Reference Information Paper No. 50 

The Censuses of Manufactures 

1810-1890 

by Meyer Fishbein 

National Archives and Records Service 

General Services Administration 

Washington: r 973 
FOREWORD 

THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, through the National Archives 

and Records Service, is responsible for administering the permanent 

noncurrent records of the Federal Government. These archival holdings, 

now amounting to more than 1 million cubic feet, date from the days of the 

First Continental Congress and consist of the basic records of the legislative, 

judicial, and executive branches of our Government. The Presidential 

libraries of Herbert Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, 

Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson contain 

the papers of those Presidents and many of their associates in office. While 

many of the archival holdings document events of great moment in our 

Nation's history, most of them are preserved because of their continuing 

practical use in the ordinary processes of government, for the protection 

of private rights, and for the research use of scholars and students. 

To facilitate the use of the records and to describe their nature and 

content, archivists prepare various kinds of finding aids. The present work is 

one such publication. We believe that it will prove valuable to anyone who 

wishes to use the records it describes. 

iii 

ARTHUR F. SAMPSON 

Administrator of General Services 
PREFACE 

REFERENCE INFORMATION PAP ERS are published by the National Archives 

as part of its records description program. The reference information paper 

describes records dealing with some special subject. Its form and style are 

not fixed but vary according to the nature of the records to which it relates. 

Its distinguishing characteristic is that it analyzes records on a much narrower subject area than is characteristic of more general guides. 

In addition to reference information papers and other finding aids that 

relate to particular record groups, the National Archives issues publications 

that give an overall picture of materials in its custody. A new, comprehensive Guide to the National Archives of the United States will be issued. A 

guide devoted to one geographical area-Guide to Materials on Latin 

America in the National Archives (196r)-has been published. Records 

of the Civil War are described in Guide to Federal A rchives Relating to the 

Civil War (1962), Guide to the Archives of the Government of the Confederate States of America (1968), and Civil War Maps in the National 

Archives (1964); those of World War I in Handbook of Federal World 

War Agencies and Their Records, 1917-1921 (1943); and those of World 

War II in the two-volume guide, Federal Records of World War II 

(1950--51). Genealogical records are described in Guide to Genealogical 

Records in the National Archives (1964). Among the holdings of the 

National Archives are large quantities of audiovisual materials received 

from all sources: Government, private, and commercial. The Guide to 

the Ford Film Collection in the National Archives (1970) describes 

one of the largest private gift collections. The extensive body of maps 

and charts is described in the Guide to Cartographic Records in the National 

Archives (r971). 

Many bodies of records of high research value have been microfilmed 

by the National Archives as a form of publication. Positive prints of these 

microfilm publications, many of which are described in the current List of 

National Archives Microfilm Publications, are available for purchase. For 

other publications, see the most recent Select List of Publications of the 

National Archives and Records Service, General Information Leaflet NO.3. 

v 

JAMES B. RHOADS 

Archivist of the United States 
. ~his reference. information paper is one of a series prepared for dis-

~nbutIOn. at the NatIOnal Archives Conference on Statistical Research held 

m Wa.shmgton, D.C:, May 27-28, 1968. The conference was conve~ed to 

acqu~mt scholars Wlt~ the voluminous statistical material in the National 

Archlv~s and to p~ovlde an opportunity for discussions of the problems of 

p~eserv.mg and usmg contemporary quantitative sources. The papers and 

dIS~us.sIOns cover also the current production of conventional and electronic 

statistical source records and the criteria for preserving those records for 

futu:e research: The proceedings of this conference were published in The 

NatIOnal Archl.ves a~d S~atistical Research, edited by Meyer H. Fishbein 

(Athens: OhIO Ulllversity Press, 1973). 

vi 

INTRODUCTION 

GROWING INTEREST in U.S. industrial history should focus attention on the 

usefulness of the contemporary histories and statistical tabulations prepared in 

connection with 19th-century censuses. Current historians, however, show little 

consistency in their treatment of census data. Some virtually ignore this substantial body of literature. Others quote the statistical or narrative evidence 

without warning the reader about the factual limitations of the data and, except 

for occasional references to the inadequacy of early census procedures, they 

avoid the question of validity.1 

When Harold Faulkner wrote in American Economic History that "the 

bases for the study of manufactures since the Civil War are the census reports," 

he referred particularly to the censuses of 1900 and 1910.2 Ethel D. Hoover, a 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics ofllcial, on the other hand, found the report 

dealing with retail prices for the 1880 census "the only extensive compilation 

of retail prices for the nineteenth century.":l 

An examination of many recent studies in economic history shows the 

following prevalent attitudes toward the long-range I 8 I 0-90 reports: 

1. Because the census reports for I 8 I 0--40 are considered too inaccurate for quantitative or qualitative analysis, they are rarely cited. 

2. Quantitative data from the reports for the period 1850-90 are 

useful mainly to show trends. 

3. Industrial histories included in the reports are virtually ignored. 

The terminal date of 1890 for this study was chosen for several reasons. 

By the time the 1890 census reports were published, statistical standards had 

been developed by which the 1890 and later reports could be judged. As will 

be shown, the reports had come under severe scrutiny by professionally trained 

academicians. After the 1890'S the sources for industrial data, particularly the 

1 Victor S. Clark rarely cited 19th-century census data in his History of Manufactures in the United States (3 vols., New York, 1929). He ignored, for example, 

the reports for the period 1810--50, although he used 1860 census figures without 

comment (2: 10). Elsewhere he quoted census data derived from other sources, for 

example, textile data from trade publications (2: 183). In one passage (2:416-417), 

Clark described the growth of cotton manufactures from 1870 to 1890, based on 

census reports. Although Clark accepted the figures without modification, he warned 

the reader to consider adjustments to account for changes in the value of the dollar. 

Nowhere does he cite the interesting and informative histories of American industries 

included in most of the census reports. 

2 Harold U. Faulkner, American Economic History (7th ed; New York, 1964). 

P·765· .e Journal of Economic History, Vol. 18 (Sept. 1958), p. 308. 
trade press and professional journals, burgeoned to such a degree that census 

officials found they no longer needed to analyze data for their readers. And, 

finally, the establishment of a permanent Census Office when the 1900 census 

was being prepared for publication resulted in a continuity of service that raised 

the professional competence of census employees. 

To provide historians with a substantial commentary on the reports, they 

will be examined in terms of the professional qualifications of their authors, the 

adequacy of the procedures used in gathering data, and the contents of each. 

THE CENSUS OF 1810 

The first recorded proposal for collecting industrial data as part of the U.S. 

census was the unsuccessful recommendation by James Madison that the census 

of 1790 include occupational statistics. 4 Similar proposals were offered to Congress for the 1800 census by the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 

and the American Philosophical Society." 

The possibility that the Napoleonic Wars would deprive the Nation of 

foreign sources for manufactured goods increased the already substantial Congressional interest in manufactures. Congress, in a House resolution of June 7, 

1809, therefore requested the Secretary of the Treasury to rerl))t on means 

of protecting and fostering manufacturing establishments. Secretary Albert Gallatin reported that he was prevented from making concrete proposals by the 

lack of adequate statistical data. (i He noted that the approaching census would 

afford an opportunity to collect these data. 

In accordance with Gallatin's suggestion, Congress, on May I, 1810, 

amended the act for the Third Census to provide for the collection and tabulation of data on manufacturing establishments. The amendment referred neither 

to the nature of the inquiry nor to the method of collecting data, but merely 

dIrected the "several marshals, secretaries, and their assistants to prepare an 

account of the several manufacturing establishments and manufactures within 

their several districts, territories, and divisions" (2 Stat. 605). The schedules 

and related abstracts were to be sent to the Secretary of the Treasury, who 

would presumably report to Congress. 

Some of the enumerators recognized that they had been assigned the virtually impossible task of conducting the first national census of manufactures 

with barely any instructions, no special training, and no questionnaire. One 

assistant marshal wrote that the census of manufactures took most of his time 

and was much more troublesome than the census of popUlation.' The enumera4 Annals of Congress, IstCong., 2dsess"pp.1115, IllS, 1145-1147. 

G House Report 3, 41st Cong., 2d sess., pp. 35-37. 

~ A meric~n Stale Papers, Finance, Vol. 2, pp. 425--439. , PopulatiOn Schedules for the Census of 1810, North Carolina, Vol. 3, p. 190, 

Reco:ds of the Burea.u of the C.ensus, Record Group 29, National Archives Building. 

Heremafter, records m the NatiOnal Archives Building are cited by tIle symbol NA 

and RG followed by the record group number. 

2 

tor for Northumberland County, Virginia, described his procedure as follows: 

"As there was no form prescribed for taking manufacturing es~ablishments, I 

have taken the most general of them and those that are most easily ascertamed, 

such as the gallons of Brandy distilled .... "8 . 

In addition to the difficulties encountered in collecting manufactuflng data 

for the first time, enumerators were confronted with resistance to any questions 

about business operations. The enumerator for Rutherford County, Nor.th Carolina, for example, was denied data after the rumor circulated that the lllform~­

tion was required for tax purposes. 9 Another North Carolinian reported that hiS 

requests for data "created Jealousies in the minds of a Great Number of the 

people, consequently No Great reliance can be placed on the. same."lO .. 

After the returns arrived in the Secretary's office, Gallatm sought the aid 

of one of the few persons qualified to evaluate the data, Purveyor of Public 

Supplies Tench Coxe. Coxe had studied the development of American manufactures for more than two decades and had apparently assisted Alexander 

Hamilton in preparing his Report on Manufactures. He had also compiled 

statistics on foreign trade'!! 

Coxe was probably quite disappointed in the quantity and quality. of the 

returns received by the Secretary. He therefore published in Niles Register of 

December 2 1, 18] I, a circular containing a sample of the type of return he 

wished for each establishment, as follows: 

George B. Williams, of the township of Northampton, county of Berkshire and state of Massachusetts, makes and sells broad cloths at two 

dolla~s and one-half, to three dollars per yard; blankets at three to 

three dollars and one-half each; narrow cloths at one dollar and onethird to one dollar and one-half per yard; total of goods in a year 

423 I' yards of broad cloth, 7368 yards narrow cloth and 4 1 3 blankets. 

Total value 25,51 I dollars and 45 cents. 

The said George Williams employs and moves by water one 

carding machine and 150 spindles; and by hand four hundred and 

ten spindles in the woolen manufacture. 

