mho

93-1 BRIEFING BY THE ARCHIVIST OF

THE UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT

Storage 6 - NI N TS

OV 1 4 1973

THI

KANCA:3

iLkRY

WaS3ITY HEARING

BEFORE THE

VIITTEE ON CENSUS AND STATISTICS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

._,USE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 2, 1973

Serial No. 93-7

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1973
T

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

THADDEUS J. DULSKI, New York, Chairman

DAVID N. HENDERSON,

MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona

DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey

ROBERT N. C. NIX, Pennsylvania

JAMES M. HANLEY, New York

CHARLES H. WILSON, California

JEROME R. WALDIE, California

RICHARD C. WHITE, Texas

WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan

FRANK J. BRASCO, New York

WILLIAM (BILL) CLAY, Missouri

PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado

JOE MOAKLEY, Massachusetts

WILLIAM LEHMAN, Florida

North Carolina, Vice Chairman

H. R. GROSS, Iowa

EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois

ALBERT W. JOHNSON, Pennsylvania

LAWRENCE J. HOGAN, Maryland

JOHN H. ROTTSSELOT, California

ELWOOD HILLIS, Indiana

WALTER E. POWELL, Ohio

WILLIAM 0. MILLS, Maryland

RICHARD W. MALLARY, Vermont

ANDREW J. HINSHAW, California

L. A. (SKIP) BAFALIS, Florida

JOHN H. MARTINY, Chief Counsel

Vicxos C. SMIROLDO, Staff Director and Counsel

WILLIAM A. IRVINE, Assistant Staff Director

THEODORE J. KAZY, Senior Staff Assistant

ROBERT E. LOCKHART, Assistant Counsel

ROY C. MEsxxa, Staff Assistant

FRANCIS C. FORTUNE, Coordinator

RALPH J. DEVLIN, Staff Assistant

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND STATISTICS

RICHARD C. WHITE, Texas, Chairman

JAMES M. HANLEY, New York

MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona

WILLIAM LEHMAN, Florida

CHARLES H. WILSON, California

JOHN H. ROUSSELOT, California

ANDREW 3. HINSHAW, California

L. A. (SKIP) BAFALIS, Florida

Ecc Officio Voting Members

THADDEUS J. DULSKI, New York H. R. GROSS, Iowa

(Room B-345 (b), Rayburn Building—Ext. 56741)

(II)
CONTENTS

Page

Statement of:

Rhoads, Dr. J. B., Archivist of the United States, accompanied by

S. Garfinkel, General Cokunsel's Office; J. E. O'Neill, Deputy Archivist of the United States; and M. H. Fishbein, Director of the

Records Appraisal Division, Office of the National Archives 1

Additional material included:

Letters containing information on the transfer of census records to

the National Archives and Records Service, dated Aug. 26, 1952,

and Oct. 10, 1952 10

Reproduction of a portion of the 1880 census form, showing questions

required for the taking of that census 20-22

BRIEFING BY ARCHIVIST OF THE UNITED STATES

MONDAY, APRIL 2, 1973

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND STATISTICS

Washington,D.C. '

The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room 210, Cannon House

Office Building, Hon. Richard C. White (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. WHITE. Dr. Rhoads, it is a pleasure to have you before us today.

I had the opportunity of talking to you in my office at which time you

expressed an interest in coming before this committee to discuss with

us some of the activities over which this committee has some oversight, and to tell us some of the problems that you have, and some of

the aspirations you have for legislative enactment by this committee.

We have the court reporter present.

Members, as they come in, will be recorded and they will have the

opportunity to question you, and we will just go ahead and proceed.

Dr. Rhoads, if you would like to summarize your testimony, providing- that will be comfortable for you, you may do so in about 10

minutes or so, or take whatever time you need.

Dr. RHOADS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to introduce the gentlemen who are with

me: Dr. James E. O'Neil, to my right, who is the Deputy Archivist of

the United States; Mr. Meyer Fishbein

'

to my immediate left, who is

the Director of the Records Appraisal Division in the Office of the

National Archives; and to my far left, Mr. Steven Garfinkel, of the

General Counsel's Office of the General Services Administration.

To give you just a bit of an overview of what the National Archives

and Records Services functions are, to highlight a couple problems, I

might begin by saying that the National Archives and Records of GSA

are responsible for dealing with the entire life cycle of Government

records. We assist Federal agencies in the management of their current

records. We help them to devise forms and directive systems that will

handle Federal Government information in an efficient and economical

way.

We are responsible for storing in our Federal Records Centers those

records which no longer need to occupy expensive office space and

equipment, and which must be kept for a time, but which do not need

to be kept forever.

Then we are responsible for bringing formally into the National

Archives of the United States those records which do have permanent

value, which document the rights of citizens, which are valuable for

research purposes, and which document Government programs;

we also provide reference service on these records, with certain re-

(1)
2

straints that are occasionally placed on us by statute or by agency request, with regard to access to such records.

We have five major subdivisions in our organization that carry out

these activities: The Office of Records Management, which consists of

a corps of experts who work with Federal agencies on their current

records problems; the Office of Federal Records Centers which administers , a network of 15 huge depositories across the country holding

about 12 million cubic feet of records, roughly 40 percent of all Federal records in existence. We also have the National Archives, which is

centered here in Washington, and is responsible for permanently valuable records, something over 1 million cubic feet of records. Then

there is the Office of Presidential Libraries which is responsible

for the existing Presidential Libraries and for assisting the current President in making plans for his own library. Next is the Office

of the Federal Register which publishes the papers of the President,

the daily Federal Register, the Code of Federal Regulations, the U.S.

Statutes at large aneother legal types of publications.

Within the (Ace of Federal Records Centers we perform about

9 million reference services per year primarily for Federal Government agencies on their own records.

In the National Archives, on the permanent records, we handle

something over a million reference services per year.

As I mentioned earlier, we perform this reference service with certain constraints designed to protect the interests of the Government

and the interests of the citizen. The restrictions on records, which we

are obliged by law to observe, fall mainly into two main categories:

statutory restrictions, such as access to income tax returns, and agencyimposed restrictions within the exemption categories allowed by the

Freedom of Information Act which we are obliged by law to administer on records transferred to us.

There is also, of course, the additional broad category of security,

classified material, and one of our newest programs is to handle massive declassification programs for materials that are 30 years old or

more. And within the terms of the President's new Executive order,

issued just a year ago, Executive Order No. 11652, we are pursuing

this project vigorously:. There are 165 million pages of classified material in our custody lust for the World War II period alone. Thus

far, since our declassification program began, we have managed to

declassify almost 50 million of those, so we are proceeding well on

that.

