Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1890-04-05

ually provides for census Of the unem-
ployed. From long editorial article in
the Boston Herald, chiefly remarkable
for the real or affected ignorance of
previousfactsa fundamental principles
OF law which its author displays, we
quote the following paragraph;
"If Prof. DeLeon had taken pains to
assure himself in regard to his facts, he
would have discovered that the pro-
vision was not only in the Census law,
but that the blanks which have been
prepared contain this inquiry: 10
Months unemployed during the census
year"
To this Prof. DeLeon replied immedi-
ately; but we are not aware, 80 far, that
his letter was published, and therefore
we give it in full, as follows:
Editor Boston Herald. -SIR:-The edi-
torial entitled, "a Baseless Statement"
contained in your issue Of the 10th inst,
and wherein you attempt to refute the
conclusion | expressed in the February
humber CT the Nationalist magazine CON
corning the existence Of a conspiracy to
prevent the dissemination of truth about
the condition of our working classes,
closes with the question: will Prof. De
Leon admit his error etc.
Have you proven any? ] described
the condition of things AZ revealed by
the reports Of the bureaus Of statistics of
labor themselves; | gave the history of
the clause providing for an inquiry into
the enforced idleness of our working
classes; | pointed out how that clause
got into the Census act for 1880; how it
| was treated by the Census Office, and
how it got out Of the Census act for
| 1890. You do not dispute a single one
of my allegations of fact. But, say you,
my conclusion is false all the same be-
cause the Census act for 1890 expressly
| provides that this years schedules of in
| quiries shall be the same as those of 1880,
and the blanks that have been prepared
under that law contain the inquiry:
"16. Months unemployed during the
census year.
You give me no news. You do not
overthrow or as much as touch my con-
clusion. On the contrary, you add
strength to it for which my thanks and
the thanks Of Nationalists in general,
are due YOU seeing you go to the trouble
of making it evident that the Census
Office and their confreres are able to
furnish their friends with only an equivo-
cation in rebuttal Of what you Justly
style an Indictment against them.
Let me ask you few questions; they
may help to clear up your vision.
Do you think the query concerning
idleness in the sche dulles of 1890 carries
with it greater force than did the same
query in the schedules Of 1880, although
the latter was backed by an erpress man
date rhile the former tmps unsup-
ported ?
Would you say in the face of all the
contempOraneous facts, which you do
not even attempt to deny, that the
omission of the clause concerning the
unemployed from the Census act for
1890 was the result of innocence, child
like and bland?
Can you imagine that query which,
according to fundamental principles of
Interpretation, as established by your
own Greenleaf in his work on Evidence,
to say nothing of Vattel, has been rem
dered obsolete, unmeaning, and harm.
less, is seriously intended to be treated
with Difference in 1890. notwithstanding
the same query in 1880, when it was
part and parcel and had all the vigor of
law, was contemptuously ignored?
DO you not see that by construction
of law and by common sense, the elimi-
nation from the Census act for 1890 of
the clause ordering an inquiry into the
idleness of the working classes clearly
abrogates query No. 16-an until then
new query, inserted into the schedules
of 1880 only by reason of the law of that
year; and that the said clause of the
Census act for 1890, pregnant as it was
with meaning and antecedents, being
thus eliminated, the provision requiring
the schedules for this year to be the
same as those for 1880 is, so far as query
No. IL is concerned, imperative and of
no binding force whatever upon the
Census Office?
In the temperance of query
No. 16 on the face of this years sched-
ules; in the present punctilious observ-
ance of the letter of the law by the Cen
sus Office (after the cutlery raised by
the emasculation of section II of the
Census act for this year.; and in the
pretensions of outraged innocence now
exhibited by that Office and its candle
holders; in all this can you fail to per-
ceive the very essence of exposed, yet
hopeful, humbug?
And now, to me in turn, the interest
ing question arises: AS you call upon
the Nationalist and myself to admit our
imagined error and give the retraction as
wide circulation as we gave to the
charge, is it not rather for you to admit