To publicize the census of manufactures, Coxe's circular requested "every 

gentleman in public station" to send the issue of the journal to "three or n~,o~e 

public spirited and intelligent citizens in their respective states and dlstncts 1ll 

the hope that they would submit additional schedules. There is no record that 

the circular achieved its objective. 

Congressman Adam Seybert of Pennsylvania, in recognition of Coxe's 

'Population Schedules, 1810, Virginia, Vol. 5, p. 969. 

" Population Schedules, 1810, North Carolina, Vol. 5, p. 147· 

10 Population Schedules, 1810, North Carolina, Vol. 3, p. 203· 11 Meyer H. Fishbein, Early Business Statistical Operations of the l:'ederal G()~'­

emmcnt National Archives Reference Information Paper No. 51 (Washmgton, D.C., 

1973) ;p. 4-6; and Harold Mutcheson, Tench Coxe; a study in American Economic 

Development, (Baltimore, 1938), pp. 1-30. 

3 
;;,ork in ?,ehalf of the census, successfully proposed a resolution that directed 

an agent of the Secretary of the Treasury 

to employ a person to digest and reduce to such form as shall be 

deemed most conducive to the interests of the United States, a statement of the number, nature, extent, situation, and value of the arts and 

manufactures of the United States, together with such othe I t '1 d . r (e aI S, 

connecte WIth these subjects, as can be made from the abstracts and 

other documents and returns, reported to him by the marshals and 

other perso.ns employed to collect information in conformity to the 

second sectIOn of the act of the first of May, one thousand cight hundred. and ten: and such other· information as has been or may be 

obtamed, whIch the subject will admit of; and that he report the 

same to Congress. 12 . 

Despite obvious inadequa~ies in the returns received by the Secretnry, 

Coxe prepared the report reqU1~ed .by Seybert's resolution. Although Coxe---

and al~ other contem~orary statIsticlans-lncked knowledge of techniques for 

coll~ctmg and tabulatmg economic data, he explicitly stated in the introduction 

to hIS report that the data were incomplete and inaccurate. 

It may, ~owev~r, be affirmed, that the tables contain a great number 

and vanety of clear indications of the state of the manufacturing 

branch ?f th~ nation.al industry, and a mass of positive evidence upon 

the sU~Ject, m relatIOn to the Eastern, Northern, Middle, Southern. 

Atlantic, and Western sections or grand divisions of the country, with 

respect to the for~s or modes of the manufactures which have grown 

up, ~he raw matenals upon which they operate, a very considerable 

portIOn of the value to which they have arisen, very useful data for 

the comparative value of internal commerce or manufactures, and 

external commerce or navigation and foreign trade, and much e1ucid~tlOn of the operations of manufacturing industry upon the commerCIal and the landed interests, and upon the public safety.1:l 

The organization of Coxe's census report was followed in general in the 

reports of man~lfactures for the second half of the I9th century. It consisted of 

(I) the transmIttal correspondence, (2) procedural information, (3) studies of 

Important II1dust~Ies (textiles, iron, leather, and others), (4) tabulations of data 

c.on~ernll1g mdlvldual commodities with totals for State or territory and (5) 

sImII.ar d~;a arranged geographically by State and county, with total; for C01~­

modltles. , Each of these parts has features of interest to economic historians. 

Coxe s le.tter of transmittal asserted that the report, though its quantitative 

data were estImated, showed "the true state of the body politic in its various 

numbers and operations." Coxe noted, in this connection, that he had separated 

12 2 Stat. 786. 

13 Americall State Papers, Fillallce, Vol. 2, p. 677. 14 Ibid., pp. 666-8r2. 

4 

the narrative from the statistical sections so that "neither might obscure or 

injure the other." 

In his introductory statements, Coxe candidly revealed his intention to 

broaden the scope of his report to include "all pertinent information of an 

authoritative character" that would be "conducive to the interests of the United 

States." He therefore included in the report comments about agricultural production, commerce and navigation, fisheries, the relationship of manufactures 

to national security, the fine arts, and social and economic conditions favorable 

to manufacturing enterprises. These brief essays concerning American progress 

and potentials summarize and develop the views Coxe had expressed in a series 

of papers he prepared about the time of the Constitutional Convention,15 

The tabular section of the report contains so many inaccuracies that its 

usefulness for research may be seriously questioned. Coxe prefaced the section 

with a warning about the incompleteness of the data. A contemporary critic of 

the report noted that, while the sections for Massachusetts were "remarkably 

correct," those for New Jersey were incomplete and inaccurate and those for 

South Carolina were "careless beyond any of the returns." He accurately noted 

that the data were so lacking in comparability that it was "impossible to class 

them under corresponding heads. III 

These errors and others of a clerical nature may be demonstrated by 

comparing the published data with the existing, fragmentary schedules in the 

National Archives.17 Deficiencies in tabulating and transcribing data appear 

most frequently in the returns for North Carolina. The published tabulation 

for Carteret County, for example, shows 413 looms. This figure was an incorrect transcription of the enumerator's extrapolation of the 126 looms found in 

2 I 0 out of 670 families. 1s The enumerator for Cabarrus County reported the 

production of 20,225 gallons of whiskey; the published production appears as 

20,22 I gallons. This error is insignificant as against the addition of an unexplained valuation of $ IO,OOO for the whiskey, although the deputy marshal 

failed to report on its valuation. 

In transcribing data for Surrey County, Coxe (or his clerk) made several 

gross errors. First, he rounded out some figures while transcribing others without change. Seventeen hundred yards of fulled cloth appears in the report as 

17,000 yards; furthermore, while the enumerator listed the value as $1 per yard, 

the report shows a total value of $500. Both the report and the schedule show 5 

);, See Tench Coxe, A View of the United States of America (London, I795), 

and Observations on the A griculture, Manufactures, and Commerce of the United 

States (New York, 1789). 

lGLetter of Samuel Mitchell to Thomas Newton, January 7, r8r2, published in 

the American Medical and Philosophical Register, April r812, and reprinted in a book 

of the same title, pp. 405-408 (New York, 1814). 

17 All manufacturing schedules were presumed lost when the British burned part 

of the Capital during the War of r 8 J 2. An examination of the population schedules, 

whieh were not in Washington at that time, revealed, however, that several marshals 

and their deputies combined the manufacturing and population statistics on the same 

enumeration schedules. 

" Population Schedules, J 8 J 0, North Carolina, 2: J 86, NA, RG 29. 

5 
bloomeries, but the report failed to note the production of r 56 tons of pig iron. 

Finally, 550 hides appears as 580 hides. 1o Similar errors may be found by comparing the original schedules with the published report for other North Carolina 

counties and several counties in New York, Maryland, and Massachusetts.2o 

While the critics of the Coxe report were unaware of these errors, they 

recognized that its data were of dubious validity. The North American Review 

of June 1815 (I: 239 and 246) criticized Coxe because the returns for many 

States omitted several industries entirely, but it nevertheless admitted that the 

report as a whole gave "a strong impression of the actual extent of manufactured produce in the United States." 

Apparently the critic was referring to the inaccuracies in the tabulations 

and to the generally valid comments about industrial development in Coxe's 

essays. In contrast with this journal's mixed review, Joshua Gilpin's report of 

r832 rejected all of Coxe's findings on the grounds that they were "miserably 

executed. "21 

A more carefully considered judgment of the 18 I 0 report was rendered 

by industrial historian J. Leander Bishop, thus: 

The returns made upon the subject of manufactures, on account of 

the limited time allowed for taking the census, the absence of any 

formula or instruction to secure uniformity and completeness, and the 

reluctance or inability of many persons to give correct information, 

were necessarily irregular and discordant, as well as in many respects 

extremely deficient. The accounts from the different states and territories, and even from divisions of the same state, varied with the 

different views of the agents, their intelligence, industry and other 

qualifications, which rendered a comparison of the general results 

quite difficult. The returns fall far short of a full and reliable statement of the actual number and condition of the manufactures of the 

country. Those from Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New 

York and Virginia, were the most complete, those from South Carolina the least so, but great deficiencies were apparent in all of them. 22 

Bishop continued his generally valid criticism with several examples of 

obvious deficiences in the tabular data. He noted that certain trades and millsbookbinding, calico printing and dyeing, glass making, and tinsmithing-were 

unreported by many enumerators. He nevertheless did not reject the entire 

report as worthless. "Notwithstanding their defects," Bishop wrote, "the returns 

contained a vast amount of valuable information which will be interesting in 

JO Population Schedules, 1810, North Carolina, 6: 198. 

20 A list of the extant 1810 manufacturing schedules is available in the National 

Archives Building. 

21 House Document 308, 22d Cong., 1st sess., 2: 849. 

22 J. Leander Bishop, A History of American Manuf({ctures from 1608-1860, 

Vol. 2 (3d ed., Philadelphia, 1868), p. 159. 

6 

all future times as the first systematic statement of American manufactures 

in detail. "23 

A subsequent comment by an eminent statistican, S. N. D. North, appraised 

the report as follows: 

Of the $198,6I3,47I reported as the value of products, more 

than 60 per cent was estimated by Mr. Coxe. While the statistical 

value of such a11 estimate is doubtful, it does nevertheless afford a 

definite starting-point, undoubtedly conservative, from which our subsequent growth can be approximately measured, precisely as the 

growth of English wealth and resources is measured from the Domesday Book.u 

Critics of the Coxe report have generally failed to distinguish between the 

quantitative and the qualitative data. Coxe called attention to specific deficiencies in the quantitative data by noting that the manufactures for Pennsylvania 

were grossly understated. But he rightly pointed out that the data are suggestive 

of the variety of industries developing in the State. 2G Rarely if ever do historians 

cite the technological information included in the Coxe report. He mentioned, 

for example, the technological revolution in the textile, boot and shoe, nail and 

rolling-mill, and iron and steel casting industries. 2H And he frequently brought 

up a favorite theme, which dated at least from 1789, concerning the interdependence of agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and commerce. These and 

other comments by a keen observer of economic phenomena are deserving of 

attention by students of industrial history and the history of American economic 

thought. 

THE CENSUSES OF 1820 AND r840 

Of the contemporary cntlcs of the Coxe report, Adam Seybert was the only 

one who offered a plan for improving the method of enumerating manufacturing establishments. Seybert represented his native Philadelphia in Congress 

(1809-15) when he had sponsored the resolution that gave legislative sanction 

to Coxe's work in connection with the 1810 census. He was reelected to Congress for a single term in 1817. Politics was one of Seybert's many professional 

interests, which included medicine, chemistry, mineralogy, and statistics. While 

he was preparing his deservedly famous Statistical Annals, Seybert was a member of the American Philosophical Society, the American Medical Society, the 

2:l Ibid., p. 160. 

uS. N. D. North, "Manufactures in the Federal Census," The Federal Census, 

Critical Essays by Members of the American Economic Association (New York, 

1899), p. 259· 20 American Stale P({pers, Finance, Vol. 2, p. 668. 