One of our major problems is that of the continued growth in the

holdings of Federal Government's records, and it impinges on our

programs most closely in the Federal Records Center area. In recent

years we have been bringing into the Federal Records Centers roughly

1.2 million cubic feet of records from Federal agencies, and we are

disposing each year, in the Federal Records Centers, of roughly

800,000 cubic feet of records. We have been working with Federal

agencies on an accelerated basis during the last couple of years to try

to narrow that gap because this has important spaces implications in

terms of our records centers facilities.

We have had some success. As against a target last year of 800,000

cubic feet, we were able to dispose of almost a million.

Our main problem is getting agencies to lessen the retention period

on the records that they create, to work that back to a bare-bones mini-
3

mum to serve the needs of the Government. If we are not successful

in these efforts, more and more the Government is going to be drowned

in paper.

One of the other problems that is of quite a different nature, and

which you and I discussed briefly a few weeks ago, is the problem of

access to the records of the Bureau of the Census more particularly

those population schedules for the 1900 census. We have always been

aware, acutely aware, of the importance of making the maximum

amount of research material available am n democratic society for use

by the citizens and by scholars. We are very sensitive to the rights of

the individual citizen for protection of privacy. I think that we have

a good record in this regard. I know of no case where we have divulged information that hasbeen harmful to an individual and we

have tried, within what we feel are the limits of prudence, to open as

much material as possible for research use.

I might say also that we have had generally very good relations

with the Bureau of the Census. Census records that are in our custody,

many of which are available on microfilm, are among our most heavily

used records. In the kits that you and members of the committee have,

there is a catalog indicating the availability of microfilm of the census

schedules from 1790 through 1890. These hve been made available

pursuant to an agreement that was made between my predecessor, Dr.

Wayne C. Grover, in 1952 with the former Director of the Bureau of

the Census, Dr. Peel, and we have copies of that here if members

would like to read it.

Subsequent to that 1952 agreement, the 1880, and 10 years later, the

1890 schedules were opened and there has been a great deal of anticipation on the part of scholars and genealogists about the opening of

the 1900 schedules in the year 1972.

In 1970 I received a letter from Dr. George Hay Brown, the Director

of the Bureau of the Census, proposing that the opening of those

schedules should be postponed for an indefinite period and until the

records were at least 100 years old. We have since that time been engaged in a dialog with the Bureau of the Census. I have talked with

Dr. Brown on several occasions and we have agreed that since there

did appear to be some conflict between the laws they were operating

under and our law, which provides for the opening of all records after

they are 50 years Old, unless we enter into an agreement with the head

of the transferring agency extending that period, both agencies have

been involved in trying to determine which law predominates, and

to reach some sort of agreement that will protect the rights of the

people and at the same time protect the long range scholarly interests

of this country.

In 1972, at the request of the Bureau of the Census, and because we

did not want to act precipitously in this matter, we agreed to forego

the opening of the 1900 schedules, until the matter could be further

explored and both sides could be satisfied that proper arrangements

had been made.

That brings us, Mr. Chairman, up to the point where, perhaps, it

might be helpful to have some brief discussion of the legal issues and

processes that we went through in trying to work them out with the

Bureau of the Census.

Mr. Garfinkel is prepared to speak briefly to that point if you wish.

Mr. WHITE. How long will it take?
4

Mr. GARFINKEL. I think I could probably do it within 5 minutes.

Mr. WHITE. Go ahead.

Mr. GARFINKEL. There is actually only one question that revolves

around the legal issue, and that is, are the provisions of the Records

Act—in other words the act of the National Archives—controlling on

the restrictions to access found in the Census Act.

It is our belief that the Records Act provisions are unquestionably

controlling. I would like to put forth several reasons for our opinion.

Mr. WHITE. Will you cite the sections that you are speaking of too?

Mr. GARFINKEL. Yes, I will.

The records section that we are concerned with has been codified

into positive law as section 2104 of title 44 of the United States Code.

The first reason we believe this act is controlling over section 8(e)

and section 9 of title 13, which is the applicable census law—is the

language of 2104 itself. Very briefly, in referring to records transferred to the National Archives, it states:

Statutory and other restrictions referred to in this section shall remain in

force until the records have been in existence for 50 years unless the Administrator—

that is the Administrator of General Services—

By order determines as to specific bodies of records that the restriction shall

remain in force for a longer period.

In the case of the census records, the archivist, who has been delegated the authority under this act to extend the controlling period,

and by terms of the letter of agreement, which Dr. Rhoads mentioned,

and I will mention again later, extended that period to 'T2 years.

The second point I would like to raise is the fact that prior to the

passage of the Records Act of 1959, in 1944, the Bureau of the Census

went to the Attorney General and asked him if the Archivist was bound

to observe the restrictions found in the census law. Now, at that time

there was no statute regarding the 50-year period, and in his answer

to the Secretary of Commerce, the Attorney General found that, yes,

the Archivist at that time was bound by the restrictions found in the

census law, but he stated that should there be a passage of a general

law regarding a limited period of restriction, that opinion might very

well change. Of course, we feel that general statute in the Records

Act of 1950.

The third reason—and I think, perhaps, the most persuasive—is to

refer to the legislative history of the Records Act. The Records Act,

of course, is but one facet of the legislative result of the recommendations of the Hoover Commission. The Hoover Commission task force

on records came out with the recommendation that records restrictions

generally be in effect for only a 50-year period.

Further, and even more persuasive, is the fact that in the hearing

on the bill that eventually became the Records Act, there was a discussion between Congressmen Bolling and Holifield, and the then

Archivist of the United States, Dr. Grover, in which Congressman

Bolling stated: "Could you give me an example of a record in such a

situation ?"—in other words, in a situation in which the statutory

period would cease after 50 years—and Dr. Grover responded:

can give you a specific example: Population-census schedules are restricted by statute indefinitely."
5

The other reasons are self-evident by the action of the Commerce

Department. Commerce was given an opportunity to comment on the

bill that became the Records Act and chose not to comment. However,

soon after its passage, they entered into this agreement with the

National Archives by which they recognized the viability of the Records Act provisions and offered to extend the 50-year limit to 72

years.

Mr. WHITE. Do you have a copy of the legal opinion from which you

were reading that this committee would have the advantage of—we

would like to look it over.

