pp. 8-9.

16 Ibid., p. 6; Forbes, June 11, 1979, p. 155; Philip Shabecoff, “She Takes Her 

Com puters Home,” The New York Times, July 22,1979.

17 “Republican Claim s Index Was M anipulated,” Washington Star, O ct 7, 1980, 

p. A l; “Fact and Comment: Unfortunately that Price Index Drop Is a Phony,” Forbes, 

O ct 27,1980, p. 25.

18 DLR (114), June 13,1983, p. A2.

19 “Release o f Statistics by Federal Agencies: The President’s Memorandum to 

the Director o f the Bureau o f the Budget, Feb. 8, 1969,” in Weekly Compilation of

Presidential Documents (Feb. 14,1969), p. 248.

20 Joint Economic Committee, Current Labor Market Developments, Hearings

(92C, IS, 1971), pp. 338-339.

21N A RG 257, BLS, Release o f Statistics I, draft, July 22, 1969, “Policy on the 

Presentation and Interpretation o f Government Statistics,” signed by Shiskin, with 

holograph note: “U sed at mtg. 7/28/69—w /Herb Klein, M. Mann, and J. Shiskin,” 

with typed note attached, "Proposal made to Dr. Burns (with minor revisions).”

22 N A RG 257, BLS, Discontinuance o f Press Briefings, Moore, memorandum for 

the Secretary, “Proposed Procedure for Handling BLS Price and Employment 

Releases,” Mar. 15,1971; Senate, Subcommittee on Appropriations, Hearings, Department of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare and Related Agencies Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1972 (92C, IS, 1971), pp. 113-114.

23 N A RG 257, BLS, Discontinuance o f Press Briefings, GHM , “Statement by 

Secretary Explaining Change in Procedure for Releasing Price and Employment Statistics,” Mar. 16,1971; Senate, Subcommittee o f Appropriations, Hearings, Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1972, pp. 113-114.

24 Joint Economic Committee, Federal Statistical Programs, Hearings (93C, IS, 

1973), p. 26.

25 N A RG 257, BLS, Reorganization, October 19711, Shultz (OMB) to Secretaries, “Reorganization,” July 15,1971.

26 DLR (189), Sep t 29,1971, p. A16; N A RG 257, BLS, Reorganization, October 

19711, (copy) "N ixon O usting Labor Analysts,” Washington Post, Sep t 29,1971.

298

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source Notes

27 House, Committee on Government Operations, Report, Discontinuance of

Monthly Press Briefings by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor (92C, IS, 

House Report 92-759,1971), p. 10.

28 House, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Subcommittee on Census 

and Statistics, Report, Investigation of Possible Politicization of Federal Statistical Program s (92C, 2S, House Rept. 92-1536, 1972), letter o f transmittal and pp. 1-2, 8-9, 

and 11-12.

29 Dept, of Labor, BLS, News Release (U SD L 72-693), Oct. 6, 1972, “Statement 

by Commissioner o f Labor Statistics;” James D. Hodgson, “Statement o f Policy by the 

Secretary o f Labor Concerning the Role o f the Bureau o f Labor Statistics,” Nov. 10,

1972.

30 “Secretary o f Labor, Remarks o f Press Secretary, Nov. 29, 1972,” in Weekly

Compilation, Dec. 4,1972, pp. 1707-1708; DLR (242), Dec. 14,1972, p. A6; (244), Dec. 

18, 1972, p. A9; (5), Jan. 8, 1973, p. A12; Daniel J. Balz, “Civil Servant, Statistician 

Named C hief o f Troubled Bureau o f Labor Statistics,” National Journal, July 7, 1973, 

p. 995.

31N A RG 174, U SD O L, Brennan, 1973, Secretary to John H. Aiken, Mar. 21,

1973, covers “Maintaining the Professional Integrity o f Federal Statistics, Final 

Report,” American Statistical Association/Federal Statistics U sers’ Conference Com ­

mittee on the Integrity o f Federal Statistics, 1973.

32 N A RG 257, BLS, Discontinuance o f Press Briefings, Bureau o f the Budget, 

Circular A-91, “Prompt Com pilation and Release o f Statistical Information,” Feb. 12, 

1969; Moore, Memo for the Secretary, “Proposed procedure,” Mar. 15, 1971; OMB 

Circular A-91, Revised, Apr. 26,1972.

33 N A RG 257, BLS, Reorganization, October 1971 I, Moore to Robert A. 

Gordon, Dec. 9,1971.

34 N A RG 174, U SD O L, Brennan, 1974-5, Secretary to Senator Praxmire, Oct. 

30, 1974; Senate, Labor and Human Resources Committee, Hearing, Norwood (1979),

p. 22.

35 Joint Economic Committee, Subcommittee on Economic Statistics, Price Statistics (1966), p. 3; DLR (102), May 25,1966, pp. B22-B24.

36 N A RG 257, BLS, CPI—Quality Change I, TOdter P. Reuther to Secretary, 

Sept. 27,1966.

37 Ibid., Magnuson and Mondale to Ross, July 28, 1967; Magnuson and Mondale 

to Ross, Oct. 2,1967; Ross to M agnuson and Mondale, Oct. 12,1967.

38 N A RG 257, BLS, CPI Revision #4, Mark Roberts to Members o f the Labor 

Research Advisory Council, Mar. 29, 1974; Dept, o f Labor, BLS, News Release, Apr. 

5,1974, “Revised Consum er Price Index to Reflect Expenditures o f More Americans;” 

The Consumer Price Index: Concepts and Content Over the Years, Report 517 (Bureau 

o f Labor Statistics, 1978), p. 10.

39 DLR (61), Mar. 28,1974, p. A5; (68), Apr. 8,1974, pp. A12-A13.

40 DLR (68), Apr. 8,1974, p. A ll; (79), Apr. 23,1974, pp. A17 and A19.

41 N A RG 257, BLS, CPI Revision #4, Gary L. Seevers, Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Economic Statistics, Council on Economic Policy, Memo for Shiskin, Family 

Definition in the Consum er Price Index, Apr. 16,1974;" Seevers (CEA), Edgar Fiedler 

(Treasury), Jack Carlson (OMB), and Joseph Duncan (OMB), Memo for The Troika,

299

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

"Coverage In the Revised C PI," May 10, 1974; Shiskin, Memo for the Secretary, "A 

Revised Plan for the 1977 C PI," May 14,1974; N A RG 174, U SD O L, Usery, 1976-77, 

Secretary to Hon. Jam es T. Lynn, Jan. 18,1977; DLR (101), May 23,1974, p. A4.

42 H ouse, Committee on Government Operations, Hearings, Consumer Price

Index for All-Urban Consumers (95C, 2S, 1978), p. 6; U .S. Com ptroller General, A 

CPI for Retirees Is Not Needed Now But Could Be in die Future (General Accounting 

Office, G G D 82-41,1982), p. iiL

43 Norwood, CPI Issues, Report 593 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1980), pp. 1-2; 

Consumer Price Index (R p t 517,1978), pp. 13-14.

44 N A RG 257, BLS, CPI Revision—Homeownership Com ponent, Roberts to 

Shiskin, July 7,1975, enclosing Anne Draper to Roberts, "Labor Criticism s o f Flow of 

Services Pricing o f Homeownership Com ponent o f Consum er Price Index;* Joseph P. 

Goldberg to Members o f the Price Committee o f the Labor Research Advisory 

Council, Mar. 31,1977, covering Draper to Roberts, "Homeownership Com ponent o f 

the Consum er Price Index,” Mar. 21,1977.

45 Ibid., Noel A . McBride to Shiskin, Jan. 6, 1977; K. G. \&n Auken, Jr., to 

Members o f the Business Research Advisory Council and Its Committee on Consumer and W holesale Prices, Jan. 12, 1977; Shiskin to Lyle E. Gramley, Council of 

Economic Advisers, Apr. 15,1977.

46 BLS Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1982), 

p. 38; N A RG 257, BLS, Consum er Expenditure Surveys, Helen H. Lamale to Chase, 

"Plans for Continuing Expenditure Surveys,” Mar. 14,1966.

47 N A RG 257, BLS, CPI Revirion #5, Roberts, Lazare Teper, and Draper, July 29, 

1974, attention: Joseph P. Goldberg, "June 1974 BLS Paper on C EX ."