2f) Ibid., pp. 671, 676-677. 

7 
Chemical Society of Philadelphia, the Philosophical and Literary Society of 

New York, and the Royal Scientific Society of Gottingen. 27 

The Annals contain detailed information about American population, commerce, navigation, fisheries, public lands, post offices, the Federal budget, and 

the armed forces. Seybert's comments about manufactures and manufacturing 

statistics appear in the introductory chapter on the political, social, and economic progress of the Nation. "It is not long since the manufactories, within 

the United States, have gained the public attention," Seybert wrote; but, he 

continued, "now they are respectable, from their number, as well as on account 

of the many persons to whom they have given employment, and the capital 

which has been invested."28 

Seybert went on to deplore the lack of accurate data about manufacturing. 

Concerning the I 8 I 0 census, he wrote, "Some elaborate and valuable returns 

were made and transmitted; the greater number of them were irregular, and 

evidently very deficient."29 

To avoid the deficiencies that were quite evident in the Coxe report, 

Seybert recommended the use of a "formula" (questionnaire) issued by the 

Secretary of the Treasury with "proper instructions" to the enumerators. The 

questionnaire that Seybert suggested for the next census contained the following 

items: 3o 

The state in which the manufacture exists 

The nature of the manufacture 

Raw materials employed 

the kind 

the quantity annually consumed 

the cost of the annual consumption 

Persons employed, number of 

men 

women 

boys and girls 

Amount paid annually for wages 

Amount of capital invested 

Amount of contingent expenses 

Value of the articles which are annually manufactured 

General remarks concerning the establishment 

After the publication of Seybert's work, there was increasing interest in 

attempting another census of manufactures. The dumping of European goods 

on the American market after the Napoleonic Wars and the depression of 1819 

led to increasing demands for accurate data showing the state of industrial 

development. President Madison and several societies for the encouragement 

27 Henry Phillips, ed., Early Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 

1744 to 1838, pp. 243, 246, 276, and 53! (Philadelphia, 1884), and "Adam Seybert" 

in the Dictionary of American Biography. 

28 Adam Seybert, Statistical A nnals (Philadelphia, 1818), p. 6. 

2!l Ibid., p. 6; Seybert went on to describe some of the deficiencies noted above. 

30 Ibid., p. 19. 

8 

of manufactures requested the Congress to authorize another census of manufactures. In January 1820, therefore, the bill providing for the census of that 

year contained a section authorizing a census of manufactures, excluding 

"household manufactures." An amended version of the bill was enacted on 

March 20,1820 (3 Stat. 543-553). 

Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, to whom the act gave responsibility for the census, studied Seybert's questionnaire and requested the advice 

of several officials in developing procedures for collecting industrial data.B! 

After considerable deliberation he adopted Seybert's questionnaire with several 

improvements, as follows: 

Name of the country, parish, township, town, or city where the manufacture exists. 

Raw materials employed; 

I. The kind. 

2. The quantity annually consumed. 

3· The cost of the annual consumption. 

N umber of persons employed; 

4. Men 

5. Women 

6. Boys and girls. 

Machinery; 

7· Whole quantity and kind of machinery. 

8. Quantity of machinery in operation. 

Expenditures; 

9· Amount of capital invested. 

10. Amount paid annually for wages. 

11. Amount of contingent expenses. 

Production: 

12. The nature and names of articles manufactured. 

13· Market value of the articles which are annually manufactured. 

14· General remarks concerning the establishment, as to its 

actual and past condition, the demand for, and sale of, 

its manufacture. 

Adams' instructions to the U.S. marshals show his interest in methodology 

and his desire to avoid the mistakes of 18 ro. 'The more particular the account 

of manufactures can be made," Adams wrote, "the more satisfactory will the 

returns prove. "H2 Adams pointed out that Congress had not provided a penalty 

for refusing to supply manufacturing data; nevertheless, he expressed a hope 

.31 C"harle~ F. Adams, ed., Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Containing Portions 

of HIS Dlary From 1795 to 1848, Vol. 5 (Philadelphia, 1875), pp. 125, 130, 133, 135, 

147, 148. 

;'2 Circular to the Marshal of the Eastern District of Virginia June 20 1820 

Ci:c~lars of the Department of State, Vol. I, NA, RG 59; Carroll D. Wri~ht and 

WIlham C. Hunt, Hzstory and Growth of the United States Census, Prepared for the 

Senate Committee of the Census (Washington, 19(0), p. 135. 

9 
that Congressional interest in encouraging manufactures would result in widespread cooperation on the part of the owners. To aid the enumerators in describing establishments, Adams sent a list of products mentioned in Coxe's report and 

instructed them to give the questionnaire "to some person principally concerned 

in the manufacturing establishment, requesting him to give the information 

desired himself." 

The procedures for enumerating manufacturing establishments contained 

several elements that are recognized by modern statisticians as mandatory to 

assure any degree of accuracy. Most of the data included in the printed schedule could readily be tabulated. The enumerators received some instructions, and 

the term "manufactures" was defined at least to the extent of eliminating home 

manufactures and artisan handicrafts. These improvements over the procedures 

used in the 18 I 0 census did not, however, result in a report that was more useful for historical analysis than the earlier report. The chief reasons for the 

deficiencies in the 1820 compendium were the incompleteness and inaceuracy 

of the returns, the poor tabulation of the schedules, and Adams' refusal to study 

the returns in order to analyze the changes in American industry sinee 1810. 

A few weeks after the census began a prediction was made that the returns 

would be quite unsatisfaetory. "The returns will be so imperfect," Niles Register 

of August 26, 1820, surmised, "that it will have been better if the subject of the 

inquiry had been altogethcr omitted." Three valid reasons were suggested for 

the apparent failure of the census: (I) the enumerators were unqualified to 

gather data; (2) they were reluctant to return to establishments where the proprietor had been absent at the time of the first visit; and (3) the entrepreneurs 

were unable to answer the questions aeeurately. 

Adams' Digest 0/ Manufactures3:

1 shows that the doleful predietion was, if 

anything, an understatement of the degree of inaccuracy in the returns. Several 

Congressmen complained because no returns were included for their districts. 34 

The Department of State therefore prepared a supplement that eontained tabulations of returns received after the Digest was compiled.aG 

Even with the supplement, the tabulations of the census of manufactures 

were grossly incomplete. Not only were marshals and their deputies negligent 

of their census duties, but the State Department clerks failed to tabulate many 

returns. The returns for Hanover, Patriek, and Stafford Counties, Virginia, now 

among the remains of the 1820 census, were omitted from the Digest. 3

!J The 

deputy marshal for Sampson County, North Carolina, enumerated cotton gins 

and gristmills and sawmills; but, because he supplied no details about their 

operations, no mention was made of them in the Digest. Although scattered 

returns were reeeived from Jones, Carteret, and Wake Counties, North Carolina, 

none were tabulated. Of the returns for South Carolina, only three have been 

:33 American State Papers, Finance, Vol. 4, pp. 28-223· 

34 Annals of Congress, 17th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 887---90I. 

:;,. American State Papers, Finance, Vol. 4, pp. 291-299· 

:It; The original schedules, with many gaps, are available in the National Archives 

(RG 29). Name and industry indexes are also available. 

10 

located, and none were tabulated. Similarly, returns for Somerset County, 

Maine, were omitted from the report. 

One of many reasons for incomplete schedules was the reluctanee of certain manufacturers to supply data. Some of them entered their objeetions 

directly on the sehedules; in other cases the deputy marshals noted that the proprietors were either fearful of taxation or angry at the invasion of their privacy.:17 

The extant original schedules have, for reasons shown above, considerable 

unexploited data or data incorrectly transcribed. The returns for Allegany 

County, Maryland, for example, show three producers of leather goods; but the 

Digest gives only the data for one firm with the exception of the column for 

reeording the value of goods produced. Retabulating all the returns would 

doubtless reveal many more errors. Replies to the last question about financial 

eonditions of the firms could not, of course, be tabulated; henee, Adams or his 

clerk merely summarized the comments in a few words. Often, however, the 

report for a eounty eontains a brief abstract of the remarks by a single firm in 

the industry. While the report is therefore of quite limited value, it, together 

with the original schedules, eould supply useful data concerning manufacturing 

enterprises. 

Beeause Congress and the executive branch were dissatisfied with the 1820 

census of manufactures, the 1830 eensus was limited to an enumeration of the 

population. In 1838, however, President Martin Van Buren and several Congressmen proposed that economic data be eollected during the next census. 38 

Archibald Russell, a New York philanthropist, seized on the suggestion to propose several reforms in census methods, with particular reference to economic 

and social data. He recommended that the census of manufactures be broadened to include farms and mines. To simplify eensus procedures, Russell also 

recommended that the schedule should require only quantitative data.:liJ The 

census act of March 3, 1839 (5 Stat. 336), in the light of Russell's recommendations, provided for the collection of data covering agriculture, commerce, manufaetures, and schools. The problem of how to collect these data 

was ignored. 

Secretary of State John Forsythe apparently had little interest in statistics. 

Even the expedient of seeking the aid of the reeently organized American Statistical Society (now Assoeiation) was neglected. To simplify the task, the 

Secretary limited the sehedule to columns for aggregates of data colleeted for 

each industry within an enumeration district. Columns were provided for labor 

force, production, and investment data. Forsythe felt that omission of the names 

of companies would overcome the deficiencies resulting from refusal to supply 

WI See, for example, 1820 manufacturing schedules, Rhode Island document 69, 

New Jersey document 169, Pennsylvania document 562, and Virginia document 152, 

NA, RG 29. 

:l' Fishbein, Early Business Statistical Operations of the Federal Government, p. 2 I. 

:1O Ibid., p. 17-18; and Archibald Russell, Principles of Statistical Inquiries, pp. 

2,9 (New York, 1839). 

II 
private data. 40 The enumerators were not instructed about the method of collecting data from individual firms. Probably the deputy marshals took notes on 

scrap paper and then entered the totals on the printed forms. 