Mr. GARFINKEL. Yes, I do.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you very much, Mr. Garfinkel.

At this time Mr. Hanley would like to ask you a question.

Mr. HANLEY. Is it my understanding that the agency itself enjoys

a variety of rights of determining all the records of confidential categories, as such, that should be kept?

Mr. GARFINKEL. In the original Hoover Commission recommendations it was provided that the head an agency whose record was accessional could extend the period of restrictive access up to a maximum of 100 years.

As enacted, the right of extending the time limit was placed on the

Administrator of General Services and not on the agency head. Therefore, technically, in 1950 the Administrator could have released the

1900 census schedules, but as a matter of courtesy between the agencies he extended that period to 72 years.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Why?

Mr. GARFINKEL. My guess would be to correspond with what would

probably be the average age at death.

Dr. RHOADS. We don't find any evidence in the files specifically as to

why 72 years was picked.

I think probably Mr. Garfinkel's surmise is as good as any. I think

it may be of interest in this connection, though, that a 75-year period

has been selected quite universally throughout the Government as an

appropriate period for highly sensitive materials to be closed. Investigative files, personnel files, medical files, and that sort of thing, regardless of the agency that they come from, are normally closed for

75 years and then opened.

Mr. HANLEY. The agency is required to provide good rationale for

this classification, is it not?

Dr. RHOADS. Yes. We feel they have to justify, and we have to agree

with the justification for any extension beyond 50 years.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. You do?

Dr. RHOADS. Yes.

Mr. HANLEY. Thank you.

Mr. WHITE. At this time I will 

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Could we have the rationale that you used to make

these judgments? You said it is based on good rationale, based on

criteria 

Dr. RHOADS. We handle those on an individual basis. What might

be compelling arguments in the case of keeping one type of record

closed, might not be very compelling with regard to another.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. You must, whenever you are asked to make this

judgment, have some basic list of criteria that you use. What are they?

94-855 73 2
6

Mr. FISHBEIN. The most important is the privacy of the individual,

the categories of records that the Archivist has mentioned, such as

medical files, civilian and military personnel files, which have a 75-

year restriction. They are kept in that category because of the kind of

information they contain. Similarly, the census records, which has a

72-year restriction, comes close to that.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. In your opinion should a 72-year restriction be removed from the census? Census figures normally have pretty general

application. Why would it be necessary to preserve in some form of

secrecy a census document?

Dr. RHOADS. An aggregated document from the Bureau of the Census is not closed. It is issued as quickly as the Bureau can tabulate and

publish it. We are refe,rring here basically to the population census

schedules which give the. names of each citizen and certain data with

regard to him or her.

Mr. RoussELoT. You mean the persons interviewed?

Dr. RHOADS. Yes. We feel that kind of information should be kept

closed for a period approximating the lifetime of the individual.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. So that is the rationale of the 72-year restriction?

Dr. RHOADS. That is the rationale, but we do not believe it should be

closed forever. What can be sensitive in the lifetime of an individual

ceases at some point thereafter to be that sensitive.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. How personal is that data you just referred to?

I have always thought that everything we ask for in an interview,

except that which they volunteer, is basically pretty much an open

record anyway. In other words it is figured in the accumulated

statistics.

Dr. RHOADS. We have a copy of the schedule that was used by census

takers for the 1900 census, which is the one that is primarily at issue

here today.

Mr. WHITE. Are these for the benefit of the committee?

Dr. RHOADS. Certainly.

Mr. WIIITE. Without objection, we will make them part of the record at the end of these proceedings.

Dr. RHOADS. Mr. Fishbein would like to speak, if it is in agreement

with the wishes of the committee, a little bit on the points relating to

research use of this kind of material and the benefits that do flow to

the citizen and to the scholarly community.

Mr. WHITE. We will hear from Mr. Fishbein after Mr. Rousselot

has concluded.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Are you satisfied that none of this information

should be released in less than 72 years or 50 years? In other words,

should we look into the possibility of reviewing the laws so you can

release more of it?

Dr. RHOADS. I would think that a general release ought not to occur

until 72 years have passed. The 72-year period is not sacrosant. I don't

know if it is better than 70 or 75 or 80.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Do you have a better figure?

Dr. RHOADS. I am quite content with 72 years.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. How is it fixed?

Mr. FISHBEIN. It was suggested by the Census Bureau in the 1952

agreement.
I would assume that rather than going back to the Census Bureau

and saying "How about 70 or 71 ?"—that figure seems to be a reasonable one compared to similar type records 

Dr. RHOADS. In further answer to your question, Mr. Rousselot,

there is the possibility that a device, a mechanism could be contrived

which would allow scholars to use more recent census records for some

of the purposes that Mr. Fishbein will be getting into, but with certain safeguards which would prevent in any published or disseminated

product of their research, any identification of individuals.

We have had a somewhat similar situation with regard to the use of

certain kinds of security classified materials from the State Department and the Defense Department in which those agencies allow people to go in and use records that are closed and then review the end

product before its release.

Now, if such a mechanism could be established with regard to the

census records, it would seem to me that quite recent materials might

be made available for such kinds of scholarly use. But short of something like that, I think a period of about 72 years is adequate.

We know of no case where harm to an individual has ensued from

having opened the 1880-1890 period schedules in terms of that period

of closure.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Referring to, schedule I of the 1900 census, and the

listing across the top of 28 items; is that the total number of things

that were asked by the enumerator? Or, were there additional items

asked other than these?

Dr. RHOADS. This was the entire thing.

111% FISHBEIN. It varies from one census to another.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. This was the 1900 census?

Mr. FISHBEIN. This was a model they gave the enumerators.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. It is hard for me to believe that any of these people

would find it difficult to have this material released. All of these things

are accumulated on a person's credit rating today, or on most applications that one has to fill out. Nevertheless, you still hold to the 72-year

period?

Dr. RHOADS. I would feel better with a period approximating that.

I think one of the concerns on the part of the Bureau of the Census

that led to the proposal that the 72-year period be extended indefinitely, was that—this was on the eve of the taking of the 1970 census

when there was concern on the part of certain of the citizenry about

responding fully to the Bureau of the Census. The Congress and this

committee were quite properly concerned that nothing be done that

would make it more difficult for the Census Bureau to get an accurate

count. There is a lot riding on an accurate count: Congressional apportionment, Federal grants to States and so on.