48 N A RG 257, BLS, CPI Revirion #7, Shiskin to Robet Ferber, Oct. 24, 1975; 

Division o f Prices and C ost o f Living, 1973-1975, Burton G . Malkiel, Council of 

Economic Advisers, Memo for Rudy Penner, "The Continuing Consumer Expenditure Survey,” Nov. 1,1975.

49 Economic Report of die President, January 1979, pp. 43-44; Economic Report of

the President, January 1980, pp. 39-40.

50 DLR (14), Jan. 21,1980, pp. X lff.

51 DLR (242), Dec. 14, 1979, p. A ll; (37), Feb. 22, 1980, p. A15; (40), Feb. 27, 

1980, p. A9; (47), Mar. 7,1980, p. A8; (67), Apr. 4,1980, p. A2.

52 Economic Report of the President, January 1981, p. 10.

53 "Take a Parting Shot at Inflation” (editorial), The New York Times, Dec. 4,1980, 

p. A30; Com ptroller General, Measurement o f Homeownership Costs in the Consumer 

Price Index Should Be Changed (General Accounting Office, PAD 81-12,1981), pp. iv, 

v, and 55.

54 Dept, o f Labor, News Release (U SD L 80-303), May 9, 1980, "Norwood Urges 

U sers to Become Better Informed About Indexation;” House, Appropriations, Hearings, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related

Agencies Appropriations for 1982 (97C, IS, 1981), pp. 1072-1073.

55 Dept, o f Labor, News Release (U SD L 81-506), Oct. 27,1981, "Statem ent o f Dr. 

Janet L. Norwood.”

56 U SD O L News Release (U SD L 82-327), Sep t 17. 1982, "Norwood Says CPI 

Change Will Improve Inflation M easure.”

300

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source Notes

57 DLR (238), Dec. 11,1981, pp. A13-A14.

58 Dr. James A.Clifton, for Chamber o f Commerce o f the United States, “Statement,” before Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Apr. 20, 1982, p. 1; DLR 

(28), Feb. 9,1983, pp. A11-A12.

59 House, Appropriations, H earings, Departm ents of Labor, H ealth and H um an

Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations for 1984 (98C, IS, 1983), pp. 

306-307.

60 NA RG 257, BLS, Standard Budgets, Moore to Popkin, “Measuring Retired 

Couples’ Living Costs in Urban Areas,” Dec. 2,1969; Moore to U sers o f BLS Budgets 

and Interarea Living C ost Indexes, “Improved Program for the BLS Family Budget 

Estimates and Interarea Indexes of Living C osts,” Dec. 15,1971.

61 NA RG 257, BLS, Standard Budgets HI, Nelson A. Rockerfeller, Governor of 

New "fork, to Secretary, Oct. 4, 1972; Moore, Memo to Shiskin, “Standard Family 

Budgets,” Oct. 27, 1972; Shiskin to William A. M orrill, May 22, 1973; M orrill to 

Shiskin, Aug. 14, 1973; Under Secretary, Burdetsky, Memo for the Under Secretary, 

“Backlog and Priorities,” May 19,1973.

62 N A RG 257, BLS, Under Secretary, Shiskin, Memo to Under Secretary Schubert, “BLS Family Budget Program,” Sept. 6,1974.

63 N A RG 257, BLS, Standard Budgets III. W. John Layng to Norwood, “Revision 

of Family Budget Program,” Apr. 27, 1976; Harold W. Watts, “Special Panel Suggests 

Changes in BLS Family Budget Program,” MLR, December 1980, pp. 3-10.

64 John F. Early, “Improving the Measurement of Producer Price Change,” MLR, 

April 1978, pp. 7 and 9; Council on Wage and Price Stability, The W holesale Price

Index, June 1977; DLR (115), June 14,1977, p. A10.

65 Joint Economic Committee, Subcommittee on Economic Statistics, Inflation

and the Price Indexes (89C, 2S, Joint Committee Print, 1966), p. 38; Government Price

Statistics, A Report (89C, 2S, 1966), pp. Ill, 16-17; DLR (101), May 23, 1975, p. A12; 

(131), July 8,1975, p.A 6.

66 Handbook of Methods (1982), p. 43; Early, “Improving the Measurement,” pp. 

7ff.

67 NA RG 174, U SD O L, Brennan, 1973, Thomas P. O ’Neill, Jr. and Silvio O. 

Conte to Secretary, May 31, 1973; Secretry to O ’Neill and Conte, June 25, 1973; 

O ’Neill and Conte to Secretary, Oct. 29, 1973; Secretary to O ’Neill and Conte, Dec. 

5,1973; Dept, of Labor, News Release (U SD L 73-601), Dec. 21,1973.

68 Joint Economic Committee, Report, A Reappraisal o f U.S. Energy Policy (93C, 

2S, Joint Committee Print, 1974), pp. 2 and 27.

69 DLR (40), Feb. 27, 1974, p. A l; NARG 257, BLS, W holesale Price Index II, 

Robert H. Stewart, Jr., to Petroleum Industry Advisers, Mar. 18,1974.

70 “A New Oil Index Creates Confusion,” Business Week, June 22, 1974; NARG 

174, U SD O L, Usery, 1976-77, Edward P. Boland and Silvio O . Conte to Secretary, 

Feb. 23,1976; Shiskin to Boland and Conte, Mar. 16,1976.

71 The Department of Labor during the Adm inistration of President Lyndon B.

Johnson, November 1963-January 1969, chap. V, “Data Collection and Analysis” 

(typescript, U SD O L Historian’s Office), p. 585; Handbook o f Methods (1982), p. 62; 

Dept, of Labor, A nnual Report, 1982, pp. 22-23.

301

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

72 National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Counting the Labor Force (1979), p. 2.

73DLR (234), Dec. 2, 1966, pp. A10-A11; Paul O . Flaim, “Persons Not in the 

Labor Force: W ho They Are and Why They Don’t W ork," MLR, July 1969.

74 Shiskin, “Employment and Unemployment: The Doughnut or the Hole?” 

M LR, February 1976, p. 4.

75 Senate, Subcommittee o f Appropriations, H earings, Departments of Labor,

H ealth and H um an Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations for Fiscal

Year 1982 (97C, IS, 1981), p. 429; John E. Bregger, “Labor Force Data from the CPS 

to Undergo Revision in January 1983,” MLR, November 1982, pp. 3-4.

76 National Commission, Counting, pp. 153-55 and 158-59; Thomas J. Plewes, 

“Better M easures o f Service Employment Goal of Bureau Survey Redesign,” MLR, 

November 1982; Harvey R. Hamel and John T. Tucker, “Implementing the Levitan 

Commission’s Recommendations to Improve Labor Data,” MLR, February 1985.

77N A RG 257, BLS, Under Secretary, Shiskin, Memo for Under Secretary, 

“Unemployment Statistics for State and Local Areas,” Feb. 1,1974.

78 DLR (66), Apr. 4,1974, pp. A 4-A 5; (171), Sept. 2,1980, p. A10; MLR, October 

1977, p. 72; April 1978, p. 52.

79 House, Committee on Government Operations, H earings, Intergovernmental

Antirecession A ssistance A ct of 1977 (95C, IS, 1977), p. 94; The New York Times, May 

25,1977, p. V I,5.

80 Norwood “Reshaping a Statistical Program to Meet Legislative Priorities,” 

M LR, November 1977, pp. 6-11; Martin Ziegler, “Efforts to Improve Estimates of 

State and Local Unemployment,” MLR, November 1977, pp. 12-18; 92 Stat. 1952.

81 National Commission, Counting, p. 15.

82 Myron Struck and Kenneth E. John, “Labor Department Statistics Found Less 

and Less Reliable,” Washington Post, Sept. 17,1982, p. A13.

83 The Departm ent during Johnson, chap. V , “Data Analysis," pp. 564-567.

84 N A RG 257, BLS, JO LT S IV, President to Secretary, Jan. 30, 1969; Budget 

Write-up, Feb. 28, 1969; Moore, for the Under Secretary, Nov. 21, 1972; The Department of Labor History D uring die Adm inistration of Presidents Richard M. Nixon and

G erald R. Ford, Jan uary 1969 to Jan uary 1977, vol. II, chap. V , “Data Collection and 

Analysis” (typescript U SD O L Historian’s Office), p. 23.

85 Senate, Appropriations, H earings for Fiscal Year 1982, pp. 455 and 472; Dept, 

o f Labor, Secretary o f Labor, Fin al Report on the Recommendations of the N ational

Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics, October 1981, p. 3; Dept, of 

Labor, Annual Report 1982, p. 22.