The task of preparing the report for the 1840 census apparently fell to 

William A. Weaver, a former naval officer. 41 Tabulation of the returns was no 

hardship to the State Department. The marshal submitted county aggregates for 

the deputies under his supervision. The departmental clerk, probably Weaver, 

merely transcribed the data; nevertheless, the report for 1840 was not much of 

an improvement over the report for 1820. One obvious reason was still the 

ignorance of the marshals and their assistants concerning industrial establishments. This ignorance was compounded by their assignment to collect for the 

first time agricultural, commercial, and mining data. Another weakness resulted 

from inadequate procedures. The report lists for Anne Arundel County, Maryland, four furnaces producing 3,800 tons of cast iron. This figure was correctly 

transcribed from the marshal's abstract. Turning to the deputy marshal's figures, 

however, we learn that "3800 tons" applies to only three furnaces as the production data for the fourth are missing. 42 An examination of the few schedules 

for Allegany County, Maryland, reveals these errors: 

(I) The report shows 74 mills of various types; the schedules show 

I 16. This error was apparently the result of the marshal skipping 

two pages of the schedules. 

(2) The capital invested in these mills appears in the report as $50,-

574. The schedules, with the data for several firms unreported, 

show $62,789. 

As in the I820 report, similar errors can be demonstrated for many other 

counties. 

Francis Bowen, the leading economist during the decades between the 

Federal period and the Civil War, found the returns so poor that he criticized 

the Government for even attempting the collection of economic data.1B Francis 

Amasa Walker, the most competent and influential American statistician of the 

I9th century, described the results of the manufacturing censuses for 1820 and 

40 Wright and Hunt, History and Growth of the United States Census, p. 145. 

41 Although there is no direct evidence of Weaver's responsibility for the census, 

his name has been associated with the pUblication. As Weaver's main function in the 

Department was the organization of the departmental archives, it seems reasonable to 

assume that his records experience was put to use in organizing and tabulating the 

returns received from marshals. See Carl L. Lokke, "The Continental Congress 

Papers, Their History, 1789--1952," National Archives Accessions, No. 51, pp. 8-10 

(June I954). 

42 Department of State, Compendium of the Census of the Inhabitants and Statistics of the United States as Obtained from the Sixth Census, p. 138 (Washington. 

Blair and Reeves, I 84 I); and "Statistics for the Sixth Census," Vol. 10 of the 1840 

special census schedules, NA, RG 29. 

43 Joseph Dorfman, The Economic Mind in American Civilization, 2: 842 (New 

York, I946). 

12 

1840 as "worthy of little consideration. "44 A decade later another leading 

statistician commented as follows: 

The census of 1840 was little better than its predecessors. "We 

are astonished as well as embarrassed," says Mr. [J. Leander] Bishop, 

"by the meagerness of its details. Even of the leading branches in 

some instances only the capital is given; in others only the product; 

and we confess we do not know by what rule of arithmetic or measuration anyone could have calculated from official data that the capital invested in manufactures at that time was $267,726,579." The 

report itself does not attempt to aggregate the value of the products 

returned; in a number of the leading industries, such as flour and grist 

mills, cast iron, liquors, powder, etc., only the quantities are returned; 

when we come to cast up the account for ourselves, making our own 

estimates, we find the aggregate so relatively small that we suspect it 

affords the explanation of the absence of any attempt at an official 

total. 40 

THE CENSUSES OF r850--70 

Congress, to its credit, recognized that its failure to provide adequate legislative 

guidance for the r 840 census was a cause of the deficiencies in the report. On 

March 3, 1849, it therefore established the Census Board, comprising the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Postmaster General, and a secretary, 

to prepare and print forms for the collection of data concerning population, 

mines, agriculture, commerce, manufactures, education, and other subjects (9 

Stat. 402). The schedules prepared by the Board were to contain no more than 

100 inquiries. 

As is common with such organizations, the work of the Board was left to 

its secretary, Joseph Camp Griffith Kennedy.46 Although Kennedy's earlier 

career-ownership of two unsuccessful Pennsylvania newspapers-showed no 

particular interest in statistics, he became an authority on the subject during 

the year in which he served the Board.47 

Soon after establishment of the Board Kennedy proposed that the industrial enumeration be limited to the important industries in each State. This 

plan would require schedules tailored to the economy of the various States. The 

chief opposition to Kennedy's proposal came from J. D. B. De Bow, then head 

of the Louisiana Bureau of Statistics. De Bow cogently argued that the data 

44 Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 13 (9th ed., Boston, I 888), p. 824. 

40 S. N. D. North, "Manufactures in the Federal Census," p. 260. 

46 No references to the Board's activities appear among the records of the three 

members in the National Archives. 47 Paul J. Fitzpatrick, "Leading American Statisticians of the Nineteenth Century, 

II," American Statistical Association Journal, Vol. 53 (Sept. I958), pp. 693-694. 

I3 
concerning minor industries could, "if taken together, swell into an enormous 

aggregate."18 Kennedy abandoned his proposal. 

After consulting with most of the leading statisticians in the countryEdward Jarvis, Archibald Russell, Edwin Chadwick, and others-Kennedy prepared six schedules and the related instructions to marshals.19 Although the 

results of their combined efforts were a vast improvement over earlier techniques, Congress, apparently dissatisfied with Kennedy's progress, also made 

plans for the census. The type of paper to be used for the census schedules, 

their content, and the problems of tabulation were debated in the Senate.50 

Congress did not therefore pass a census act until the latter part of March. 

Under the circumstances, the act (9 Stat. 428) was detailed and comprehensive. It provided for a superintending clerk--later known as Superintendent of 

the Census--to supervise the census under the direction of the Secretary of 

the Interior, detailed the procedures for taking the census, and described the 

contents of the schedules. 

These schedules differed only slightly from those compiled by Kennedy. 

Schedule NO.5, "Products of Industry," contained blanks for identifying the 

firm and the type of business and for entering answers to 14 inquiries regarding capitalization, raw materials, kind of motive power, the labor force, wages, 

and the annual product. The quantity, kind, and value of both raw materials 

and goods produced were to be given. All "productive" industries, except 

household manufactures and firms producing less than $500 worth of goods, 

were to be included in the census. 

Two other reforms were included in the act. Congress authorized payment 

to the enumerator of 1 5 cents for each firm reported and provided a penalty 

for refusal by households, farms, and industrial establishments to supply data. 

Although these reforms resulted in a higher percentage of returns, they were 

still not complete. Benjamin Peirce, Superintendent of the U.S. Coast Survey, 

calculated that the system of compensation to enumerators was "radically defective and vicious."51 Since enumerators in sparsely settled areas usually suffer 

most from inequitable compensation systems, it is probable that many of them 

did not go out of their way to collect an extra 15 cents for gathering detailed 

company data. 

As Kennedy had prepared instructions for the census in January 1850, he 

did not have to face that task in the short time between the passage of the act 

and the beginning of the enumeration on June I. G2 His instructions resulted in 

greater accuracy in the returns. One significant innovation was an explanation 

48 Fishbein, Early Business Statistical Operations of the Federal Government, p. 24. 

49 Census Office, Seventh Census, Statistical View of the United States . .. Being 

a Compendium of the Census, pp. 12-13 (Washington, 1854). 

[,0 Congressional Globe, 31st Cong., 1St sess., pp. 283, 288, 687, 690. 

51 Census Office, Ninth Census, The Statistics of the Population of the United 

States, Vol. I (Washington, 1872), xxvi. 

52 Letters, Joseph C. G. Kennedy to the Secretary of the Interior, January I and 

14, 1850, File 183, Records of the Patents and Miscellaneous Division, Department 

of the Interior, RG 48, NA. 

14 

J! 

of each of the inquiries, such as this explanation for the question concerning 

power: 

Under heading 7, entitled "Kind of motive power, machinery, 

structure, or resource," is to be inserted, first, in regard to motive 

power, as water, steam, horse, wind, or otherwise, as the fact may be; 

second, in regard to machinery, the number of spindles, looms, power 

printing presses, mills, and runs of stones, sawmills, number of saws, 

or other appropriate amount of the quantity and kind of machinery; 

third, in regard to other kinds of structure or resource, as furnaces, 

number of fires; bloom eries, number of fires; stone quarries, mines of 

any kind, ships, vessels, or boats used for fishing, etc. G:1 

Another innovation concerned the confidentiality of business data. As has 

been shown, the reluctance to supply data was one of numerous reasons for 

the incompleteness of returns. Kennedy handled this problem competently by 

the following instruction: 

Should anyone object on the ground of not wishing to expose 

the nature of his business, the assistant marshal would state that it is 

not desired to elicit any information which will be used or published 

as concerning the operations of any individual or concern. The individual facts are confidentially imparted and received, and will only 

be published, if at all, in connection with and as part of a great body 

of similar facts, from which it will be impossible to abstract or distinguish those of individual firms or corporations. G4 

When reports reached Kennedy that many enumerators ignored his instruction concerning confidentiality, he informed the marshals, "No individual 

employed under sanction of the Government ... has a right to promulgate or 

expose [the schedule] without authority."G;' As the 1820 census practice of 

giving the schedule to the entrepeneur or the manager proved unsatisfactory, 

Kennedy decided to assign the task of completing the industrial schedules to 

the enumerators with the aid of the proprietor. 

To these improvements in methods of collecting data should be added an 

improvement in the tabulating process. The clerks placed a check mark next to 

the name of each firm as its data were tabulated. 

An examination of the Maryland schedules shows that only establishments 

that were not to be included in the enumeration--those with a value of production of less than $500-were not checked. GG This practice and the greater care 

53 Wright and Hunt, History and Growth of the United States Census, p. 3 I3. 

54 Ibid., p. 3 I 2. 

55 Ibid., p. 150 . 

56 The Maryland schedules, 1850-80, are in the Law Library of the State at 

Annapolis. The Census Bureau, in 19 I 8, transferred the 1850-80 schedules for industry, agriculture, mortality, and social statistics to the respective States or to historical 

and educational institutions. The National Archives is now obtaining microfilm copies 

of these schedules. 

15 
taken in totaling the data resulted in an accurate tabulation of the schedules. A 

check of several counties among the Maryland schedules did not disclose a 

single error. 

All of these methodological reforms were reflected in a vastly improved 

report concerning industry. The chief deficiency in the report, other than the 

errors resulting from inadequate and improper enumeration, lies in the limitations placed on its scope. Kennedy's Digest of the Statistics of Manufactures 

contains tabulations of the principal and other industries by State, a general 

summary of manufactures by industry, and aggregates of the statistics. He 

included no commentary about the data, apparently expecting to include additional information in later volumes, but he was discharged for political reasons 

before he was able to compile any more reports.G7 J. D. B. De Bow, publisher 

of De Bow's Review and author of a three-volume statistical, historical, and 

economic encyclopedia on the South and West, replaced him. 