I don't want to belittle the concern expressed by others for keeping

this kind of material closed over a period of years.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. I am trying to look at this with the thought of how

an individual might be affected. My mother was living at the time, and

I am just trying to look at this to see what she would think if this information were released and became "public records." I suppose some

people would be offended although I can't see anything that isn't

clearly down in most people's records today anyway.
Dr. RHOADS. One must remember also that almost all persons living

today, who were living at the time the 1900 census was taken, were

very small children, and information with regard to them would be

less apt to be sensitive than information relating to an adult.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. So you don't recommend any basic change.

Dr. RHOADS. We would like to be able to go ahead on the basis of the

1952 agreement or something similar to that.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Which is 72 years.

Dr. RHOADS. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Let me ask this question. Maybe it doesn't belong

here, but I will ask it anyway. How long are the materials which relate to the Kennedy assassination preserved under a lock and key sort

of arrangement? How long are the highly personal data, which the

family has asked to remain preserved, kept from the public?

Dr. RHOADS. We are talking about two categories of material: the

records of the Warren Commission itself, and certain materials, personal in nature, which the Kennedy family gave to us with certain

conditions.

There is a group of X-rays and photographs of the autopsy that

were given to us by the Kennedy family with the understanding that

they would be closed completely for a period of 5 years. That period

has now elapsed, and that thereafter, until, I think, the Kennedy children, John and Caroline, are gone 

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Until they pass on?

Dr. RHOADS. Yes. They would be available to certain persons pathologists, persons who are technically and scientifically qualified to

interpret these materials. They may have access with the permission

of the Kennedy family.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. The family has to give permission?

Dr. RHOADS. That's right. This is undeniably a very long period,

but we felt that it was important to make sure that those items were

saved and in proper institutional custody so thatMr. ROUSSELOT. So until the two Kennedy children pass from the

scene those are basically preserved unless the family gives permisssion,

is that correct?

Dr. RHOADS. That is correct.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. And they gave that material to you?

Dr. RHOADS. That's right.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. So it was originally in their possession and they

didn't have to give it up.

Dr. RHOADS. They did not.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Who actually gave the materials?

Dr. RHOADS. Burke Marshall, acting as the Kennedy family representative, was the person immediately involved.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Did he have to sign documents?

Dr. RT`OADS. This is all reduced to wviting.

Mr. RoussELoT. Recently, Elliot Roosevelt wrote a book and included in it some data relating to his father's medical records of his

closing days.

If a family writes a book, can a journalist come in and say, "We

want to confirm or not confirm whatever medical things were discussed"? Do you understand what I am asking?
9

Dr. RHOADS. Yes. I have not read Elliot Roosevelt's book, but to the

extent that he based this on any material that the Roosevelt Library

had partMr. ROUSSELOT. I was thinking more of the President's condition

in his closing days. I think we have to speak more directly to the issue:

At what point does a President become incapacitated so that a Vice

President has the right to begin to exercise administrative responsibility. In my opinion we have not really totally defined that as clearly

as it should be.

It may be that some of these past histories are not far enough behind us and can be studied. For instance, President Wilson obviously

had a problem in his closing days; President Roosevelt obviously did;

and President Eisenhower, for a very short period, although he turned

over the reins to the Vice President in a kind of limited way, to run the

Cabinet meetings and that sort of thing. I think we have enough current examples. President Kennedy was mortally wounded. I am not

so sure that those kind of medical histories in a nonghoulish or nonsensational way shouldn't at some point be considered by Congress.

Maybe you would like to comment on that.

Dr. O'NEILL. I would like to comment on the Roosevelt case, since

I used to run that library. Very few medical records of the last year

and a half of Roosevelt's life survived and were turned over at an

early moment. The principal medical record really came from an

internist who is a specialist in heart disease, who happened to be in

a Navy position at the time, and who was attending him. That is based

upon his notes and reminisences which he later wrote. It was not

turned over until 21-h or 3 years ago, in 1970. Mr. Elliot Roosevelt was

apparently speculating about his father's health. So far as we know

there were no records. The file on him at Bethesda disappeared. All

kinds of attempts were made by the members of the family to retrieve it.

We have had up there at the library some health records essentially,

pertaining to his teeth and going back to the 1930's, which is not particularly relevant to this issue.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Part of that has been overcome because most Presidents have had regular medical checkups.

Dr. O'NEILL. F.D.R. did also.

Dr. RHOADS. I think your line of questioning does point out the

value, the importance of eventually having this material open and

available for analysis.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. And it may be helpful to limited groups to have it

available prior to the normal time that the material would be held to

be extremely confidential.

Dr. RHOADS. Certainly. In regard to the question to which you are

referring, I would think that would be legitimate.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Mr. Rousselot.

Mr. Fishbein, would you like to proceed with your presentation?

Mr. FISHBEIN. I will try to keep it short.

I don't know how well I can speak for the entire research community. We have had some interest in the problems of access to statistical sources, and I would point out that under the 1952 agreement

we did open the 1880 census which revealed a great deal more personal
10

information than the one for 1900. I have copies of it if the committee

would like.

It is interesting to point out that Congress insisted in the 1880

census on questions about whether there was anyone idotic in the family. Such question did raise real problems of privacy.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Fishbein, without objection, the letters of the 1952

agreement will be made a part of the record.

[The material follows:]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

BUREAU OF CENSUS,

Washington, D.C., August 26, 1952.

Dr. WAYNE C. GROVER,

Archivist of the United States,

Waskington, D.C.

DEAR DR. GROVER : It is the policy of the Bureau of the Census to provide the

maximum physical protection for the records which document its major programs,

and make available to as many people as possible the information contained in

such records consistent with national security and the rights of individuals concerned. With these ends in mind, we wish to make the following proposals concerning the custody, maintenance and use of the records of individuals enumerated in decennial population censuses:

The Bureau of the Census will transfer to the National Archives and Records

Service (1) the original schedules of each decennial population census when

they are no longer required by the Bureau of the Census for active statistical

use and when the National Archives and Records Service can provide space and

service for them; (2) the negative microfilm of such schedules when the Bureau

of the Census has obtained a positive copy of the microfilm; and (3) the positive

microfilm of these schedules when they are no longer required by the Bureau of

the Census in its personal census service activities.

The Bureau of the Census desires that the National Archives and Records

Service observe the following provisions pertaining to the use and maintenance

of these records subsequent to their transfer:

A. All negative microfilm copies of decennial population census schedules

transferred to the National Archives and Records Service shall be preserved as

the permanent records of such censuses. These negative copies will not be used

as searching media or inserted in reading devices except when necessary for inspection incident to the proper maintenance of such records.

