The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-07-07
The Census Returss.

In our last issue we gave an abstract of the
report made to the Senate by the Special Com
mittee on the United States Census. Our aim
was to present in condensed form the grounds
on which the committee base their proposition
to expunge four-fifths of the matter prepared in
reference to Maryland, as model Of the plan
for the publication of the returns of the whole
Union.
We took occasion yesterday to examine the
Maryland returns and the accompanying text,
in detail, and 1t appears to us that in some es
sential respects they warrant conclusions diff
ferent from those at which the committee have
arrived. The utility of furnishing large sd
diton to the returns in the shape of historical
and geological sketches of the State is. OF
course, question Of opinion, and one which
the Senate and the public can and will deter.
mine fo- themselves. Neither Of the chapters
was contemplated by the act under which
the census was taken, and yet both may be
accepted with propriety if they be shown to be
reliable. 1t is known that the historical chap
ter has received the sanction of the Historical
Society of Maryland, whose members may be
supposed to possess tolerable familiarity with
elected favorable testimony from Professor
StLLIMAN. With regard to the classification
of the causes of mortality, we are inclined tt
think that some objections may be taken, so fal
as this branch of the returns may be designed
to serve the higher purposes of the life assurance
L. ka .l,t
the classification, albeit faulty, is in accordance
with that adopted by scientific bodies in Mas
sachusetts, and to some-though not to full
extent, with that used by the Registrar Gen
eral of England. 1t is probable, moreover,
that less ground for complaint would have ex-
listed in relation to this particular, had the
Bureau been invested with larger discre-
tionary power. On these and the other strictly
controversial portions of the report an honest
difference Of opinion may reasonably exist.
On other points, the committee, in the full
ness of their critical power, have fallen into
errors which materially affect the force of their
recommendations. Their statements on indus
trial establishments, with the cases cited, af
ford an illustration of the grounds of this re-
mark. They enumerate amounts of raw pro
ducts annually expended, and labor annually
employed, and then show that the returned an
nual value of the products is less than the two
other amounts; thereby indicating either the
unreliableness of the statistics or the eXtraor-
binary taste of the Marylanders for carrying on
losing concerns. The statements of the commit
tee are made with degree ofapparent fairness
which leaves the reader no alternative but
to accept their conclusions But on turning to
the volume itself we find that the figures are
not exactly as they are stated in the report
They represent the monthly expenditure and
the aggregate annual products, and the mis-
conception of the committee seems to have con-
sisted in the assumption that the monthly ex-
penditures extend over the year; whereas, in
truth several of the establishments noticed, be
ing propelled with water, are idle during two
Or three months in the course of that period
With this explanation, the concerns are seen
to be sources of profit instead of LOSS. The
introduction Of an explanatory note at the foot
of table will prevent the recurrence Of the
error.