The major report on the I850 census was therefore prepared by De Bow 

in 1853. It contained a history of the census and a brief description of the techniques used in conducting it. The remainder of the report consisted of aggregates of the demographic, industrial, institutional, and other data obtained from 

the six schedules. De Bow left office in 1855 before he could complete the 

volume devoted exclusively to manufactures. Kennedy was reappointed by his 

fellow Pennsylvanian, President James Buchanan, to complete the final volume. 

His Digest of Manufactures: 1850 by no means exhausted the data contained 

in the schedules, which are now scattered among numerous State and historical 

agencies. Only the quantitative data were summarized. Data about the types of 

products, raw materials, and machinery were omitted. 

Kennedy was deservedly the choice for Superintendent of the I860 census. The act of I850, much of which enacted Kennedy's proposals, was left 

unchanged for the succeeding census. There was therefore no significant change 

in the procedures for gathering, tabulating, or publishing the industrial data for 

the 1860 census. 

It should be noted, however, that the reports for 1860 were less accurate 

than those for 1850. By the time the data were being tabulated for publication, 

the Civil War had already created a shortage of clerks. The inadequate and 

inexperienced staff apparently did not take the time to check their figures for 

accuracy. In Frederick County, Maryland, for example, a lone photographer 

reported that he had invested $220 in his establishment and that he produced 

500 pictures valued at $600. The report shows two photographers with capitalization of $720-possibly an addition of the capital and the number of 

pictures--and a value of production of $2,600. 

Such errors were not limited to Maryland schedules. Francis Amasa Walker 

estimated that "not two-thirds of the true industrial production of the country 

were embraced in the enumeration of I860."iJ8 A recent comparison of the indiG7 See Fishbein, Early Business Statistical Operations of the Federal Government. 

p.26. 

58 Francis A. Walker, Discussions in Economics and Statistics, Vol. 2 (New 

York, 1899), p. 4. 

16 

II' 

vidual returns for Charleston, South Carolina, with the data in the published 

report and in newspapers showed wide discrepancies among the three sources. 59 

Kennedy, probably unaware of the errors made by his enumerators and 

clerks, felt that he had achieved a high degree of accuracy. His first report--

Preliminary Report on the Eighth Census (Washington, I862)---referred to his 

profession as the "statistical science." To demonstrate the potentials of this new 

science, he analyzed population trends and explained economic growth. Superintendent Kennedy estimated, for example, that a third of the population was 

directly or indirectly supported by manufacturing and stated that no statistics 

were more important than those relating to "the productive capacities [of the 

population] in the automatic and handicraft arts."60 Kennedy's report contains 

generally valid analyses of growth in a number of industries, particularly tex .. 

tiles, fuel, and machinery production. He was so impressed with the rapid 

expansion of manufacturing and so materialistic in outlook that he wrote: "The 

statistics of looms, spindles, and factories, of furnaces and forges, of steamengines and sewing-machines, and of a thousand other instruments of creative 

industry, become the representatives of almost every form of national and individual happiness, exertion, aspiration, and power. "Hl 

If Kennedy had remained Superintendent until all the reports were completed, he might have compiled a personal product of considerable interest and 

merit. His office was unfortunately abolished before he completed his task, and 

the responsibility for preparing the census reports was transferred to the General Land Office. Commissioner J. M. Edmunds found time from his regular 

duties to turn out reports that followed Kennedy's general plan. Edmunds' publication Manufactures of the United States in 1860 contains analyses of industrial development similar to those in Kennedy's report. Of special interest to 

industrial historians are Edmunds' description of the boot and shoe industry and 

his comments about the development of the rubber goods industry. 

Kennedy hoped to become Superintendent for the I870 census, but a better statistician, Francis Amasa Walker, was available in r869 when Congress 

was considering census legislation. Brigadier General Walker was then the 

Director of the Bureau of Statistics, Treasury Department, after an honorable 

Civil War career and service as editor of a distinguished newspaper, the 

Springfield (Mass.) Republican. 

The chairman of the House Committee on the Ninth Census, James A 

Garfield, was a friend of Walker. Both of them favored a complete revision of 

census legislation to broaden the scope of the census, to develop special schedules for important industries, and to employ experts instead of marshals to 

supervise the collection of economic data. Garfield's attempt to obtain new 

legislation failed, but he was somewhat repaid for his efforts when Walker was 

5B Ernest M. Lander, Jr., "Charleston: Manufacturing Center of the Old South," 

Journal of Southern History, Vol. 26 (Aug. 1960), p. 330. 

60 Census Office, Eighth Census, Preliminary Report on the Eighth Census, p. 59 

(H. Ex. Doc. 116, 37th Cong., 2d sess.). 

61 Ibid., p. 60. 

17 
appointed to the superintendency on February 7, 1870.62 Walker's studies in 

economics, his experience in gathering foreign trade statistics, and the Congressional debate on census legislation provided him with the tools for developing a professional statistical system that was to make the United States a leader 

in the field of industrial statistics in the 19th century. 

Although the changes he could make in census procedures were limited by 

the 1850 act, Walker made a number of improvements without legislative sanction. With the U.S. marshals still in control over enumerators, he could do little 

about standards for their appointment and training. The tabulators in Washington, however, were under the direct supervision of his chief clerk, Charles W. 

Seaton, a statistician of note. To raise standards for the clerical staff, Walker 

required that applicants must pass a written examination as a prerequisite 

to appointment. 

Walker wished to eliminate the collection of data on capitalization. Since 

the legislation required collection of these data, however, he compiled the tabulation while warning the user that they were "untrustworthy and delusive." "No 

man in business," Walker wrote, "knows what he is worth-far less can say 

what portion of his estate is to be treated as capital."63 

He also rationalized the classification of industries and occupations on the 

lists he sent to enumerators with his general instructions. The number of occupations was reduced from 584 in 1860 to 338, and extractive industries were 

not included under manufactures. Although he was able to separate metal mining from fabrication, the schedule provided by law did not permit him to 

separate mining from smelting. 

Because of his own interest in machinery and productivity, Walker added 

to the industrial census schedule places for entering detailed data concerning 

motive power, kinds of machinery, and the length of time plants had been in 

operation. To provide a more thorough coverage of industrial development, he 

instructed enumerators to collect data from jobbers and repairers and to collect 

occupational data from employees over 10 years of age. 

Walker's knowledge about American industry enabled him to recognize 

gross inaccuracies or omissions in the schedules received. As the enumerators 

still were paid only 15 cents for each schedule, they were naturally reluctant 

to visit any establishment more than once. Walker therefore obtained funds to 

permit a recanvass of a number of industrial centers, thus adding about 

$250,000,000 to the value of goods produced. G4 His knowledge of money and 

prices--a subject in which he was a leading authority-also resulted in an 

advance in statistical techniques. In comparing data for 1860 with those for 

1870, Walker took into account changes in the value of the dollar and other 

factors making for a lack of comparability. In his judgment the value of proG2 Amendments of 1870 and 1871 (16 Stat. II8, 514) to the act of 1850 related 

chiefly to compensation for enumerators. G:l Censlls Office, Ninth Census, The Statistics of the Wealth and Industry of the 

United States (Washington, 1872), p. 381. 

G4 S. N. D. North, "Manufactures in the Federal Census," p. 261. 

18 

duction increased about 52 percent although the reports showed an increase 

of 108 percent. or, 

Despite all his efIorts Walker recognized that his census report on industry 

was by no means complete. He enumerated the chief weaknesses thus: (1) the 

use of untrained assistant marshals, (2) their lack of technological intelligence, 

(3) their lack of interest in manufactures, (4) inadequate pay, (5) the temporary absence of proprietors, (6) the trend toward the separation of the administrative office from the factory site, (7) the elimination of all firms producing 

less than $500, and (8) the failure of proprietors to supply data required by 

the schedule. oo 

A comparison of the report with the schedules shows that the returns were 

tabulated with unprecedented accuracy. Use of the schedules is nevertheless 

rewarding because of their untabulated data, such as descriptions of machinery 

and the number of months a plant was in operation during the previous year, 

and their data about the exact location of establishments. 

THE CENSUSES OF 1880 AND 1890 

Passage of a completely revised act providing for the tenth census seemed 

assured after the publication of the 1870 census reports. In January 1878, 

Walker, who was still serving as Superintendent without compensation, again 

urged Congress to authorize the appointment of specialists for the collection of 

census statistics and to give considerable autonomy to the Superintendent in 

preparing forms and planning the content of reports.m Three months later the 

Senate and the House passed resolutions for the appointment of select committees to draft legislation. The two committees met jointly to listen to Walker's 

testimony. He offered four main proposals: (1) the form of inquiry should be 

left to the discretion of the Census Office; (2) specially appointed experts, 

rather than law enforcement officers, should superintend the census; (3) enumerators of population should also gather data on agriculture; and (4) manufacturing data should be collected by "the best men who could be found," in 

each branch of industry. 

In his testimony, Walker dealt at some length with the problem of gathering industrial data. He asserted that certain firms, such as gristmills and sawmills and blacksmith shops, could be handled by household enumerators, 

whereas collectors of data about iron, steel, textile, and glass firms should be 

experts in the respective industries. Unless experts were used, Walker explained. 

the collection data would be inaccurate and many firms---particularly those in 

,;;, Census Office, Ninth Census, The Statistics of the Wealth and Industry of the 

United States. pp. 377-379· 

Gil Ibid., pp. 372-374, 386. 1)7 Walker's recommendations appear in the A nnual Report of the Secretary of 

the Illterior, Nov. 1878. 

19 
basements-would be neglected. The ordinary enumerator would, in addition, 

be unable to deal with the problem of gathering data from firms in which the 

factory and the administrative staff, with the books, were in separate localities. 

Under the terms of the census act of March 3, 1879 (20 Stat. 437), 

responsibility for the tenth census was delegated to a superintendent under the 

general direction of the Secretary of the Interior. Enumerators, special agents, 

and experts, rather than marshals, were to gather data. With regard to industrial 

statistics, the act provided for the preparation, under the superintendent's direction, of a general schedule for manufactures, special schedules for important 

industries, and detailed questionnaires for the collection of data on railroad, 

express, telephone, telegraph, and insurance companies. The act thus embodied 

Walker's four chief recommendations. Joseph C. G. Kennedy was one of the 

few persons who opposed Walker's appointment to administer the tenth census. 

Well in advance of the passage of the census act, Walker had mapped his 

strategy for a comprehensive inventory of the Nation. The industrial reports 

were to be grouped into several main classifications, namely, agricultural processing, mining (including petroleum), transportation and communication, 

manufacturing, and power and machinery. Additional industrial data were to 

be collected about wages and prices, labor disputes, occupational classification 

of the population, "social" (demographic, economic, and sociological) statistics 

of cities, Alaskan industries, and extractive industries other than mining (agriculture, ice harvesting, and timber resources). 

This grand plan could not succeed without the assistance of a highly qualified professional staff. Colonel Seaton remained as Chief Clerk, and the job of 

supervising the collection of industrial statistics was placed in the hands of such 

well-known specialists as Spencer F. Baird, Clarence King, Raphael Pumpelly. 

William F. Trowbridge, Edward Atkinson, John Wesley Powell, and James M. 

Swank. OR 

After being briefed about their roles in the census-supervising the enumerators and preparing detailed reports about specific subjects-the experts 

and special agents were left largely to their own devices. At least one expert. 

Pumpelly, was permitted to take the schedules to his home for review. By 

November 3, 1881, when Walker resigned to become President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the census operation was proceeding with 

remarkable efficiency. Although he was succeeded by Charles W. Seaton, 

Walker remained the defacto director of the census. Seaton, who concerned 

himself chiefly with the supervision of clerical operations and the demographic 

studies, died in 1885, apparently from overwork. 

The first statistical report for the census-with the exception of special. 

interim bulletins-was the two-volume Compendium transmitted by Seaton to 

the Secretary of the Interior on January 6, 1883. The first volume contained 

demographic and agricultural statistics; the second, quantitative data relating to 

manufacturing. transportation, insurance, valuation of real estate, public indebt68 Only two of the "experts" and "special agents" who assisted Walker do not 

appear in the Dictionary of A merican Biography. 

20 

edness and taxation, newspapers and periodicals, and sociological phenomena. 

The industrial data were tabulated by State and industry, with additional tabulations relating to 20 principal cities. The data consisted of the number of 

establishments, amount of capital, number of employees, and value of raw 

materials and fabricated products. The second volume also contained data on 

the use of steam and water power and financial statements of individual telephone, telegraph, transportation, and insurance companies. 

The Compendium was in the nature of a preliminary report of the Census 

Office. The final report consisted of 22 large volumes and contained the detailed 

findings of Walker and his staff. Most of the volumes--relating to population, 

agriculture, transportation, vital statistics, industrial power, manufacturing, mining, labor economics, and urban development--contained numerous monographs in narrative form, with many statistical tabulations. Each of these volumes 

and some of the monographs deserve individual analysis. Because this critique 

deals chiefly with manufactures, the most detailed attention will be devoted to 

the I 198-page volume, plus an introduction, on this branch of industry. GO 

Walker began the introduction to the volume with a brief description of 

his method of collecting data and ended it with an answer to criticism of some 

of the data as well as to charges that census reports concerning industry were a 

"sham." Walker's answer, simply stated, was that he made no pretense that his 

reports were absolutely accurate. He asked, quite reasonably, that the data in 

them be examined carefully and judged on their merits. 

The introduction contained, in addition, a brief summary of the development of manufacturing during the years 1850-80. (Walker apparently dismissed 

the earlier data as worthless.) To the general statistics concerning manufacturing enterprises, Walker added his own thoughtful comments. He noted, for 

example, that bakery products were not reported for all States and territories. 

The omission of two areas (New Mexico and Wyoming) meant not that the 

inhabitants sold no baked goods but more likely that baking was not performed 

in specialized establishments. 7o In this connection, he called attention to the 

importance of studies about the location of industries, with particular reference 

to the growth of manufacturing centers. He was one of the first American economists to point out the change in the role of the cities from mercantile to industrial centers. Walker also compiled summary statistics on capital and labor 

resources, with brief comments about their significance. 

Of the remainder of the volume, about one-third is devoted to tabulations 

of quantitative data by State, industry, and city. A comparison of the schedules for Maryland with the tabulations shows that great pains were taken to 

achieve an accurate tabulation of the data in the schedules. The limitation in 

G9 Census Office, Tenth Census, Report on the Manufactures of the United 

States (Washington, 1883). 

70 We must also recognize that the West, particularly the Southwest, was not as 

thoroughly enumerated as the East. Walker did not consider the West important in 

the American economy. See Ward Thoron, ed., The Letters of Mrs. Henry Adams 

(BoMon, 1936),PP. 248-249. 

21 
the report rests in the fact that, as in previous reports, all the data collected 

were not tabulated. 

The unique features of the Report on the Manufactures are the several 

industrial histories, the chronicles of the use of power, and the analysis of the 

development of the factory system. As mentioned above, the authors were truly 

experts in their subjects. Edward Atkinson, who prepared the study of cotton 

textiles, was an officer in several mills as well as an inventor and a leading 

exponent of laissez-faire. 71 The study of interchangeable parts by Charles H. 

Fitch, a graduate of the Sheflield Scientific School at Yale, is a work of considerable competence. Its chief weakness as a source is its lack of citations. 

Where did Fitch learn, for example, of the French experiments in interchangeable parts in 17 17? The author did not neglect, as do some later historians, the 

important contributions of Eli Whitney's contemporaries Simeon North, John 

Hall, and several others. The report has historical and technological data concerning the manufacture of firearms, ammunition, sewing machines, and agricultural implements. The treatment is not definitive by any means, but it is far 

from superficial. 

The report by Carroll D. Wright, one of the leading American statisticians 

of the I9th and early 20th centuries, concerning the factor system was a meritorious achievement. Superintendent Walker instructed Wright to include in his 

history a description of the origin and development of the system in Great 

Britain. Although Wright had high praise for the factory system as a method 

of production and considered it an improvement, from the workers' viewpoint, 

over the domestic system, he was aware of the social problems the newer 

system created. He noted, for example, benefits derived from factory legislation 

to outlaw working conditions that were injurious to the health of employees. 

Wright concluded, however, that the factory system would eventually improve 

working conditioris and increase wages of the workers. 

In addition to the historical narrative on the factory system, Wright compiled data on infant mortality in factory towns, agricultural areas, and diversified cities; the air space for each worker in various industrial establishments; 

and wages. These data and the historical essay give a broad and reasonably 

accurate picture of the factory system during the post-Civil War period. 

Each of the reports on industries in this volume and subsequent volumes 

was usually an individual effort by the author within the general frame outlined 

by Walker; therefore, each should be individually analyzed. For the sake of 

brevity, however, only the report concerning the "Statistics of the Iron and Steel 

Products of the United States," by Special Agent James M. Swank is examined 

in some detail. The structure of the monograph is fairly typical of the other 

industrial reports although the narrative was entirely Swank's product. 

The author faced the task of preparing an analysis of the iron and steel 

industry with a knowledge probably equaled by few in this country. He was 

Secretary-and the skilled publicist and lobbyist-of the American Iron and 

71 See Howard F. Williamson, Edward A tkinson, the Biography of an American 

Liberal, 1827-.1905 (Boston, 1934). 

22 

St~el Association. To his own sources for data, he added the census questionnaIres cou:pleted for the individual members of the industry. The schedules 

for blast furnaces-Special Schedule C-requested the name and location of 

the firm, the value of buildings and machinery, the number of employees and 

tbelr ~ours of labo: and wages, daily capacity of the plant, data about each raw 

mate.nal, value of Jobbing and repairing work, the number of months the plant 

was III operation during the previous year, and information about strikes. 

The schedules for rolling mills, Bessemer and open hearth steel works, 

other steel plants, and bloomeries and forges (Special Schedules D, E, F, and 

G and Supplemental Schedule for Forges, Foundaries, etc.) requested, in additron to most of the data on Schedule C, the number of rolls and hammers and 

the value of each finished product, for example, bar iron, car axles, rails, 

sheet iron, blooms, and Bessemer steel ingots. Each firm answered more than 

30 inquiries. 

The first section of Swank's report contained statistical tabulations of productIon, cost, and realization data; information about the geographical distribution of the industry; and comments about the size of the industry in various 

States. The narrative section ends with a statement typical of a publicist (p. 

745): "The census year I880 will be memorable as a year of general prosperity for our iron and steel industries, and as one which witnessed the beginning 

and the end of the most exciting epoch in their history." This passage is followed by several statistical maps that contain an excellent graphic illustration 

of the industries. 

The remainder and largest part of Swank's report was devoted to a history 

of the iron and steel industry. His sources for the pre- I 9th-century history 

mcluded the Bible, Homer, Virgil, Samuel Smiles' Industrial Biography (I876), 

Andrew Yarranton's England's Improvements by Sea and Land (I676), James 

E. T. Rogers' History of Agriculture and Prices in England (1862-I902), 

Harry Scrivenor's History of the Iron Trade (I 854), and John Houghton's 

Husbandry and Trade Improved (1727). 

Swank's treatment of the early history of iron production was somewhat 

superficial. Other than the references to sources, the most notable feature of his 

study was its technological data, many of which were obtained from a professor at the Stockholm School of Mines, who in turn had based his comments 

largely on Emanuel Sweden borg's De Ferro (I734) and Christopher Polhem's 

Patriotiska Testamente (176I). 

The last part of Swank's essay, which was a study of the American iron 

and steel industry, was neither superficial nor definitive. It was at the time the 

best single source for historical data, being a synthesis of available information. 

A list of some of his sources suggests the value of Swank's contribution, namely, 

J. Leander Bishop's History of A merican Manufactures, J. Peter Lesley's Iron 

Manufacturer's Guide (I859), Edward Johnson's Wonder Working Providence 

( I65I ), James Torrey's History of Scituate (I8I5), colonial and State histories, 

almanacs, manuscripts, and trade journals. 

Although Swank was objective in presenting his data concerning the indus23 
rks ]

'eflected his interest in promoting the industrialists' views. In 

try, some rema . I a section dealing with factors that inhibited the growth of the 1I'0n a~d stee 

industry, Swank mentioned high wages, the restrictions placed on the mdustry 

during the colonial period, and low tariffs (pages 873-879); nevertheless, he 

pointed with pride to the high production in such fir~1s as _ the Edgar Thomson Steel Works, Laughlin and Company, and the Cambna Iron Company. 