B. The National Archives and Records Service will, upon request by the

Bureau of the Census,, furnish positive prints of any negative microfilm which

has been transferred to the former agency. The charge for this service will be

the cost of the positive film and its development, plus a service charge of not more

than ten percent.

C. At no time after the National Archives and Records Service has accepted

custody of both the negative and positive microfilm copies of the schedules of a

census will both negative and positive copies of that census be kept in the same

city.

D. After the lapse of seventy-two years from the enumeration date of a

decennial census, the National Archives and Records Service may disclose information contained in these records for use in legitimate historical, genealogical or other worth-while research, provided adequate precautions are taken to

make sure that the information disclosed is not to be used to the detriment of

any of the persons whose records are involved. Prior to the lapse of time specified

above, the information will be disclosed only by the Bureau of the Census from

microphotographic or other records in its possession.

Please let us know if these provisions are acceptable to you. If they are, we

shall make the necessary arrangements to effect the movement of records now

eligible for transfer.

Sincerely yours,

ROY V. PEEL,

Director.
11

OCTOBER 10, 1952.

Dr. ROY V. PEEL,

Director, Bureau of the Census,

Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.

DEAR DR. PF7T, : This is in reply to our offer to transfer periodically to the

National Archives and Records Service the original schedules of each decennial

population census when these are no longer needed for active statistical use, the

negative microfilm of those population census schedules for which the Bureau of

the Census possesses adequate positive microfilm copies, and the positive microfilm copies of those population census schedules which the Bureau of the Census

no longer desires to retain for reference use.

In view of the established policy of the National Archives and Records Service

to relieve agencies of records accumulations no longer needed for current use,,

and to preserve those records deemed to be of permanent value, I am, in principle, in agreement with the transfer policy stated in your letter of August 26,

1952.

I am also in agreement with the conditions you state with respect to the use

and maintenance of these records, (1) that the master set of negative microfilm

to be transferred shall be preserved as the permanent records of the decennial

population census schedules, and that the master negatives and the positive

microfilm copies shall not be kept in the same city; (2) that the National

Archives and Records Service will furnish the Bureau of the Census with positive prints of the negative microfilm whenever requested,, and that the charge

for such service shall not exceed the cost of the positive film and its development plus an overhead of not more than ten percent, provided, however, that

the production of the initial set of positive microfilm copies of a d6cennial population census shall be the responsibility of the Bureau of the Census; and (3)

that after "seventy-two years from the enumeration date of a decennial census,

the National Archives and Records Service may disclose information contained

in these records for use in legitimate historical, genealogical or other worthwhile research."

With respect to the foregoing restrictions on disclosure of information it is

understood that the applicable conditions of legitimacy will be those now in

force, (1) a searcher's reputation as in fact a research worker or professional

genealogist; (2) a searcher's connection with an established institution of learning or research (3) a searcher's connection with the person or family whose

records are desired, either by immediate relationship or by authorization; and

(4) the lapse of time since the appearance of possibly detrimental information,,

considered in conjunction with the legitimacy of public or scholarly interest in

the factual data relating to a historical personage.

In accordance with these mutually acceptable provisions, at your convenience

we are prepared to make the necessary arrangements to effect the movement of

records now eligible for transfer.

Sincerely yours,

WAYNE C. GROVER,

Archivist of the United States.

Mr. FISHBEIN. Since these 1880 schedules were opened, they have

probably been one of the most singly intensively used series in the

Archives. I have made a quick estimate of use during the current fiscal

year. In the National Archives alone we estimate we will get 40,000

requests for the 1880 schedules. We have sold about 500 sets of microfilm of the 1880 schedules that have gone to libraries, universities, and

historical societies, and I suspect they are used frequently there.

I have just returned from Fort Worth and found that our records

center there was making extensive use of the schedules of the Southwest.

The same was true when I visited Atlanta.

The question is, used for what purposes, I think the genealogical

purposes are clear enough to everyone. We estimate—and this is a very

rough estimate—about 80 percent of the use is for genealogical purposes but it is interesting to note here that the relative volume of

genealogical use is declining.
12

General research use is increasing at a very rapid rate.

The significant research use today concerns its value for understanding the American people. Here I will point out that although

the Census Bureau does extensive surveys and makes extensive reports,

there is a limitation to that research. In the first place, there is a sort

of bias in the census reports in the sense that they are a geographic

aggregation. For example, you can find out about homogeneous groups

of the population that live together—for example in the ghettos—but

if people with the same characteristics live outside the ghetto and are

in another type of community, they would not show up in an aggregate except in gross figures.

What makes them different from people living in the ethnic community? There is, in addition, a great deal of interest in what happens

to the American family from the time of immigration, the upward or

downward mobility and changes in the family itself.

There is also a great deal of interest in how people vote, what are

the characteristics that determines the way in which people vote.

Only by looking at the schedules can you get a definitive view because

you can take the enumeration district and take the same people from

the schedules and see who they were: levels of education, income, their

place of origin. They don't ask any longer about religion. I think what

is increasing the interest of researchers is to attempt a definitive study

of the American experience. You can only discover that if you engage

in the research yourself.

We, at the National Archives, have a strong feeling that research

should not be limited to the Government alone. That is why we would

like to grant access as quickly as possible as long as it is not used to

the detriment of individuals. And it is only by that type of discovery

that we can reevaluate the American experience. For example, Prof.

Herbert Gutman, by looking at census schedules, was able to

find that Dr. Moynahan may have been mistaken with regard to the

black family. The records do not show that the black family lacked a

father during the antebellum period. The breakup of the black family,

as he found from the schedules, did not occur until 1870 to 1880. He

just wanted to check the Moynahan theory. He couldn't tell somebody

in the Census Bureau to do that research, he had to do it himself.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. You say the breakup of the black family did not

occur until when?

Mr. FISHBEIN. Until 1870 to 1880.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Who made the determination as to what breakup

was?

Mr. FISHBEIN. The father was missing.

We happen to have schedules in southern counties that were inherited by the Federal Government. It seized the records and they

were used by the Freedmans' Bureau to study ways to bring the black

people into the free American system.

We have schedules for cities like Richmond, and Charlotte that did

take censuses on their own, in addition to the Federal census.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. The incidence of the black family breakup was

higher than among others, is that it?

Mr. FISHBEIN. Yes; after 1870. He was able to find the reason for

that in the schedules themselves. For example, in the part of the
13

schedule that refers to occupation, you found that the freedman, the

liberated slave, did get into skilled occupations even before emancipation, and he made, for his area, a reasonable income, that is, the researcher found that the black freedman, before he was emancipated,

had higher income in the same occupation that the white immigrant.

It is interesting to note that the researcher would never have discovered that phenomenon unless he used the schedule himself. He found

it and showed it to me. I know the Professor, and he called on me and

showed me that a black carpenter, for example, even in the 1850's, had

a higher income than a white immigrant who was also a carpenter.

But by 1870 his income had declined and the son was no longer a

carpenter. He was more likely to be a field hand.

Mr. WHITE. In the illustration, when was the immigrant hired?

Mr. FISHBEIN. This was before—up to 1870, and then something 

Mr. WHITE. Before the Civil War?

Mr. FISHBEIN. Before the Civil War, yes, sir. In other words, the

emancipated slaves—before the Civil W.ar there were a number of

them and these were recorded particularly in local censuses in the

South.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. The black had developed a skill and he actually was

earning more on an average than his white immigrant counterpart.

Mr. FISHBEIN. Than the counterpart of an immigrant. It was not

true of the native-born American, but of the immigrant. He actually

had a higher income, but his status declined in the period between 1870

and 1880. The son no longer was a skilled worker.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. He went back to field work?

Mr. FISHBEIN. Yes.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Do we know why that occurred?

Mr. FISHBEIN. The researcher assumed that discrimination against

the black skilled workers during the reconstruction period was the

cause. He is publishing some of his findings, but being a very careful

researcher, he wants to continue his research very thoroughly.

He sent one of his students to visit us—he is now teaching in

Oregon—to do a study of the Mississippi delta to see if the same

phenomenon occurred there. Eventually, I suspect, there will be a

major study.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. What is the gentleman's name?

Mr. FISHBEIN. Herbert Gutman, professor of history at the University of Buffalo. He is a social historian.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Does he plan to publish his findings?

Mr. FISHBEIN. He wants to make sure that what he has found is not

an unusual situation.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Is he taking in all the States, or sorted areas?

Mr. FISHBEIN. He started with the southern cities because the

southern people took more censuses than the northerners and he

wanted to compare local censuses with Federal censuses. He is doing

the family 

Mr. WHITE. Why do you say the southern cities will be more likely

to take censuses than the northern?

Mr. FISHBEIN. The reason for that—this is my own view—is that

southerners have a terrific sense of place. They identify themselves
14

more closely with their region. Northerners tend to be more mobile

and have less identification with any specific place, and this shows up

in many ways: preservation of records for one thing. Southerners are

more likely to preserve records.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. So local institutions in the South, during this time

period, took more detailed censuses or accumulated more data about

their population in their area, say by county or whatever, than the

northern cities like New York or Chicago; is that correct?

Mr. FISHBEIN. That is correct, and for that reason we know a great

deal about the southern family, but, of course, the Federal census

records are still the most complete for the Nation.

It is true that someone did a study of a few southern cities and

found that the local censuses were more accurate in the middle nineteenth century than the Federal censuses. The Federal census is

especially valuable because it records data every 10 years.

We are a growing city, but how much and in what ways are we

growing? The 1900 census has unusual value as there was a break of

20 years instead of 10 because the 1890 schedules, except for a fragment,

were destroyed by fire in Washington. We do have a little fragment

that was saved from the fire.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Were all the records destroyed, or certain portions?

Dr. RHOADS. All hut a fragment, sir. A few counties in a few States.

Mr. R017SSEIAT. They didn't make parallel documents?

Mr. FISHBEIN. They did not.

Mr. RoussELoT. Do you now make parallel documents?

Mr. FISHTIETN. It is put on microfilm. Originally there Ivor. parallel

documents in the 19th century. At one time an individual found his

way to the courthouse to see if he was recorded accurately.

Mr. WHITE. After the records are recorded on microfilm, the originals a destroyed ?

Mr. FTSHBEIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITE. How many sets of microfilm are there?

Mr. FISHBEIN. We have a set maintained by the Census Bureau for

legal research, someone probating a will. That is the chief use to see

who is the legitimate heir. If you go to the Census Bureau and certify

you are the legitimate heir, you want your own records—that is all

you can get, your own records.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Your own family records?

Mr. FISHBEIN. Yes: and they do get frequent requests of that nature.

The National Archives maintains two copies.

Mr. WHITE. Three copies in all, and two are kept in the same building ? The Archives copies are kept in the same building?

Dr. RHOADS. The three copies are in three different places: one is

the Archives building, one in Pittsburg, Kans.—that is the census

copy—and then the second Archives copy is kept in a secure undertrrolind facility in the State of Missouri.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. So the Census Bureau has access to three parallel

documents which may also be on microfilm, is that correct?

Mr. FISHBEIN. That is correct.

Dr. RHOADS. A minimum of three.

Mr. WHITE. What about the previous census? Would they all be on

microfilm?
15

Mr. FISHBEIN. Yes, sir. We do have them on microfilm for sale. The

1880 census, the 

originals, 

were offered to the States after we microfilmed them. We have not offered the earlier ones. One of the reasons

was the extreme deterioration of the records. The 1880 paper was of

very poor quality.

Mr. WHITE. You stated that all the available census returns have

been microfilmed. Reaching as far back as you can 

Mr. FISHBEIN. Right from the 1790 schedules.

Mr. WHITE. The rest are protected from further destruction.

Mr. Fishbein, you may go ahead, sir.

Mr. FISHBEIN. That pretty much summarizes the viewpoints of the

scholar.

I have been getting frequent calls, for example, from the American

Historical Association asking when the 1900 census schedules can be

made available—and I am certain it is not any witch hunting. They

feel they have quite legitimate needs for this information, and that

these needs will benefit the Nation in that they will learn a good deal

more about the American people.

For example, this period of 1900 was a period of intensive immigration. It was also the period of intensive urbanization. What happened

to those people? What happened to the farmers who left their land

and went to the city?

Mr. WHITE. I understand that Oklahoma does not have records

prior to 1890, is that true?

Mr. FISHBEIN. They became a territory so late in our history, and

because of the entire expansion of the country in that period of 1880

through World War I, with the extensive changes, historians would

like to record how that affected the American people.

Mr. WHITE. Dr. O'Neill, do you have anything to add to answering

the general questions?

Dr. O'NEILL. No.

Mr. WHITE. In that case I would like to ask certain questions going

further into this matter of confidentiality.

How many countries do not make their census records available,

maintain absolute confidentiality? Are we the only country?

Dr. RHOADS. No. We are certainly not the only country that allows

access to census records.

Mr. WHITE. That is not the question, sir.

Dr. RHOADS. I beg your pardon.

Mr. WHITE. In our census law, despite the Records Act that Mr.

Garfinkel was speaking of, there is an absolute confidentiality provided as I understand it.

Mv question was, how many other countries have this absolute confidentiality in their laws as to their census reports?

Dr. RHOADS. I don't know the answer to that question. I know there

are other countries: Great Britain, Canada, some of the Scandinavian countries, that do allow access after a period of time, but how

many do not allow any access, I do not know. It would be a rather

time-consuming job to ascertain that although it could be attempted.

Mr. WHITE. As I understand, England has a 100-year period of

time.
16

Mr. FISHBEIN. That is being reviewed. I discussed this with the

Public Records Office, in London which is the equivalent of the National Archives, and there has been some interest in reviewing the

100-year period for the same reason that we are concerned; to

determine what is in the public's best interest to encourage research—

what I call trade-off—between the problems of privacy and the need

of the Nation to know something more about its people. But at present

there is a 100-year rule, and I think the 100-year rule is pretty general

in the Western nations.

We know almost nothing about the Iron Curtain countries.

Mr. WHITE. But the 100 years is the normal span of time.

Mr. FISHBEIN. You should realize, Mr. Chairman, that some of these

European countries are very restrictive on access.

Dr. RHOADS. To any kind of records.

Mr. WHITE. Even after 100 years?

Mr. FISHBEIN. Yes; because this came up recently when it was dis-

-covered that the French archives still kept closed the records of the

Franco-Prussian War, and someone said, "What is the necessity of

hiding the Franco-Prussian War records ?" and it forced the French

to (men the records.

The French are now agreeing they have been too restrictive and

there is a tendency to open records after 30 years unless there is some

special reason for opening them later.

Dr. RHOADS. And that is part of the general trend.

Mr. WHITE. The 100 years would carry you certainly beyond any

lifetime of one generation in beim:,and possibly two generations in

being. I presume this is the rationale.

No country that I know of asks as many questions as we do in our

census.

Dr. O'NEILL. Certain of the European and non-European countries

have registration systems in which certain basic information about

you, your age, and certain material that is in credit files, is a public

record from the very beginning. Any citizen can go and look it up.

Mr. WHITE. It is registered on a local basis?

Dr. O'NEILL. Some local, some national.

The Master of the Rolls, who is the one to whom the Keeper of the

Public Records—who is the British counterpart of the Archivist of the

United States—reports, serves as chairman of the committee which

oversees the Public Record Office in Great Britain, and the committee

is reluctantly agreeing to closing for 75 years certain classes of records

which are comparable to personal investigative records, say police

records, and it goes on to add that they will recommend in the future

that 75 years should be the normal period in cases of personally sensitive records.

One hundred years is applicable to exceptional cases. There is no

elaboration on what is an exceptional case. It bears out what Mr. Fishbein said. They are moving in this direction.

Mr. WHITE. Do these countries ask for income levels? Does England

ask for income levels in their questionnaires?

Dr. O'NEILL. I can't answer that.

Mr. WHITE. In other words, there is a considerable amount of information that is asked for in our census forms—for instance in the 1900
17

census forms that you gave an illustration here. There is a question of

whether a person can read or write. Maybe the person could be in being, or their children, when records were made public, and they would

not be eager to have known that their parents could not speak or write

English. That is one point of sensitivity.

Dr. O'NEILL. The British census always poses medical type questions which Mr. Fishbein indicated we did have in 1880. Since the

whole discipline of medical statistics grew through the studies of

earlier records in Britain, a similar issue of confidentiality is involved.

Mr. WHITE. Would you give for the record, at a later date—I realize

you don't have it now—a list of the criteria that you generally use in

determining the opening of records which you have in the Archives,

what you feel would be appropriate material for the public to consider.

Dr. RHOADS. Yes.

[The following was furnished:]

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SERVICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

CRITERIA ON RESTRICTED ACCESS TO RECORD: OVER 50 YEARS OF AGE

The Federal Records Act of 1950, 44 U.S.C. 2104, authorizes the Administrator

of General Services to extend restrictions which have been in force for 50 years

and which were originally imposed by the creating agency. This authority has

been delegated by the Administrator to the Archivist of the United States.

In determinnig whether restriction periods beyond 50 years should be extended,

the Archivist balances the needs of scholarly research and the public's right to

know against the legitimate need of government and of private citizens for a

reasonable degree of confidentiality. In making such decisions, the Archivist

normally does not authorize extension beyond the 50 year period in the absence

of overriding reasons.

The criteria for the extension of restrictions on access beyond 50 years are

derived from the categories of records that may be withheld from the public

under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552( b), although not all of them

are of equal validity after the passage of 50 years.

The total volume of records accessioned into the National Archives of the

United States amounted to 1,152,000 cubic feet as of June 30, 1972. Less than 1%

of these are under restrictions extended beyond 50 years.

The principal classes of records for which such extensions have been authorized are the following:

1. Personal Medical Files.—These may be made available only to the agency

of original custody or its successor and to the individuals concerned for a period

of 75 years from the date of the last entry. This restriction honors the private

relationship between patient and doctor that has been recognized since

Hippocrates.

2. Investigative Files.—These are made available only to the originating

agency or its successor for a period of 75 years. This restriction protects the

reputation of individuals against the misuse of unproven allegations and prevents the revelation of names of informers.

3. sPopulation Census Schedules.—When the Director of the Census Bureau

recommended that access be granted only to the Bureau for a period of 72 years,

we concurred on the grounds of protection of privacy. We do not deem these

records quite as potentially detrimental to the reputation of persons as investigative files.

4. Official Personnel Records.—These are legally records of the Civil Service

Commission, although they are created and maintained by the employing

agencies. They are not available for 75 years from date of birth. The members

of the general public may not see the folders, but they may obtain a very brief

transcript of service. Government officials may have access to the folder for

employment purposes.

Mr. WHITE' . Do you have any recommendations to this committee of

any particular legislation you would like to see passed that would be

of benefit to you and the country? By "you" I mean your agency.
18

Dr. RHOADS. We would like to find some way of making explicit

in the law the fact that the Bureau of the Census schedules should be

open .after a period of time. We would like very much to resolve this

question, and perhaps this can best be done by legislative action, the

conflict which does appear to exist between the census law and our own.

Mr. WHITE. That has been very apparent from what was said

earl ier.

Could you give for the record now, or at a later date, the locations

of all the 12 depositories you spoke of across the Nation, where they

would be located?

Dr. O'NEILL. Our own records centers, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Dr. RHOADS. I can give those right now for the record.

Mr. WHITE. All right, sir fine.

Dr. RHOADS. There are actually 11 in addition to the National

Archives building here, and they are located in Waltham, Massachusetts, New York City, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Kansas

City, Fort Worth, Denver, Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

These are the locations where we have regional Archives branches as

a part of our records centers, and we are sending to those branches

copies of the microfilm publications that have been produced from

records of national interest and importance that are located in the

National Archives here. Not all of them have the census schedules as

yet. We haven't made those deposits in all of those locations, but we

are scheduled, during this current fiscal year, to begin that deposit.

Tn addition to that, as Mr. Fishbein mentioned, there are probably

500 private libraries, universities, public libraries, historical societies,

and so on that have a substantial amount of census microfilm in their

care.

Mr. WHITE. Are these depositories based on regions, or based on

categories for the type of material that is deposited?

Dr. RHOADS. We are seeking to give each one of these 11 regional

branches basically the same material, the material that is most widely

called for by scholars and other researchers.

Mr. WHITE. At this time I will ask Mr. Bray if you would like to ask

any questions.

Mr. BRAY. I have no particular questions. I would like Mr. Garfinkel

to give me a copy of the opinion of the attorney general.

Mr. GARFINKEL. I don't have a copy with me. I could send you a

cony if you would like me to.

Mr. WHITE. One question I might clarify.

I spoke to Dr. Brown concerning the postponement to release records in 72 years, as established, and that there was a possible conflict

between the census law and the Federal Records Act and whether it

was an oversight of Congress in its desire to have legislation to release

this information.

Dr. RHo MS. I think the Cong,ress, especially on the eve of the 1970

census, was a major factor, and also Dr. Brown's lawyers pointed out

to him the provision in the Census Act. I don't know how familiar he

was with the legislative—with the statutory grounds that we had relied on 20 years earlier in opening the schedules up. He certainly was

made aware of this by me.
19

Mr. WHITE. I have no further questions.

If there is anything further you would like to provide for the

record, we would like to receive it.

We may call you at a later date as we develop other interests and go

into the matter of confidentiality.

Some of the members may desire to visit your institution.

Dr. RHOADS. We would very much like to have you and any or all

other members of the subcommittee visit us either in a group of individually. This would be a great pleasure for us, and I think it would be

helpful for the subcommittee in gaining a greater understanding of

what we are doing, and how we are doing it.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you very much, Dr. Rhoads, Dr. O'Neill, Mr.

Fishbein. and Mr. Garfinkel. We appreciate your presence here, and

thank you for the information you have given us today.

At this time the subcommittee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.]

[A portion of the 1880 census form, showing questions contained in

that census, follows:]
Page No 

Supervisor's Dist. No..... .....

Enumeration Dist. No. 

(7-2861

Note A.—The Census Year begins June 1, 1879, and ends May 31, 1880.

Note B.—All perSons will be Included In the Enumeration who were living on the lot day or Julio, 1880.. No others will. Children BORN SINCE

June 1, 1880 will be OMITTED. Members of Families who have DIED SINCE June 1, 1880, will he INCLUDED.

Note C.—Questions Nos. 13, 14, 22 and 2.1 are not to be asked In respect to persons under 10 years or age.

SCHEDULE 1,—Inhabitants in ,in the County of , State of 

enumerated by me on the day of June, 1880.

Enumerator.
1

2,

4

8

9

• — 

In Citics r e no md DeacriptIon. ----

/ Single, i 0 1 1 P 

t. mariied,/ 1 ,ics 1 _ _ 1 = 

1 D. Divorced. / widowed, -- • Occupation. _ --- ..u..!....1 g (.., 1.74 6r-: • .... . s ..I

older in oted 

- ---- 

%iait.ttl of order Si f. ROMInnclilp of each • The NIllin of oael. Person whose place a 7; -; ',.-. twratiii fo the heivi ..1..).1..,.,n 1st .1:iy of June, 1484), ILK i in 1104 family. i::-:a 'i ''of this (until y- uhether wile. uou. Iht, dalighter, tlervt \:i"-. Profession, Oteopat:on or Trade of each perauti, male or female. 2. : 1.: 2 boarder, or other. ,...

... 17,

4-:

•

•E

;'. '...... ••• t7 •B

,..

,.

-:,..; c E.. 1

,'

. .,

T

.

:1

„

. 

• a i ----- 3 . 4 :,'6 7 8 . 13 12

— — .

•

.

—.—.

Una...

,

,

1

IIIIIIMPII, , INIMI.10

1

41111111•••• MOMMEM;

'

I

I 

•

......• ... .. 1.

I •

I

1 room imEmniar

I I ! 

SEMID

I

• 

1 '

..• •• ... ••d• . sow.•••••••••••

. 1 1 •

11 1

1111.111011•0,••••••dm

. .1

Adaram AMMO, •••••0.41.11,
0

Health. Education. Nativity.

unemployed been has person this months of Number 

year. Census the during 

I . 

Is the person fon the

day of the Enuluerator's visit] sick or

temporarily elicibled,

so as to lie unal4o to

attend to ordinary

husinens or duties?

If so, what in the sick.

slag or disability?

...:

C

\

.e

. a

"1

•-•

• i-5 tr

i disabled,/ ise others ridden,or Bed Crippled, Maimed, . .lisf r.S.' 7,4", 13= \ts•,7,

/if write, Cannot 

Place of Birth of this peyson,

naming State or Territory

of United St•tea, or tho

Country, hot foreign birth.

Place of Birth of the

FATHER of thidperson, n &Ili / ng the

State or Terntury

of Calk:it &stator

the C000trY, if of

foreign birth.

Place of Birth of the

MOTHER of thiaprr- !

son, nem i n .r the i

State or Teri itory ;

of United Statee. or ;

the Country, If of I

foreign birth. i

i

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 24 25 26

, ..

•

.-

.

. - " - — ............,..

. - - - - -- - - - - - - 

•

••••••••11111

•

2

4

6

7 _