86 NA RG 257, BLS, Job Vacancies II, Chester E. Johansen to Lester S. Kellogg. 

Jan. 18, 1965; DLR, (99), May 20, 1966, Special Supplement, pp. 1-2; National Com ­

mission, Counting, p. 122.

87 N A RG 174, U SD O L, Wirtz, 1966, Esther Peterson to the Secretary, “Briefing 

Memo—BLS Survey to Determine to W hat Extent ‘the Poor Pay More’,” Jan. 10, 

1966; NARG 257, BLS, Division of Prices and C ost o f Living, 1965-1968, June 12, 

1966, U SD O L, BLS, “A Study o f Prices Charged in Food Stores Located in Low and 

Higher Income Areas o f Six Large Cities, February 1966.”

302

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Source Notes

88 James R. Wetzel and Susan S. Holland, “Poverty Areas of O ur Major Cities,” 

MLR, October 1966, p. 1105; N A RG 257, BLS, Survey Program for Urban Poverty 

Areas #2, Wirtz to Stanley Ruttenberg and Ross, July 12, 1966; Ross to Secretary, 

Dec. 22, 1967; Malcolm R. Lovell, Jr., to Philip M. Hauser, July 17, 1970; Daniel S. 

W hipple, “Employment Among the Poor of Six Central C ities,* MLR, October 1973.

89 DLR (204), Oct. 21, 1971, pp. A 8-A 9; The New York Times, O ct 26, 1971, p. 

66; N A RG 257, BLS, Survey Program for Urban Poverty Areas, Roy W ilkins to 

Secretary, Nov. 22,1971.

90 Flaim, “The Spendable Earnings Series, Has It Outlived Its Usefulness?” MLR, 

April 1982, p. 86; DLR (178), Sept. 11, 1980, p. A12; National Commission, Counting,

p. 206.

91 National Commission, Counting, pp. 206-208.

92 BLS Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies, Bulletin 1458 (Bureau o f 

Labor Statistics, 1966), p. 114; Harry A. Donoian, “A New Approach to Setting the 

Ray o f Federal Blue-Collar W orkers,” MLR, April 1969, pp. 30 and 32; Com ptroller 

General, Determining Federal Compensation, Changes Needed to M ake die Processes

M ore Equitable and Credible (General Accounting Office, FPCD 80-17,1979), p. 29.

93 President’s Panel on Federal Compensation, Report to the President, 1975, pp. 

23-24; Com ptroller General, Wages for Federal Blue-Collar Employees Are Being

Determined According to the Law , But Improvements are Needed (General Accounting 

Office, FPCD 80-12,1979).

94 84 Stat. 1946 (Ja n . 8,1971), also as 5 U .S.C 5305.

95 Com ptroller General, Improvements Needed in the Survey o f Non-Federal S alaries Used a s Basis for Adjusting Federal W hite-Collar Salaries (General Accounting 

Office, B-167266, 1973), pp. 2 and 30; President’s Panel, Report (1975); NARG 257, 

BLS, W hite Collar (PATC) II, Paul MacAvoy, Council o f Economic Advisers, to 

Shiskin, Sept. 23, 1975; George L. Stelluto, “Federal Ray Comparability, Facts to 

Temper the Debate," MLR, June 1979, p. 20.

96 N A RG 257, BLS, W hite Collar (PATC) II, James L. Blum, Memo for Shiskin, 

“Follow-up on PBRC Decision on PATC Survey," Sep t 14,1973; Shiskin to David P. 

Taylor (OMB) and Raymond Jacobson (CSC), Jan. 8, 1974; Handbook of Methods

(1982), p. 69; Dept, o f Labor, News Release (U SD L 82-241), July 12, 1982, “WhiteCollar Salaries, March 1982."

97 N A RG 257, BLS, Rees Review o f Wage Program, Albert Rees (Princeton 

University), “Improving M easures o f Wage Changes,” August 1969; DLR (160), Aug. 

19,1969, p. A12.

98 N A RG 257, BLS, Employment C ost Index, Roberts to Shiskin, Mar. 25, 1975, 

covering Roberts, Oswald, and Burkhardt to Joseph W. Duncan (OMB), Mar. 25, 

1975; N A RG 174, U SD O L, Usery, 1976-77, Shiskin to Senator Roman L. Hruska.

99 V ictor J. Sheifer, “Employment C ost Index, A Measure o f Change in the ‘Price 

o f Labor’,” MLR, July 1975; “How Benefits Will Be Incorporated Into the Employment C ost Index,” MLR, January 1978.

100 Rees, “Improving the Concepts and Techniques o f Productivity Measurement,” M LR, September 1979, p. 23.

101 Dept, o f Labor, BLS, News Release (U SD L 83-153), Apr. 6, 1983, “Bureau of 

Labor Statistics Introduces Its First M easures o f M ultifactor Productivity;” Trends in

303

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

M ultifactor Productivity, 1948-81, Bulletin 2178 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1983), p.

2.

102 Handbook of Methods (1982), p. 101.

103 Robert Ball, “Employment Created by Construction Expenditures,” MLR, 

December 1981, pp. 39,42; Labor and M aterial Requirements for H ospital and N ursing

Home Construction, Bulletin 2154 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1983), pp. iii, 37, 63; 

D ept o f Labor, Annual Report, 1982, pp. 23,31.

l0* Employment Projections for 1995, Bulletin 2197 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 

1984), p. 10.

105 “Brief History o f Bureau o f Labor Statistics Projections,” M LR, August 1981, 

p. 14.

106 Norman Root and David McCaffrey, “Providing More Information cm Work 

Injury and Illness,” M LR, A pril 1978; Root and Michael Hoefer, “The First W ork' 

Injury Data Available from New BLS Study,” MLR, January 1979.

107 Senate, Labor and Human Resources, H earing, Norwood (1979), p. 9.

108 D ep t o f Labor, A nnual Report, 1968, pp. 2, 4; Booz-Allen and Hamilton, 

Bureau o f Labor Statistics, G eneral Review (confidential report, Mar. 22, 1966), pp. 76, 

78; Booz-Allen and Hamilton, U.S. Departm ent o f Labor, The O rganization and

M anagem ent o f die Bureau o f Labor Statistics (December 1966), pp. 5,14,61-62.

109 Discussion o f computers at B LS is based on The Development and Uses of

Table Producing Language, Report 435 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1975), and Inform ation Processing a t B LS, Report 583 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1980).

110 N A RG 257, BLS, Reorganization, October 19711, Shultz (OMB) to Secretaries, "Reorganization,” July 15,1971; DLR, (189), S ep t 29,1971, p. A16; (202), O ct 19, 

1971, p. A10.

111 D ep t o f Labor, BLS, Norwood, “Management Decision, Memorandum #8,” 

June 26,1982; Norwood, Memorandum, “Organizational Changes," Jan. 4,1983.

112 N A RG 257, BLS, A sst Regional Director Classification, Shiskin to Under 

Secretary, A u g 22,1973.

113 National Commission, Counting, p. 272; Secretary, Interim Report on the Recommendations o f the N ational Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Mar. 3,1980, p. 43; Secretary, Fin al Report (1981), p. 6.

304

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Index

Abbott, Edith, 87 

Addams, Jane, 63 

Administration:

Booz-Allen and Hamilton Survey, 

254-255 

Clague, 207-209 

Lubin, 170-175 

Meeker, 108-111 

Moore, 217-218, 223, 256 

Neill, 69-70, 73-76 

Norwood, 220-221, 256 

Recent period, 1965-85, 253-257 

Reorganization, 1971, 223, 256 

Ross, 216-217,255 

Shiskin, 219

Stewart, 120-121,135-138 

Wright, 11-14, 21-23 

Administrative Procedures Act, 210, 241 

Advisory Committee on Education 

(1936), 167

Advisory Committee on Employment 

Statistics (1930), 130-132,180 

Advisory Committee to the Secretary of 

Labor (1933), 145,149,164,165,166, 

174,180

Advisory groups (BLS) (See also Business 

Research Advisory Council and Labor 

Research Advisory Council), 257 

A FL-C IO , 188,191 

Agency for International Development, 

205-206, 253

Agricultural Adjustment Act, 144 

Agriculture, Dept, of, 90,106,146, 206 

Bureau o f Animal Industry, 48 

Office o f Home Economics, 95,150 

Aldrich, Nelson W., 3, 34 

Aldrich Committee (Senate Committee 

on Finance), 34-35

Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, 

and Tin W orkers, 4, 44,53

Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher 

Workmen, 38,50

American Association for Labor Legislation, 40,59-61,74,136

American Association o f Public Employment Offices, 91

American Economic Association, 90,

121,136,172,176

American Engineering Standards Com ­

mittee, 120-121,133

American Federation o f Labor, 44,45, 

51-52,115,144

Am erican Federationist, 120, 156 

BLS programs, 49,53,61,131,163, 

168,187,203

Conventions, 2 ,5 ,1 9 ,2 4 ,6 9 ,1 3 4 

C ost of living, CPI, 102,157,195 

“Labor’s Bill of Grievances,” 44 

Role in BLS development, 3,18, 76 

Woman and child labor study, BLS, 

62,64,65,67

American Management Association 

(Conference o f Employment Managers), 98

American Smelting and Refining Com ­

pany, 78

American Social Science Association, 41

American Sociological Association, 136

American Statistical Association, 121, 

124,129,136

Advisory Committee to the Secretary o f Labor, 145 

BLS presidents of, and speakers to, 

41,93,179,217

BLS press conferences, 222,223 

Committee on Government Statistics and Information Services, 145 

Employment statistics, 127-128 

M ills Committee on cost-of-living 

index, 154-156 

M oore’s resignation, 225

305

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Recommendations for appointment, 

142,176

Technical advisory committee to 

BLS on prices, 193,199 

Amiss, Herman L., 135 

Andrews, John B., 59-60,101 

Anthracite coal strike (1902), 28-29,46 

Appropriations, 260

Clague, 178,193,207-208 

Lubin, 170-172 

Meeker, 81,107,108-109 

Neill, 73-74

Recent period, 1965-85,220,234, 

249,253-254

Stewart, 115,122,125,136-138 

Wright, 22-23

Arbitration A ct o f 1888,14,26,27,28 

Arthur, Chester A ., 1 ,4 ,5 

Association for the Promotion o f Profit 

Sharing, 41

Automobile M anufacturers’ Association, 

174

Babson Statistical Organization, 134-135 

Baldor Electric Company, 210 

Baldwin, Charles E., 135,139 

Baruch, Bernard, 101 

Berridge, William A ., 129,131,180 

Bethlehem Steel Company, 53-54,116 

Beveridge, Albert J., 48,63 

Blacks, BLS projects:

Du Bois, W .E.B., 32-33,76 

Family expenditure survey (1934-36) 

and revised cost-of-living index 

(1940), 150 

Lubin, 145-146

Office o f Economic Research, 185 

Wage studies, 160

Booz-Allen and Hamilton surveys, 185, 

217,254-255 

Borah, William E., 68, 77 

Bowen, J. Chester, 129,135 

Breckinridge, Sophonisba P, 63

Brennan, Peter J., 226 

Brookings Institution, The, 11,129,141, 

142

Budget, Bureau of the (See also Office of 

Management and Budget), 136,138, 

203,207

Blue-collar surveys, 200 

Cost-of-living index, 122 

CPI, 193,196

Interagency Price Committee, 199 

Job vacancy statistics, 191 

Release of employment/ 

unemployment figures, 188 

Stigler Committee, 196 

Survey o f professional, administra' 

tive, technical, and clerical pay 

(PATQ, 200

Unemployment statistics, 166,181, 

187-188

Budgets, standard, BLS. See Prices and 

living conditions

Budgets, WPA, for "basic maintenance” 

and "emergency” standards (1936), 158 

Bulletin, 22,40, 74 

Burdetsky, Ben, 217, 218 

Bureau o f Labor Statistics:

Independence and integrity, 

258-261

Clague, 179, 204, 209-210, 211 

Dept, of Labor field organization, 256-257

Hinrichs’ nomination, 175-177 

Homeownership cost measurement, 230-233 

Korean War controversy, 194 

Monthly Labor Review,

183-184

Moore, 218, 224-225 

Neill, 45,64-65,67-69, 70, 

75-78

Reader’s Digest charges, 

189-190

306

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Index

Release o f statistics, 188-190, 

221-226

Shiskin, 218-219 

Stewart, 117,118,126,139 

Urban poverty area studies, 244 

World War II controversy, 

151-158

Wright, 3,11,23-24,37-38,42, 

258

Investigations and examinations of: 

Advisory Committee on 

Employment Statistics, 

131-132

Advisory Committee to the 

Secretary o f Labor, 145 

“Charges vs. Charles P. Neill,” 

73,75-77

Committee on Government 

Statistics and Information 

Services, 145

Gordon Committee, 189-190 

House Subcommittee on Overstaffing, 207-209 

Joint Economic Committee,

189

Mills Committee, 154-156 

Mitchell Committee, 156-158 

National Commission on 

Employment and Unemployment Statistics, 219, 237-238 

President’s Committee on the 

C ost o f Living, 155-157 

Steed Committee, 194-195 

Stigler Committee, 196—197 

Legislation:

Organic Act, 1884,1,3-4 

Independent department, 1888, 

14-15,34

Dept, of Commerce and Labor, 

1903,18-21

Dept, of Labor, 1913, 75 

Role, 258-261

Booz- Allen and Hamilton 

reports, 185,254-255 

Clague, 180-181 

in Dept, of Commerce and 

Labor, 20-21

in Dept, o f Labor, 80,87-89, 

182-186

Hoover Commission, 181 

in indexation, 232,260 

Meeker, 83,100 

Neill, 44

in New Deal years, 144-148 

Norwood, 220,258-259 

Organic Act, debates, 3 

Program and organization consultants (1954), 182 

Roosevelt, Theodore, 20-21, 

43-44 

Ross, 216 

Shiskin, 219

Standard budgets, 233-234 

Wirtz’s view, 185-186 

in World War 1 ,101-108 

in World War II, 148-149 

Wright, 21,42

Bum s, Arthur E , 190-191,217, 221, 242 

Business Research Advisory Council, 

BLS, 179,257

CPI, housing costs, 229-230, 233 

CPI, interim revision (1950-51), 193 

CPI, population coverage, 228 

Job vacancy statistics, 191,243 

Petroleum prices, 236 

Productivity indexes, 203 

W holesale price index revision 

(1952), 199

Carnegie Institution o f W ellington, 33, 

41

Carter, Jimmy, 219,220,231 

Catholic University o f America, 41,45, 

79

307

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Census, Bureau o f the, 32,33,38,64,

100,124,131,199 

Bureau of Efficiency recommendations, 121

Cost-of-living reports, 121-122 

CPI, 193,227

Current Population Survey, 188, 

190,239

Establishment of, 15-17 

Exchange with BLS (1959), 166,188 

Monthly Report on the Labor 

Force, 166,181,187 

Shiskin an official, 218 

Unemployment statistics, 130,181, 

187-188

Urban poverty area studies, 243-244 

Census o f M anufactures, 36,92,123,

128,131,132,135,164,206 

Central Bureau o f Planning and Statistics, War Industries Board, 81,102,

107

Central Statistical Board, 145,150, 

165-166

Chaney, Lucian W , 58,101 

Q uid labor, 29-31,47,62-69,85-86,90 

Children’s Bureau, 65,67,87,116 

Citizens’ Industrial Association, 44 

City W orker’s Family Budget, 159, 

198-199

Civil Service Com mission (See also Office 

o f Personnel Management), 246,250 

Clague, Ewan, 131,135,145,158,177, 

219,221,224

Bureau programs, 186-205 

Institutional environment, 178-186 

Reconfirmation, 209-210 

Retirement, 211-212 

Clark, Lindley D ., 61 

Clark College (Worcester, Mass.), 41,140 

Cleveland, Grover, 14,15, 27 

Collection procedures, 12-13, 70-71 

Collective bargaining, BLS studies. See

Wages and industrial relations

Colorado mining areas, 25,95-96 

Commerce, Dept, of:

Economic growth studies, 206-207 

Employment and unemployment 

statistics, 129,130,131 

Hoover as Secretary, 114 

Income estimates, 245 

Price studies, 89,90 

Productivity data, 135 

Commerce and Labor, Dept, of, 34,44, 

64

Bureau of Labor in, 33,62, 72-73 

Census in, 16,17 

Establishment of, 18-21 

Commission on Industrial Relations,

U .S. (1913), 55-56 

Commission on Organization of the 

Executive Branch of the Government. 