Swank concluded: 

Although this country can not produce iron and steel as cheaply 

as European countries which possess the advantages of cheap labor 

and proximity of raw materials, it is not exce~led by any.other country 

. the skill whieh it displays or the mechamcal and sCIentIfic econo- m h'l . mies which it practices in any branch of their manufacture, w I e m 

certain leading branches it has displayed superior skill and shown 

superior aptitude for economical improvements. Our blast-furnaces 

practice is the best in the world, and it is so chiefly because we use 

powerful blowing-engines and the best hot-blast stoves, possess go~d 

fuel and carefully select our ores. The exeellent quality of our pIg 

iro~ is universally conceded. Our Bessemer steel practice is also the 

best in the world. We produce much more Bessemer steel and roll 

more Bessemer steel rails in a given time by a given amount of machinery, technically termed a "plant," than any of our European rivals. 

Swank's report may be neglected by historians because he use.d it as the 

basis fOf his privately published History of the Manufacture of Iron In All Ages 

(18 89) ;72 yet most of the other industrial reports are also neglected. One recent 

exception is Warren Scoville's high praise for the "Report on the Manufacture 

of Glass" by Special Agent Joseph D. Weeks.7:1 Weeks also prepared the entIre 

volume devoted to reports concerning wages, labor relations, and consumer 

priees. To gather these data he developed a sampling t~chnique: which, unfo~~ 

tunately, is inadequately described to permIt an evaluation of hIS findmgs. HIS 

description of the method he employed to collect wage rates follows: 

In collecting these statistics no attempt was made to procure 

returns from all establishments, or even a great number of establishments engaged in each industry reported upon. It was deemed best to 

select in each branch of business those works, in the several sectIons 

of the country, which might be regarded as typical establishments, and 

to secure the most complete and accurate returns practicable from 

these. In deciding upon the establishments from which returns should 

72 Swank's study of the industry in 1880 is more substantial than the ~tudy on 

steel by H. R. Schubert in Charles Singer's History of Technology: The Late Nmeteellth 

Century, VoL 5 (Oxford, 1958 ), pp. 53-77·. _ 7:3 Revolution in Glassmaking: Entreneurshlp and TechnologIcal Change in 

the A merican Industry, 1880-1920 (Cambridge, Mass., 1948), p. 11. 

24 

be asked, reference was had to the age, standing, productive capacity, 

and general reputation of individual firms and corporations. 74 

Weeks corresponded with persons in various industries of the country to 

ask for lists of firms that should be canvassed for data. The returns for the several firms in each industry were not comparable and had to be edited by Weeks 

before they could be tabulated. Walker nevertheless insisted that the wage data, 

while not free from error, were as accurate as could be expected in this type 

of inquiry.75 

In his report on strikes and lockouts--based on schedules distributed to the 

conflicting parties to disputes reported in the press---Weeks implied a belief, in 

common with Walker, in the justice of the judgment and decisions made by 

successful entrepreneurs. 76 "Most employers," Walker wrote, "hesitate to declare 

a lockout or resist a demand which may lead to a strike, without using every 

effort to prevent such action, and take the decisive step only when their honest 

judgment tells them that their industrial existence or prosperity depends upon 

securing their own demands or resisting those of their employes."77 

The questionnaire requested data on the name and location of the plant, 

cause of the strike or lockout, cost in wages, the number of employees involved, 

and the result of the conflict. Most of the returns, it should be noted, came only 

from one side of the disputes-the employers.78 

The volumes containing the long and detailed reports relating to the extractive and processing industries deserve more analyses than this brief paper can 

supply. Reports that relate to flour milling and dairying are similar to the reports 

about manufactures. Studies of the mining industries (including petroleum), 

prepared under Clarence King's direction, contain technological, cost, and 

employment data. 

Inquiries on the transportation and communication industry had not been 

included in the census before r880. Walker had had a long-standing interest in 

transportation and probably contributed much of his time to preparing schedules for the r 880 study.70 Because of his interest and the fact that the reports 

on transportation and communication were pioneer works, they have a prominent place among American statistical studies. The reports on railroads, it 

should be recalled, were prepared near the beginning of the period of largeseale consolidations and a few years before equipment was standardized. They 

74 Census Office, Tenth Census, Report on the Statistics of Wages in Manufacturing Industries, With Supplementary Reports (Washington, r886), p. ix. 

75 Ibid., pp. x, xv. 

76 For a review of Walker's business theories, see Sidney Fine, Laissez-Faire and 

the General-Welfare State; a Study of Conflict ill American Thought, 1865-190J 

(Ann Arbor, Mich., 1956), pp. 73-79. 

77 Joseph D. Weeks, "A Report on Strikes and Lockouts Occurring Within the 

United States During the Calendar Year 1880," p. 1, in Census Office, Tenth Census, 

Report on the Statistics of Wages in Manufacturing Industries With Supplementary 

Reports. 

78 Ibid., p. 3. 

7'9 Henry Holt, Garrulities of an Octogenarian Editor (Boston, 1923), P .. 265. 

25 
therefore contained detailed data on a number of lines of less than 50 

miles of track; specifications for roadways, tracks, and cross ties; types .of 

rolling stocks; and the average period of durability of steel and iron. ralls. 

They also contained financial statements, descriptions of railroads, copIes of 

agreements and contracts between railroad companies, and data on such subjects as labor relations, accidents, and sources of income. Althou~h some of the 

data were obtained only after legal proceedings, most were supplied on a voluntary basis, presumably because of "the professional pride and patl·iotic. sentiments of the railroad officers.8o How much the report on railroads contrIbuted 

toward consolidation and standardization is conjectural, but it is not unreason·· 

able to assume that railroad magnates and their aides made as much use of 

them as their objectives required. 

The reports concerning the use of power and machinery should not .be 

overlooked by industrial historians. Most of them were prepared by FrederIck 

R. Hutton, a professor of engineering at Columbia and later President of the 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and Herman Hollerith, who was 

to invent the punch card system of tabulation as a result of his experience with 

the 1880 census. 81 

The reports contained tabulations of the number of water wheels, boilers, 

and engines used in industry and the amount of horsepower generated. The task 

of compiling the data was complicated by the fact that many small firms rented 

steam power from larger establishments or from a steam supply compan:. 

At Walker's suggestion, studies were prepared on the constructIOn of 

machine tools and wood-working machinery. Hutton found that technological 

changes were so rapid that his report was practically obsolete by the time it 

was completed. 82 These studies and the reports on pumps, wool and .silk machines, marine engines and steam vessels, and the manufacture of engmes and 

boilers consisted chiefly of technological data together with statistical tabulations 

, of production and costs. 

Students, if not specialists, in American industrial history will find the 

reports of the 1880 census meritorious and suggestive essays. They contain. a 

synthesis of the major publications available on the subject and show WIth 

remarkable insight the state of American economy at a time of great technological and social change. The schedules, though incomplete and usually based 

on educated guesses, were tabulated and analyzed with care and intelligepce. 

When the experts discovered that companies were omitted or errors were made 

in supplying data, additions and corrections were added to the original schedules 

80 Census Office, Tenth Census, Report on the Agencies of Transportation ill the 

United States (Washington, 1883), p. 2 87. 81 Herman Hollerith, "The Electrical Tabulating Machine," Journal of the Royal 

Statistical Society, Vol. 57 (Dec. 1 894), p. 678. 8" Letter, F. R. Hutton to W. P. Throwbridge, Dec. 8, 1881, in "Report on 

Machine Tools and Woodworking Machinery," p. x, in Census Office, Tenth CensuS, 

Report Oil Power and Machinery (Washington, ] 888). 

26 

in red ink.83 No bibliographies of American economic life should fail to call 

attention to the best of the numerous reports, particularly those mentioned above. 

The relatively high cost of the tenth census and the 8 years required to 

prepare all the reports resulted in so much criticism that Walker had misgivings 

about the future of comprehensive national inventories. He therefore prepared 

a defense of the 1880 census while pleading for the collection of more definitive data. As evidence of the excellence of his reports, Walker cited favorable 

comments of the leading European statisticians and periodicals, from London 

and Edinburgh to Vienna, Budapest, and St. Petersburg. 84 Of these reports, 

Walker lIsted for particular praise the studies of forestry, water power, and 

petroleum. "The Tenth Census was," Walker boasted, "more than an enumerat~on ~f the population, wealth, and industry. It was a survey of the condition of 

life, mdustry, and production, such as cannot fail to be of great value to a 

rapidly growing nation ... a work worthy of the nation and the age."8G 

Walker did not expect that the census of 1890 would be as comprehensive 

as the one he had superintended. He argued instead that the decennial census 

be. limited to population and agriculture. He suggested that after completion of 

thIS part of the enumeration the Census Office could use its experienced staff 

to gather industrial, social, and other statistics. Congress, however, decided to 

continue the tradition of collecting all census data at the same time. Walker's 

fear that economic statistics would be eliminated was unfounded. 

. The census act of I 889 raised the compensation for enumerators, superVIsors, and clerks and provided for the collection of data on private and corpOl'ate indebtedness (25 Stat. 760). Subsequent legislation authorized the 

expansion of agricultural statistics and the collection of data from unincorporated as well as incorporated express companies (26 Stat. 13, 3 13). 

President Harrison appointed Robert Percival Porter as Superintendent of 

the Eleventh Census on April 17, I889. After a career in journalism, Porter 

had prepared the reports on wealth, debt, taxation, and transportation for the 

r880 census. 8G Although he made many changes in the number and content 

of the schedules for the 1890 census, Porter followed the methods and general 

plans developed by Walker. The statistics for wages in 1890 were included in 

the manufacturing and special schedules rather than in a separate schedule for 

a limited number of firms. 

Porter's schedules for the iron and steel industry were more comprehensive 

than Walker's. The 1890 census included a schedule for the executive offices of 

the industry as well as special schedules for blast furnaces, rolling mills, miscel83 Unfortunately for the researcher, the' sources of the new and amended data 

were not noted on the schedules. (This deficiency was not corrected in later censuses.) 

Although the experts tried to estimate missing data, many of these omissions could 

not be estimated and were therefore excluded from the published tabulations. The 

census report does not show the number of firms not reporting. 

84 Walker, "The Eleventh Census of the United States" Quarterly Journal of 

Economics, Vol. 2 (Jan. 1888), p. 143. ' 

8G Ibid., p. 145. 

'" See Fitzpatrick. "Leading American Statisticians," pp. 695.-696. 

27 
lanous steel works, and bloomeries and forges. Walker's 33 inquiries concerning Bessemer and open-hearth furnaces were reorganized and .expanded to 15 

basic questions, with numerous subquestions. The format, with columns for 

quantitative data, was also improved. . The increase in statistical inquiries and the growth of the Nailon resulted 

in an even larger report than the mammoth study for 1880. Althoug~ the preparation of industrial histories was virtually abandoned, Porter and IllS successor, 

Commissioner of Labor Carroll Wright, submitted a 25-volume report in addItion to the compendium and a statistical atlas. As the schedules were de~troyed by fire in 1921 , the reports are all that remain for historians a~d economistS. 

In considering the quality of these volumes, the effec~lvenes~ of S~p~r .. 

intendent Porter's instruction to enumerators with regard to mdustnal statistIcs 

should first be examined. Porter called the enumerators' attention to a noteworthy section of the census act of March ~, 1889, which pr.ovided that "any 

supervisor or enumerator who ... shall, wlthou~ the author.lty of the Superintendent communicate to any person not authonzed to receive the same, any 

informati~n gained by him in the performance of his duties, shall be ~eemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon convicti~n shall be ~ned n?: exceedmg fiv,e 

hundred dollars." Porter explained that the mtent of thiS provIsion was to pr~­

vent disclosures of personal data "which would operate to the personal detnment or disadvantage of the person" supplying the information. The "person" 

included business firms because, as Porter elaborated, no data would be released 

"concerning the business operations of individual establishments."87 Assura~ce 

as to the confidentiality of company data appeared on each manufactuflng 

schedule. One of the longest passages in the instructions to enumerators relate~ to 

occupational statistics. Porter asked the enumerators to identify the occupatIOns 

properly by the correct nomenclature to distinguish betwe~n, for example, ~ursery laborers and nurserymen, miners and quarrymen, chemists and metallurgists, 

and glovers and glove dealers. . The general enumerators were instructed to collect data concernmg. all 

productive industries except firms in the iron and steel, coke, glass, ~lectflcal, gas, and salt industries, which were to be enumerated by "expert special agents 

without regard to locality." Additional instructions appeared on the schedules 

as annotations to particular inquiries. The general manufacturing schedule, for 

example, asked the enumerators to exercise "great care ... , especially in the 

case of small shops where no book accounts are kept."88 

As has been shown, one of the distinctive features of the 1 880 census was 

the numerous industrial histories. With the emphasis directed toward quantitative rather than qualitative data, the chief value of the I 890 reports was their 

abundance of statistical tabulations. In the words of Richmond Mayo-Smith, 

the leading instructor in statistics at that time, "the volumes on Manufactures of 

87 Wright and Hunt, History and Growth of the United States Census, p. 180. 

88 Ibid., p. 363. 

28 

the Eleventh Census of the United States constituted the most elaborate attempt 

made anywhere to collect and present the facts of industriallife."89 

As t~e Compendium was similar to that of 1880, it need not be described. 

The speCial reports on manufactures were contained in three volumes: The first 

consisted largely of general data about the number of establishments, capital, 

number of.employee.s, costs, and motive power, arranged by State and industry, 

together With narratlve studies of several industries; the second contained similar data for 165 principal cities; and the third consisted of narrative studies of 

the textile, electrical, publishing, and heavy industries. 

To examine the content of the narrative reports, the study of the iron and 

steel .industry has again been chosen for comparison with the 1880 report 

descnbed above. The essay "Iron and Steel Manufacture" was prepared by Dr 

:ViIIiam M. Sweet, who apparently lacked Swank's broad knowledge of th~ mdustry.9o His role, like that of his successors in the Census Bureau, was to 

appl~ o.bjective statistical techniques for the compilation of quantitative--not 

qualttatlve-:-data. Sweet's narrative was therefore devoted to an explanation of 

the tabulations he prepared to supplement those published in the Compendium. 

These additional tabulations included summaries of basic data for the years 

~ 870, ~ 880, and 1890; State and regional statistics; the value of capital invested 

111 active and idle plants and in plants under construction; the number of 

employees and ~otal wages broken down by class of worker and wage scales; 

and data on capital, labor, and raw material for each branch of the industry. 

. The"only. sectio~ of the report with any historical narrative was the chapter 

entitled Rollmg MIlls and Steel Works." The superficial explanation of the 

Bessemer and open-hearth processes was apparently intended for the uninformed 

reader. 

The Report on Mineral Industries (1892) contained considerably more 

historical data than the report on manufactures, although the individual reports 

were not nearly as detailed as the reports for 1880. The author of the report on 

Iron ore acknowledged the assistance of a number of engineers and geologists, 

I11cludmg Pumpelly. The study of the aluminum industry is of value to scholars 

because of its recognition of the growing importance of the mineral. "Aluminum," the author noted, "has been attracting an amount of attention during the 

last 2 or 3 years which is out of proportion to its actual (1890) importance as 

a metal and the position in the arts which it has hitherto occupied" (p. 277). 

Although the report on petroleum by Joseph D. Weeks contained historical 

da~a in recognition of the growing importance of the industry, the data were 

qUIte bIlef because of Weeks' belief that "the admirable report of Professor 

S. F. Peckham, made at the Tenth Census" was "so thoroughly presented" that 

a full treatment of the subject was unnecessary (p. 425). Much of the information in the report was "freely-given" by officers of the Standard Oil Co. No 

:~ Richmond Mayo-Smith, Science of Statistics, 2: 159 (New York, 1899). 

. Census Office, Eleventh Census, Report Oil Manufacturing Industries ill thl' 

Umted States . .. Part Ill, Selected Industries, p. 383-483 (Washington, 1895). 

29 
firm was in a better position to supply financial, operating, and production 

statistics for petroleum. 

Many of the questions historians might raise about the validity of the data 

for the Eleventh Census were answered by the contemporary professional statisticians. Apparently William McGuffey's course on political economy and statistics at the University of Virginia in 1845 was the first in which the word 

"statistics" was used in an American course title.ll1 The first modern course, 

however, was delayed until 1873 when Walker lectured at Yale College. When 

the reports for the 1890 census were published, more than 20 colleges were 

offering courses in statistics, of which the best known was given by Richmond 

Mayo-Smith at Columbia College.!J2 

Mayo-Smith's textbook, Science of Statistics, was published within a few 

years of the 1890 reports. His comments about them-a favorable one is quoted 

above-were therefore tentative. He warned readers not to compare the 1880 

and 1890 data on capital expenditures as the figures were not comparable "in 

the existing state of the data" (2: 160). In fact, Mayo-Smith questioned the 

capitalization data because of the vagueness of the definition of "capital" and 

criticized the inexact use of the term "product" in gathering production data 

(2:163, 169-170,188). 

Other statisticians criticized the methods used in gathering and tabulating 

data. H. L. Bliss of Chicago, who had been consulted about the preparation of 

inquiries concerning the labor force and wages, attacked the validity of much 

of the manpower, costs, and production data.n:

l His criticism were most valid 

when he showed that data for the various censuses were not comparable. Even 

for recent censuses, the user must adjust the figures for comparison and analysis. 

Charles J. Bullock, a Harvard professor of economics, felt that the reports 

on urban wages were more accurate in 1890 than similar statistics in 1880, but 

the 1880 wage statistics for "country districts" were more accurate than those 

for 1890. 94 S. N. D. North, later director of the census, came to the defense of 

the 1890 reports of manufactures by pointing out that their data concerning 

costs were more accurate than those for 1880. "The eleventh census," North 

concluded, "was ... a vast improvement over all its predecessors, in the system 

and intelligence with which the schedules were classified, revised, tabulated, 

and verified."95 

91 Fitzpatrick, 'The Early Teaching of Statistics in American Colleges and Universitics," American Statistician, Vol. 9 (Dec. 1955), p. 12. 

92 Ibid., p. 13. 

93 H. L. Bliss, "Eccentric Official Statistics," American Journal of Sociology, 

Vol. 2 (Jan. 1897), pp. 5I5-53!, Vol. 3 (July and Nov. 1897), pp. 79-99, 355-377; 

"Census Statistics of Child Labor," Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 3 (March 

1905), pp. 245-257; and "Our Misleading Census Statistics," American Journal of 

Politics, Vol. 5 (Oct. 1894), pp. 417-428. 

94 Charles J. Bullock, "Wage Statistics in the Federal Census," The Federal 

Census: Critical Essays by Members of the American Economic Association (New 

York, 1899), p. 357. 

95 S. N. D. North, "Manufactures in the Federal Census," pp. 263-264. 

30 

. William M. Steuart, who directed the census of manufactures, also defended 

Ius d~ta. Alt~o~gh he admitted that the statistics were by no means absolutely 

accUl~te, he 111slsted that the 1890 data could be compared with those of 1880 

to arnve at a reasonable approximation of the rate of growth in the American 

economy. DB 

An evaluation of the 1880 and 1890 census reports, as well as the earlier 

on~s, ~repar~d with the perspective of time by Samuel H. Stouffer, sums up 

theIr VIrtues 111 the light of their admitted faults: 

In the I880's research in economics, sociology, political science, 

and educatlOn had hardJy begun. The science of statistics was still 

awaiting its Persons, Westergaards, Bortkiewiczs, Edgeworths Mitchells, and Fishers. The social science research in Francis A. Walker's 

census of 1 880, .a~d in publications of the 1890 census completed 

under the superVISIon of Carroll D. Wright, probably was more signtiicant, b.oth in quantity and quality, than all the university research 

of the penod put together. ... When one goes back a half century to 

the regular census volumes of 1880 and 1890, before the establishment of a permanent Bureau, one is astonished at both the quality and 

volume of analytical research in a period when the social sciences in 

~he universities were still branches of philosophy, with little interest 111 data. 97 

After :he I 89~ ~e~sus, the reports came under even more careful scrutiny 

b! eC~l101msts, statIsticians, and sociologists. It is therefore rarely necessary for 

hlstonans themse~ves to enga.ge. in minute analyses of each of the 20th-century 

reports before usmg the statistICS as sources. 98 The later reports also became 

almost exclusively quantitative, making for less variance in their content from census to census. 

96 William M. Steuart, "Official Statistics," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 3 (Mar. 1898), pp. 622-630. 

9~ Sam~el A;, Stouffer, "Problems of the Bureau of the Census in Their Relation 

to SocI.al SCIence, Report of the Science Committee to the parent National Resources 

CommIttee, Research-a National Resource, Vol. I (Washington, Nov. 193 8), pp. 205, 220. 

• ~8 They s~ould, of course, continue to use critical judgment and scientific 

statistical techmques in analyzing and applying quantitative data for specific historical problems. 

31