New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-02-24
A RECOUNT FOR NETWORK NOT JUSTIFIED
TIE FEDERAL CENSUS SUSTAINED At EVERY
POINT by THE HOUSE COMMITTEE.

TIE FEDERAL CENSUS SUSTAINED AT EVERY
POINT by THE HOUSE COMMITTEE.
Washington Feb. .3.-Thc House Committee on the
Census held meeting this morning and adopted the
report prepared by Nj. sherman. OF New York. ad-
verse TO the claims Of New York cts fJr a recount
Of the population Of that city, and ordered the rcsou
toA introduced by Mr.. Flower, providing for re-
count, 70 be reported 10 the House with a recommends
ton that it do not pas, Mr. Washington. Of Tennessee
Dcm.), the only member 10 vote against the
action OF the majority Of the committee; but there
II number OF abSentees, including Mr.. Holman, OF
Indiana. and other Democrats.
Mr.. Sherman's report begins with review Of the
provisions Of the Census authorizing the Supcrin
cndcnt OF the Census TO take such measures a. may
be necessary to correct any error, which 1t may be
alleged were made in the count. A. there is room
for doubt TO the full power Of the superintendent IN
this respect the report says that the question thcr
arises: Did Ncw-York bring herself within the Law
that the superintendent should have taken action :!
The work Of taking the census II says, was begun ana
completed In New York City without complaint bcinL
made by tho municipal authorities. on July Is The
population was announced a l,5l3,50l. 1t does nol
appear that the authoritie, then complained Of the
count and the first complaint received was the cSou
ton OF september = of The Board Of Aldermen. Tn,
reason for action for 20 many weeks Is explained
og the theory that the people Of New York largely
ont Of town in July and August. II does not appear
that the municipal authorities were, though they may
have been 1t Is also said that il because Tia,
Health Department found in september that il
the were correct The death rate %
New York City had increased enormously
as to Indicate pestence Nothing In the hearing
before the committee subsantlltes this statement. on
September ID tho Superintendent 81 the Census an
nOunccd that lc would gladly investigate and recount
If necessary. IL any omissions careless work wcrc
pointed out. 1t does rot appear that ahvan
tage taken OF this Offer any further commun
cation had with the superintendent until october Il,
when the Mayor wrote letter calling attention 70 the
police enumeration. II is not shown that anything
made known to the Census Oncc except the total II
does appear that the enumcratOns by the Federal an
thorties and by tho New York police taken by
the districts The Federal enumeration
ROunced By wards prior to the police count. Ti letter
OF the Mayor seemed Ia close tho far IN,
Superintendent concerned. II appears 10 the
mittce that the municipal authorities did not thereby
make a casc upon which tho superintendent Of ~,
Census could act No claim ~ Of sufficiently
specific nature 10 admit Of Invest gition Vas made
and the case presented tie Superintendent would
not be Justified In undertaking a remuneration 81 IN,
entire city, any offer mnde 10 lay before HIN
The police schedules for comparison. L. had been done
In other cases where errors were charged
The report then dciils the correspondence with N.
Secretary Of the Interior and, calling attention 20 The
refusal submit the police enumerato on books IN The
nrst five waris. -ays
"Thc position taken by the Mayor In declining osub
nit tie books Of police enumeration In these i've wards
II most extraordinary and fllly justified the action OF
the secretary IN declining further o. consider the nd
plication. Tho flll history Of the case leads rs q
the conclusion that New York dd not show herself
entitled under the law 10 the relief aekcG for W,
think that before calling upon Congr,s, she should
hive exhausted the rcmcdic, undor tlc law This
she clearly failed TO do
The report then asks 80 Did New York present even
4 pIima facio Of incomplete enumeration, " and
says dcalhrate estimates are shown ~ be Of little
value. The police cen,u, admittedly was an enumcrl
ton Of the tine It Wa, taken. and II apparent noi
only that there might be-, but that there IS much
larger population In NcwYork october / than
June /. 40 proof j. produced t. show that the Fed
eral census was in outside a the sec
Ond Ward, and 1t is shown that the popula
ton oi this ward IS migratory In character.
The aidavit- Of certain people who We're not cnum-
Grated I'm June. t. The effect that they then resided In
the second Ward, do not show that these persons
actually IN IN" ward In June or thdt they not
enumerated elsewhere. Some 81 the aiidavlt' cover
twenty persons, and some If them aye shown 10 be-
erroneous. Complaint, such presented T. the
committee In reference Ia the second Ward would
dOubtrdly have received fun investigations ana tn fic,
presented IN reference 10 that ward DO not Justify the
r., enumeration Of the entire city. Tho resolution l.
Therefore reported with recommendation that IL lie
on tho table.