See Hoover Commission 

Committee on Government Operations, 

House, 224

Committee on Government Statistics 

and Information Services, 145 

Committee on Post Office and Civil 

Service, House, 224 

Committee on the Integrity of Federal 

Statistics, 222, 225 

Commons, John R., 12, 26,116,180 

Company unions, BLS study, 1935,163 

Comparability, Federal pay (See also

National Survey of Professional, 

Administrative, Technical, and Clerical 

Pay under Wages and industrial relations), 109-110,200,215,246-247 

Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (1973), 241-242 

Confidentiality, voluntary reporting, BLS 

policies, 12-13,174,193, 210-211,

227,236,246,261 

Congressional Budget Office, 215 

Congress of Industrial Organizations,

144,157,194

308

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Index

Consumer expenditure studies and 

surveys:

Continuing expenditure survey, 

193,194,230

Cost-of-production studies, 34 

District o f Columbia, surveys, 95, 

106,149

Federal employees, 106,123,149 

for Ford M otor Company, 123,138 

National surveys for cost-of-living 

studies, 36-37,102,104-106,122, 

124,150,195,227 

Shipbuilding centers, 103,104 

Survey o f Family Spending and Saving in Wartime, 151 

Survey o f Urban and Rural Consumers (1935-36), 150 

Consum er price programs, 192-198, 

226-233

Adjustm ent following World War D, 

192-193

Carter administration criticism, 220 

City coverage, 197-198 

Cost-of-living index, 1919-45, 

102-107,117,122,124,149-158 

Consum er’s Price Index for Moderate Income Families in Large C ities (Consumer Price Index for 

Urban Wage Earners and Clerical 

Workers), 1945-78,157,158,196, 

216

Consum er Price Index for All 

Urban Consum ers and Consumer 

Price Index for Urban Wage 

Earners and Clerical Workers, 

1978,228-229,232-233 

General M otors, contract with 

United Auto Workers, 179,193 

Homeownership cost measurement, 

193,194,195,196-197,216, 

229-233

Indexation uses, 149,179,214-215, 

229

Interim or temporary revision 

(1951), 193-194

Korean W ff controversy, 194-195 

Major revisions: 1940,1953,1964, 

1978,1987,150,193,195, 

197-198,221,227-230,233 

“O ld series” continuation (1953), 

195

Population coverage, 194, 195,196, 

227-228

Quality change, 71,155,157,158, 

194,196,226-227 

Ross “master plan”, 217,226 

Stigler Committee, 196-197 

Wartime adjustments (W W II), 151 

“Welfare index" proposals, 197 

World War II controversy, 151-158 

176

Coordinated Federal Wage System, 246 

Cortelyou, George B., 20,59 

Cost-of-living programs, BLS, 34-35, 

36-38,94-95,102-107,121-124 

Cost-of-production studies, 34-35 

Council o f Economic Advisers:

Bureau programs, 187,201,207,247 

Economic reports, 214,231 

Establishment and influence of, 178, 

260

Guideposts policy, 203 

Release o f data, 225

Council o f National Defense (World War

D. HI

Council on Economic Policy, Subcommittee on Economic Statistics, 228,

230

Couzens, James, 129,141 

Craxton, Fred C ., 51, 70 

Current Population Survey, household 

survey, “Monthly Report o f Unemployment,” “Monthly Report on the 

Labor Force", 187,238-239 

Exchange with Census, 166,188 

Gordon Committee, 190,238

309

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Hoover Commission, 181 

Labor force studies, 192 

Local area unemployment statistics, 

241-242

National Commission on Employ' 

ment and Unemployment Statistics, 239

Redesign project, 1980’s, 239 

Spendable earnings series, 245 

Urban poverty area studies, 243-244

Davis, James J., 117,122,126,128,130, 

132,136

Davis, William H ., 152-153,155-157 

Debs, Eugene V., 26-27 

Diamond Match Company, 60 

Dispute settlement:

Lubin, 146 

Neill, 56-57 

Stewart, 95-96,116 

Wright, 26-29 

District o f Columbia:

Board o f Charities, 45 

Board o f Education, 79 

Budget studies by BLS, 95,106,149 

Civic Center, 46

Federal employee surveys by BLS, 

149

Doak, William N „ 139 

Donovan, Raymond J., 221,238,257 

Dublin, Louis I., 100 

Du Bois, W .E.B., 32-33,76 

DuBrul, Stephen M ., 209-210 

Dunlop, John T., 256

Earnings, gross and spendable, 244-245 

Economic Cooperation Administration, 

177,205

Economic growth and employment projections (See also Input-output studies 

and Occupational outlook studies), 

206-207,251

Economic hardship, annual report, 239

Economic Recovery Tax Act o f 1981,

215,229,232

Economic Research, Office o f (BLS), 185 

Economic Stabilization Act of 1942,152, 

161

Economy A ct o f 1932,139 

Economy A ct o f 1933,149 

Efficiency, Bureau of, 121 

Eight-hour law abuses, BLS studies, 

49-50

Eisenhower, Dwight D., 189,195 

Electronic data processing, 255-256,260 

Employment A ct o f 1946,178, 214,260 

Employment and unemployment statistics (See also Current Population Survey, Job vacancy statistics, Labor 

turnover statistics, National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics, and Unemployment, 

BLS programs), 237-243 

Establishment or payroll series, volume o f employment, 97-98, 

125-132,164-165,186-190, 

239-240

Cooperative program with 

State agencies, 91,165, 

186-187

Funding for expansion, Wagner 

resolution, 128-129,130, 

141-142

Gordon Committee, 190

Hoover Commission, 181

National Commission on 

Employment and Unemployment Statistics, 219, 240

Reconversion program, 165, 

186-187

"Shrinkage,” as measure of 

unemployment, 126,

128-129

Suggestions for improvements, 

1920’s, 127-132

Extent and regularity studies, 93

310

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Index

Labor market information, 218,221, 

237,253

Occupational employment statistics, 

190, 240

Employment C ost Index. See Wages and 

industrial relations 

Employment offices, public, 84,90 

Employment Security, Bureau of:

Clague, 180

Cooperative program in employ' 

ment statistics, 187 

Job vacancy statistics, 191 

Local area unemployment statistics, 

241

Release o f employment/ 

unemployment figures, 188 

Employment Statistics for the United States

(1926), 127-128

Erdman Act (1898), 28,56,57,76-77,82 

Ethnic studies, BLS, 31-33 

European Recovery Program, 205 

Evans, W. Duane, 206

Fair Labor Standards A ct o f 1938,160,

201, 211

Falkner, Roland P., 34-36,38 

Federal employees’ compensation act o f 

1908,61-62,87,99

Federal Employees’ Com pensation Board 

(1916), 62,99

Federal Reserve Board, 124,128,131,

187,219

Federal Salary Reform A ct o f 1962, 200 

Federal Statistics U sers’ Conference,

187,222,225

Field operations, 69-70,161,170,173, 

253,256-257

Fisher, Irving, 91-92,102-103,113,124 

Ford, Gerald R., 218 

Ford M otor Company, 123,138 

Foreign Labor Conditions, Division of; 

Office o f Foreign Labor and Trade 

(BLS), 191,205-206,252-253

Frankfbrd Arsenal, 169-170 

Frankfurter, Felix, 87,101,112 

Full Employment and Balanced Growth 

Act, or Humphrey-Hawkins Act 

(1978), 214

General Accounting Office:

Coordinated Federal Wage System, 

246

CPI, homeownership costs, 231-232 

C PI-U for indexing, 229 

M ultifactor productivity, 249 

National survey o f professional, 

administrative, technical, and clerical pay, 247

Productivity in the Federal Government, 250

General M otors, contract with United 

Auto Workers, 1948,179,193,203 

George W tshington University (previously Columbian University), 41 

Giffin, Robert, 13 

G ift o f Freedom, The, 205 

Goldberg, Arthur J., 184,189 

Gompers, Sam uel

Bureau activities, 13,24,55,61,69, 

96

Dispute settlement, 27-28,29 

Establishment o f Bureau and D ept 

o f Labor, 3 ,18,19 

Gordon, Robert A ., 189,224 

Gordon Committee, 189-190,191, 237, 

238,240

Gould, Elgin R. L., 11,13,39 

Government Printing Office, 94 

Great Britain, 13,39-40,59,86,102, 111, 

112

Green, William, 176 

Guideposts policy, 203

Hamilton, Alice, 60,101 

Hanger, G.W.W., 11, 73 

Hanna, Hugh, S., 101,135

311

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Hanna, Marcus A ., 18,20 

Harding, W irren G ., 79,117,121,126 

Hawaii, Commissioner’s report on condì' 

tions in, 52

Health, Education, and Welfare, D ep t o f 

(now D ep t o f Health and Human 

Services), 234 

Hillman, Sidney, 147,167 

H inrkhs, A . R>rd, 147,172,173 

Adm inistration, 148-149 

Resignation, 175-177 

W orld War II controversy, 152,154, 

158

Hodgson, Jam es D ., 218,222,224,226 

Hoffinan, Frederick L , 58,59,100 

Hoover, H erbert C ., 114,121-122,126, 

127,130-131

Hoover Commission, 181,182,193 

H opkins, James H ., 3 

Hourly Earnings Index, 248 

H un t Caroline L., 11,33

Illinois Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 115, 

116

Immigrants' Protective League, 50 

Immigration Com mission, U . S. (1907),

51

Immigration issues, BLS studies, 31-32, 

33,50-52

Indexation, use o f BLS statistics for:

C ost o f living, CPI, 149,179, 

214-215,227,229,230-231 

General, 179,260 

Local area unemployment statistics,

241

W holesale prices, 159 

Industrial Commission, U .S. (1898), 18 

Industrial Conference (December 1919), 

106-107

Industrial Congress, later Industrial 

Brotherhood, 2

Industrial Depressions, First A nnual

Report (1886), 23-25

Industrial education, BLS studies, 31,61, 

90

Industrial Relations Research Association, 222,223,224,225

Industrial W orkers o f the World, 45,53, 

55,141

Input-output studies, interindustry analysis, 168,199,206-207

Interior, D ept o f the, 1 ,3 ,4 ,1 6 ,1 7 ,4 2 , 

90,206

International Association o f Machinists, 

38,50,54

International influences, activities, 39-40, 

74-75,111-112,138,146,205-206,

252-253

Congress for International Labor 

Legislation (1897), 40 

Congress o f Paris (1900), 40 

International Association for Labor 

Legislation, 40,59,74,112,138 

International Association o f Government Labor Officials, 14,41, 

91,120

International Association o f Industrial Accident Boards and Com ­

missions, 100,120 

International Association o f Public 

Employment Services, 120 

International Conference o f Labor 

Statisticians, ILO , 138 

International Conference on Unemployment (1910, 1912), 74-75 

International Labor Conference, 

\lbshington (1919), 112,116 

International Labor Office/ 

Organization, League o f Nations, 

112,113,123,138,146 

International Labour Office, 40, 

74-75,112

International Statistical Institute, 13, 

16,39,40,138

Interstate Commerce Commission, 28,

56

312

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Index

Iron and steel industry, conditions of 

employment in, 54-55,58

Jarrett, John, 4

Job Training Partnership A ct o f 1982,239 

Job vacancy statistics, 190-191,242-243 

Johnson, Lyndon B., 190,246 

Joint Commission on Reclassification of 

Salaries, U . S. Congress, 106 

Joint Committee on Printing, U .S. Congress, 94,110,137-138 

Joint Economic Committee, U .S. Congress:

Bureau programs, 187,203,250,

253- 254

Establishment of, 178,260 

Gordon Committee, 189 

Mandatory reporting, 236 

Press briefings, monthly hearings, 

219,223

Ross plan for prices, 213, 226 

Joy, Aryness (Wickens), 129,145,147,

172

Kelley, Florence, 12 

Kennedy, John F., 189 

Knapp, Martin A., 56-57 

Knights o f Labor, Journ al o f United

Labor, 2 ,3 ,4 ,1 4 -1 5 ,1 8 ,5 1 ,1 1 6 

Kober, George M., 59

Labor, Dept, of, issues:

Booz-Allen and Hamilton, 185,217,

254- 255

Bureau o f Labor Safety, Division of 

Safety, 87,133 

City coverage, CPI, 197-198 

CPI, revision o f 1949-53,193 

Employment statistics, 126-127, 

129-130

Field organization, 256-257 

Release or clearance procedures, 

188-190,221-226

Schwellenbach and Hinrichs, 

175-177

Securing the Bureau’s place, 86-89, 

182-186

Stewart’s retirement, 139 

W ilsh-Healey challenge, 210-211 

War on poverty, 185 

Labor, D ept of, agencies:

Bureau o f Labor Management 

Reports (BLMR), 184 

Employment and Training Administration (ETA), 240,245 

International Labor Affairs Bureau 

(ILAB), 206

Investigation and Inspection Service 

(World W it I), 116 

Labor-M anagement Services 

Administration (LMSA), 184 

Labor Standards Bureau (Employment Standards Administration) 

(LSB), 170,201-202,205,246 

Manpower Administration, 184, 

186,237,243,244

M ediation and Conciliation Service, 

96,125

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), 251-252 

Office o f Information and Public 

Affairs (OIPA), 183 

Office o f Manpower, Automation, 

and Training (OMAT), 184 

Program and organization consultants (1954), 182

Wage and H our and Public Contracts Divisions, 148,160,

200-201

Ww Labor Policies Board (World

W ffI), 101

Woman in Industry Service (World

Wu I), 88, 111

Women’s Bureau, 65,67,87-88,164 

Labor force studies, 192 

Labor Information Bulletin, 163

313

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Labor Information Service (BLS), 145 

Labor-management relations, BLS activities:

in Dept, o f Labor, 95-96,184 

Lubin’s role, 145-146 

Meeker’s views, 82,83-84,86 

Neill’s activities, 56-57,79 

Neill’s views, 47

Productivity, annual improvement 

factors, 179,203-204 

Supplemental or fringe benefits, 

248-249

Wright’s role, 26-29 

W ight’s views, 8-10,23 

Labor Management Relations A ct of 

1947 (Taft-Hartley), 202 

Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure A ct (1959), 184 

Labor market information. See Employment and unemployment statistics 

Labor requirements, BLS studies. See

Productivity and Technology 

Labor Research Advisory Council (BLS),

179,257

Conferences, annual and informal, 

145,151-153,156,158,174-175, 

177

Continuing expenditure surveys,

230

CPI, housing costs, 229-230,233 

CPI, interim revision (1950-51), 193 

CPI, population coverage, 227-228 

Employment C ost Index, 248 

Job vacancy statistics, 191,243 

Productivity indexes, 203-204 

Labor turnover, BLS series, 98,129-130, 

165,188,242,243 

La Bollette, Robert M ., Jr., 130,142 

Lawrence, M ass., textile strike (1912), 55 

Lead poisoning studies, 60,101 

Leontief, W ssily, 168,206 

Levitan, Sar A ., 237 

Lewis, David J., 87,88

liq u o r issue, 32 

Little Steel formula, 154,157 

Lloyd, Henry Demarest, 115 

Local area unemployment statistics. See

Unemployment, BLS programs 

Lodge, Henry C ., 17,20,63 

Long, Clarence D ., 181 

Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ 

Compensation Act, 1958,205,252 

Lubin, Isador, 129,194,259 

Bureau programs, 151-172 

Early career, 140-142 

New Deal activities, 144-148 

Resignation, 148,175 

Views, 142-144

McDowell, Mary, 63,65 

McKee’s Rock, Pa., 1909 strike, 53 

McKinley, William, 34,45 

NcNeill, George E., 2 

Manpower Development and Training 

Act, 1962,184 

Marshall, F. Ray, 238,257 

Martin, Edward, 209 

M assachusetts Bureau o f Statistics of 

Labor, 2 ,3 ,7 ,8 ,1 1 ,2 9 ,3 9 

M ayo-Smith, Richmond, 35 

Meany, George, 155-157,189,210,228, 

244

Mediation and Conciliation, U .S. Board 

of, 11,57

Meeker, Royal, 116,138 

Early career, 81-83 

First term, 92-102 

International activities, 111-112 

Resignation and later years, 113-114 

Views, 83-86

W rtim e emergencies, 101-106 

M etropolitan Life Insurance Company, 

96-97,100

Michigan copper strike, 1913,96 

Mills, Frederick C ., 154,176,181

314

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Index

M ills Committee (American Statistical 

Association), 154-156 

Minimum wage (See also Fair Labor 

Standards A ct o f 1938), 95,105,119, 

143,200-201,215

Mitchell, James R, 182,187,188-189, 

192,209

Mitchell, Wesley C.:

BLS, 108

Cost-of-living controversy, World 

W arH, 156-158 

Employment statistics improve' 

ments, 127

Hinrichs’ nomination, 176 

Lubin’s work, World War 1 ,141 

Price statistics, revision, 91-93 

Wage statistics, 38 

Mitchell Committee, 156-158 

Mondale, Walter F., 226-227 

Monthly Labor Review, 110-111, 

137-138,183-184,252-253 

Moore, Geoffrey H ., 216,217-218,220 

Advisory councils, 257 

CPI revision, 227 

Job vacancy statistics, 242-243 

Release o f statistics, 221-226 

Reorganization, 223, 256 

Resignation, 219,224-225 

Spendable earnings series, 245 

Standard budgets, 233-234 

Urban poverty area studies, 244 

M orrison, Frank, 49,96 

Moynihan, Daniel R, 183,185 

Murray, Philip, 176 

Myers, Robert J., 184

National Association o f Manufacturers, 

13,18,19,44,64,131,163 

National Bureau o f Economic Research, 

127,154,181,191,196,201,217,218 

National Child Labor Committee, 65,69, 

77

National Civic Federation, 13,18,38,41, 

57,64,77,79

National Commission on Employment 

and Unemployment Statistics: 

Advisory groups, 257 

Earnings, 245

Employment and unemployment 

statistics, 237-238,239,240,242, 

243

General recommendations, 221 

Shiskin cm establishment of, 219 

National Conference o f Social Work, 106 

National Conference on Outdoor Recreation, 120,121

National Defense Advisory Commission, 

World W arn, 147,150 

National Fraternal Congress, 134 

National Industrial Conference Board, 

105,191

National Industrial Recovery Act, 143, 

144

National Labor Relations A ct o f 1935 

(Wagner Act) (See also Labor Management Relations A ct o f 1947), 144,163 

National Labor Relations Board, 163 

N ational Labor Tribune, 15 

National Labor Union, 2 

National Recovery Administration 

(NRA), 144,146,148,160,163,171, 

173-174

National Research Project on Reemployment Opportunities and Recent 

Changes in Industrial Techniques, 

WPA, 168-169

National Resources Committee, 150 

National Safety Council, 58,90,100 

National Security and Defense Fund, 

President's, 103,109 

National Society for the Promotion of 

Industrial Education, 41,90 

National Wfor Labor Board, World War I, 

103,104

315

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

National War Labor Board, World War 

H, 148-149,152,154-158,161-162, 

164,170

Neill, Charles R, 28,41,82,96,116,259 

Bureau statistical programs, 69-73 

Early career, 45-46 

Investigations, 48-56,58-62 

M ediation activities, 56-57 

Reconfirmation and resignation, 69, 

73,75-78 

Views, 46-47

Woman and child study, 62-69 

New England congressional caucus, 236 

Newlands A ct (1913), 57,82 

New Tibrk City, Committee on Unemployment, 96-97

New \brk State Department o f Labor, 91 

Nixon, Richard M., 214,218,224,242 

North, S.N .D ., 12,16 

Norwood, Janet L., 216,219-221, 

258-259

Advisory councils, 257 

Appropriations, 220-221,234, 

253-254

Comparative wage study with Japan, 

252

Homeownership costs, 216,230-233 

Local area unemployment statistics, 

242

National Com mission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics, 238

Organization and management initiatives, 256

Release, clearance o f statistics, 226 

Standard budgets, 234 

Structural changes in economy, 214

Obenauer, Marie L., 67 

Occupational employment statistics. See

Employment and unemployment statistics

Occupational outlook studies (BLS), 167, 

251

Occupational Safety and Health Act, 

1970,251

Occupational safety and health statistics 

(BLS), 58-61,66,89-90,99-101, 

132-133,169-170,205,251-252 

Annual survey of industrial injuries, 

manufacturing, 58,133,169,205, 

252

Bureau o f Labor Safety, Division of 

Safety, 87,133 

Safety codes, 133

Office o f Management and Budget (formerly Bureau of the Budget), 218,248, 

250

CPI revision, 227 

Release o f statistics, 221-222, 

225-226

Reorganization, 1971,223,256 

Standard budgets, 234 

Office o f Personnel Management, 246, 

247

Office o f Price Administration, World 

W arfl, 148-149,151 

Ogbum , William E , 95 

Oil embargo, 214,236 

Older worker program (Dept, o f Labor), 

192

Oliver, Sir Thomas, 60 

Organization for European Economic 

Cooperation, 205 

Overman, Lee S., 68, 75

Packinghouse conditions, Neill-Reynolds 

report (1906), 48-49 

Palmer, Walter B., 68,95-96 

Panel to Review Productivity Statistics, 

National Academy of Sciences, 249 

Paris Peace Conference (1919), 112 

Parker, A. Warner, 76-77 

Parsons, Edith, 31

316

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Index

Pension systems, BLS studies. See Social 

insurance

Perkins, Frances, 154,158,161,171 

Hinrichs, 148

Lubin, 142,144,145,146,147,163, 

173,175 

New "fork, 130 

Perry, Arthur R., 101 

Personnel Classification Board, 123,136 

Personnel Research Federation, 121 

Phosphorus poisoning, 59-60,133 

Post, Louis E, 87,102,103 

Postwar employment problems, BLS 

studies (World War II), 168 

Poverty studies (BLS), 243-244 

Powderly, Terence V , 4 ,1 4 ,1 5 ,5 1 

President’s Advisory Committee on 

Labor Management Policy, 204 

President’s Advisory Council on Execu> 

tive Organization (Ash Council), 223 

President’s Committee on the C ost of 

Living, 155-157

President’s Committee to Appraise 

Employment and Unemployment Statistics (Gordon Committee), 189-190 

President’s Panel on Federal Com pensation (Rockefeller ftmel), 247 

Press conferences, 188,195, 221-226 

Prevailing wages, 119,181, 210 

Prices and living conditions (See also

Consum er expenditure studies and 

surveys, Consumer price programs, 

and Cost-of-living programs):

Export and import price indexes, 

196,220,237

International system (1914), 93 

Petroleum prices, 236 

Producer Price Index, 235-236 

Retail prices, 34-38, 70-71,91-92, 

123,124

Ross "m aster plan”, 217, 226

Standard or family budgets, 34-35, 

36,66-67,105-106,158-159, 

198-199,233-234 

W holesale prices, 34-36, 72.-73, 

91-93,123-124,159,196,199, 

234-236

Probability sampling, 151,166,197,235 

Productivity and technology (See also

Technological displacement), 134-135, 

168-169,202-204,249-251,253 

Annual improvement factors, 179, 

203-204

European recovery program, 205 

Labor requirements, 166-167,204, 

250-251

Multifiactor productivity, 221, 

249-250

Productivity indexes, 94,135,169, 

203,249

Productivity in the Federal Government, 250

U nit labor costs, 204,252 

Progressive movement, 6 ,43,83 

Proxmire, William, 211,225,228 

Prudential Insurance Company, 58,100 

Publications (See also Bulletin and 

Monthly Labor Review), 22,74, 

110-111,205-206,255 

Public Health Service, 89,201 

Pullman strike (1894), 26-27

Railroad Brotherhoods, 18,56-57, 77, 

195

Railroad strikes in the Southwest, 14, 23, 

25

Reader’s Digest, 189-190 

Reagan, Ronald W , 220,221 

Reconversion statistics program, 165, 

186-187

Rees, Albert, 235,247-248 

Release procedures (See also Press conferences), 188-190,221-226 

Reuther, Walter, 226

317

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Reynolds, James Bronson, 48-49 

Rockefeller, Nelson A ., 234,247 

Roosevelt, Franklin D ., 142,145,149, 

155,167

Roosevelt, Theodore:

Bureau o f Labor, role of, 43-44 

Dept, o f Commerce and Labor, 

establishment of, 18,20-21 

Neill, investigations requested, 

43-46,48,49,50-51,63-64 

Wright, strike investigations 

requested, 25,28-29 

Ross, Arthur M ., 211,226 

Administration, 216-217 

Booz-Allen and Hamilton reports, 

254-255

Ruggles, Richard, 235

Saposs, David, 163 

Schwab, Charles, 54 

Schwellenbach, Lewis B., 158,175-177 

Seager, Henry R., 103 

Seasonal adjustment factors, 128,187, 

222-223,238 

Seligman, E.RA.., 60,81 

Service Contract A ct o f 1965 (McNam ara-O ’Hara), 246 

Sewall, Hannah R., 31 

Shipbuilding Labor Adjustm ent Board, 

102,103

Shiskin, Julius, 216,218-219,220,256 

Continuing expenditure survey, 

219,230

CPI revision, 219,227-230 

Employment C ost Index, 248 

Field operations, 256-257 

Local area unemployment statistics, 

219,241

Petroleum prices, 236 

Relation to Bum s and Moore, 217 

Release o f statistics, 218, 221-222 

Standard budgets, 234 

Unemployment rates, 238-239

“Sick" industries, 114,120

Sinclair, Upton, 48

Social insurance, BLS studies, 26,61-62, 

84,99,133-134,201-202 

Pension systems, 133-134, 201-202 

W orkers’ compensation, 84-85,99, 

119

Social Science Research Council, 124, 

145

Social Security Administration, 180,181, 

201,245

South Carolina D ept o f Agriculture, 

Commerce, and Immigration, 50

Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 56

Sputnik, 192

Stabilized or compensated dollar, 102, 

124

State statistical agencies:

Cooperation, 14,91,100,110,121, 

132,261

Early examples, 2, 3, 39 

Federal/State cooperative programs, 

165,181,186-187,188,242-243, 

251-252,256

Statistical coordination, Federal:

The Bureau in the Federal establish' 

ment, 72-73,89-91,260-261 

Bureau o f Efficiency recommendations, 121

Central Statistical Board, 145 

Committee on Post Office and Civil 

Service, House, 224 

CPI, revision o f 1949-53,193 

Hoover Commission, 181 

Monthly Report on the Labor 

Force, 181

National Recovery Administration, 

173-174

Need for in World War 1 ,101-102 

Office of Management and Budget, 

1971,181,233,256

Steed Committee, House Committee on 

Education and Labor (1951), 194-195

318

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Index

Stewart, Ethelbert, 88,89,98,112,150, 

180, 219

Administration, 120-121,135-138 

Bureau programs, 120-135 

Early career, 53, 73, 95,108-110, 

115-117

International activities, 112,138 

Retirement, 139 

Views, 90,117-120 

Stigler, George J., 196 

Stigler Committee, 196-197,199, 227, 

229

Straus, Oscar S., 50-51,64 

Strike studies and statistics. See Wages 

and industrial relations 

Survey o f Family Spending and Saving in 

Wartime, 151

Taft, William Howard, 44,52,53, 55-56, 

60,69, 75, 77 

Tariff legislation, 34,55 

Tariff studies, BLS, 34, 204 

Taussig, Frank W , 35, 36 

Technical advisory committees:

Employment and unemployment 

statistics, 131-132,189-190 

Joint Technical Group on Homeownership, 230

National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics, 219,237-238 

Prices, 193,199 

Productivity, 249 

to Secretary of Labor, 145 

Standard budgets, 159, 198, 234 

Technological displacement, unemployment, automation, BLS studies: 

Advisory Committee on 

Employment Statistics, 

131-132

Clague, 192, 204 

Lubin, 141,142-143 

Recent period, 1965-85, 250

Stewart, 118,135 

Wright, 24-25

Temporary National Economic Committee, U .S. Congress, 143-144,147,150 

Thomas, R.J., 157 

Tillman, Benjamin R., 75, 77-78 

Tobin, Maurice J., 208 

Treasury Department, 151,199 

Truman, Harry S, 175 

Tumulty, Joseph P., 89,90,100

Unemployment, BLS programs (See also

Current Population Survey):

Census o f Unemployment, 1934, 

165-166

Economic hardship annual report, 

239

Local area unemployment statistics, 

128,240-242

Monthly Report on the Labor 

Force, 166,181,187-188 

Surveys, 1915,96-97 

Unemployment rates, array of, 

238-239

Unemployment, issues (See also Technological displacement):

Census o f unemployment, 129-131 

Conference on Unemployment, 

1921,126-127

Couzens Committee, 1928-29,129, 

141

Discouraged workers, 188, 238, 239 

“Labor force* concept, 166 

Lubin’s views, 141 

Presidential election o f 1960, 

188-189

Press conferences, releases, 221-226 

Reader’s Digest charges, 189-190 

Wagner proposals, 128-129,

141-142

War on poverty, urban problems, 

243-244

\buth unemployment, 192

319

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The First Hundred Years

Unemployment insurance, 143 

United A uto W orkers (See also General 

Motors), 179,204 

CPI, “old series", 195 

CPI, quality change, 226-227 

United Electrical, Radio and Machine 

W orkers, 194

United Mine W orkers o f America, 29, 

38,44

United States Steel Corporation, 44, 

53-54

Urban studies, BLS, 31-34,243-244 

U .S. A ir Force, 206,207 

U .S. Employment Service, 84,126-127, 

129-130,182

Van Kleeck, Mary, 88,127 

Veblen, Thorstein, 140,141 

Verrill, Charles H ., 73,100 

Veterans Administration, 167-168,207, 

251

Vocational Education A ct o f 1963,240

Wage adjustment, escalation, and stabili' 

zation:

Dispute settlement, 105-107,122 

Federal employee pay, 149,215 

GM -UAW contract, 179,193,203 

New CPI in agreements, 195,228 

Productivity factors, 134,179, 

203-204

Stewart’s view, 117-118 

Wartime stabilization, 102-104, 

152-158,161,194 

W age-price freeze (1971), 214 

Wages and industrial relations (See also

Labor-management relations, BLS 

activities), 199-202,245-249 

Blue-collar survey, 181,200, 215, 

246

Collective bargaining agreement file, 

163,164,202,249

Collective bargaining settlements 

analysis, 26,96,125,164,202,249 

Current W age Developments, 202 

Employment C ost Index, 247-248 

Industrial survey (1919), 107-108 

Minimum wage administration, 160, 

200- 201, 210-211 

National Survey o f Professional, 

Administrative, Technical, and 

Clerical Pay, 200,215, 246-247 

National War Labor Board, W W II, 

161-162,164

NRA codes, BLS surveys, 146,148, 

160

Strike studies and statistics, 25, 

52-56,72,96,125,163,164,249 

Supplemental or fringe benefits, 

201-202,247,248-249 

Union scales o f wages, 72,94,125, 

249

Urban wage rate index, 162 

Wage chronologies, 202,249 

Wage studies, 35,37-38,70-72,93, 

124-125,160,162-163,199-200, 

245-249

Wagner, Robert F., 128-130,141-142 

Walker, Francis A ., 15 

W alsh-Healey Public Contracts A ct of 

1936,160,210-211

War Industries Board, World War 1,81, 

101,102,107,141 

War on poverty, 185,243-244 

War Production Board, World War II, 

147,148,151,164 

Weaver, Oren W., 11 

Weber, Gustavus A ., 11, 73 

Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure 

Act, 1958,184,201-202 

Welfare plans, corporate, 98-99 

Western Federation o f Miners, 25,96 

W estmoreland County, Pa., coal mining 

strike (1910-11), 55

320

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Index

W harton School o f Finance and Com ­

merce, 195

W holesale prices. See Prices and living 

conditions

W ickens, Aryness Joy, 153,179,187, 209 

W ilkins, Roy, 244 

W illett, Allan H ., 112 

Willoughby, William F., 11,40 

W ilson, William B.:

Dispute settlement, 95 

Meeker, 80,82,87,112-113 

Neill, 75-76,78 

Publications, 110-111 

Stewart, 116 

Women’s Bureau, 88 

W ilson, Woodrow, 56, 75, 77, 81-82, 

106-107,112,117 

Wirtz, W Willard:

Booz-AUen and Hamilton studies, 

217,254

Clague’s retirement, 211-212 

Dept, o f Labor, 185-186 

Monthly Labor Review, 183

Release o f statistics, 190 

Statistical programs, 191,198, 244 

Women and children, BLS studies, 9, 

29-31,58,62-69,75,87,164-165 

Women’s Division, BLS, 67,87-88 

W oodcock, Leonard, 228 

W orkers’ compensation. See Social insurance

Works Progress Administration (later 

Work Projects Administration), 150, 

158,159,165,168

Wright, Carroll D., 2 ,3 ,5 ,4 5 ,4 6 ,5 6 ,6 1 , 

72,114,116,258,259 

Bureau programs, 21-38 

D ept o f Commerce and Labor, 

18-21

Early career, 7

International activities, 39-40 

O rganizing the Bureau, 11-14 

Relation to Bureau of the Census, 

15-17

Views, 8-10

321

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis