New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-12-16


material prepared by the Department Of Labor for
report on the wages OF the commercial countries
of the Census Office are transcripts. to large
Tons made for the final reports The comparative
table is as follows:
Comparative statement OF the work and It's cost
in the Census Bureau and in the Department Of
Labor from April l. 1882 to June 80 1897:
Eleventh
ITEM. u ., fA Rsgt of 9 5ss y s.
Nonparell ems of matter per Zoo o-.
Number OF pages Of matter ,,oo, o. 400
Nam5cr o. 1000 EN-. Of matte
Td a'T''t disbursements, exclusive
Of printing. engraving and mn --- 10 .,oo,a o. &C
Cost st'C Of 1000 nonpare.ii ems Of
matter. exclusive q printing 80, .7o7
Total disbursements exclusive
Of salaries and expenses Of
ine " eneraTHs and bndng s75ss2 oe7oS.7 is
Cost per s,,e lce e,d 39sRs,ei Of f ths
salaries and expenses OF the
engraving and bndihg. ....e. no1 Hie
There are two basic comparisons in tine foregoing
TABLE The d s eass to ins ems ao' OF the
cost Of printing. engraving and oinding oelhs en
duction in the Census Office 1851 per cent
greater than in the Department OF Labor. Inc
m may DE co of the force Of the
tors and special agents employed in the census so
another comparison, the second one IN the taD.e;
has been made showing the cost per 900 nonpareil
ems of matter. exclusive Of the total cost OF col
cost OF printing engraving and binding the results:
IN other words this comparison Is oaseG puTf van on
collected. BY this comparison it is seen that tn re
per cent greater in the Census Office than In the
Department of Labor. ..., .,,.,
itative statement. II is seen that had me cosd OF
preparing the matter by the Eleventh oensus O'nce
Was the cost OF preparing Ike matter in the De
partment Of Labor. the total cost unGer me rrS.
ing and bindng-woud have been S3SsS az o. IN
stead Of So Si excadne the
force of the field force, IN collecting the material
IS ws ' sa thaf 5e of 2EasE 81 Of sG
a saving Of $3872,o25 q. ,..,.,. 49,. oo,,-
ion which expressed IN the report on pan az I sp
extra cost OF 81 10000 TO which guarde1y IiiI,ep
myself it Is apparent that under ne nrst c9npaLl
there was an ezra s9st 40 81 Tbe magnitude
OF the census work the lack OF time lor pfePai a
ton the temporary r HSere S account for the ex
! traodnary expense above the s?VCgo when ! nave
liz agureS Witch have given thoroughly usti;
~ the opinion Mr. Porter expressed 10 me Seyt .
had the Eleventh Census been taken IN eccoru-
ance with Civil Service rules. an OPINION ne l4s
The North American Review for the current
month in which he gives as one OF ,ie iSI tskeD
The placing upon the shoulders OF the suPGriim,
tenden whose mind should be fully oecuPleu n WI
h hs d tb apppntments Of an office force Of Soy
era thousand clerks M IT, ,be Civll sSryice in
tbese words: III Congress expects an ntellisehii
census II must not compel It's directors 10 cnhso ~
ovnT the United states for mortgages on the on, one
hand and the other TO DC ch ms
hI noe a he Necessary further to subsantate the
opinion about which you have zone me ' tuo1,ina
to maxi ngH niiEy;o 10 the work and It's in the
Tenth and Eleventh censuses k oon3 It's cost
IN the tenth and eleventh censuses of the United
States ,,.o,
r.m, of fie' Is s. of tbs' g. s.
Nonpareil ems OF matter per e7A e74i
Number Of pages Of matter ,aoos a12s
Number Of 1000 ems Of matter ,oso.o oos 70,
r5 95s'" 5ss, "a sn'4S7l5 81
Cost per 1000 nonpareh ems OF 1918 s55 80
Unfortunately with the data at hand, l am IN;
able to make a comparison between me cost u
rpeDsses excluding the cost of collection OF ma
teral and of printing engraving anu Di tn cost
and by this table it is seen that in $50 the cost
per 900 nonpareil ems OF matter wa go 60 ncr c
snIts at the eleventh census been the same as az
have been s65l0ls6 20. instead OF Nl54'hS 81 u'i-
ie ReisGive to this comparison. the point may be
raised that the Census Office was not under T r,i
Service rules in 1880 any more than IN I6S, me
is true but in 1880 Office OF the Government was
| under Civil Service rules, ana there was. tneIc
! fore a diffusion or distribution Of attempts 10
secure positions while at the eleventh census the
Bs@trn"nis in washington not under Civil Service
| so that the concentration OF applications was upon
t' s matter OF personal experience In the Census
! he Subject Of this communication, would say
| that the total amount expende! under inc admin
ss0nf Of Mr. T ST Apr Vas %
| 922 so. under Mr.. James II. Wardle, Gctlns super
sHs3 001 81 and under my own administration. from
| October s. 1898 to October 8. 1891, $@74@ 81. &c
not hesitate to say that oneLhrd o. the si nsn
| iteIv wasted and wasted principally on account OIL
ne fact that the office not under Civil SERVED
r,,Ies II this proportion holds good. here Is direct
subsfantiation OF the opinion nave expressed
Isti~e TO the saving of 100000 In the census
! baS the force been under Civil Service rules
.hn oa mount , expended under my own administra
| lion The answer is that In OCTOBER. 1888 wheh J
took charge Of the Census once See there
oadd Te for many months and this kept VI
without cessation til the close OF the Gensus Ther,
| cTiarIcai force reached the number then In ONCE
nevertheess while these general reductions weI'
being made. and IN the absence o OF any
| for the increase OF the torce' oo' nc" appointment
" one other reason to answer your question Il
nIvidnai appointments during the existence OF IN
Gnes 04,ce The largest on duty as an ofiie'
force time was IN N op Tho Census payroli
| CrdirSr,ly Il would seem that as before ana aite
thte date this number never cxceedtd, the toll
number OF appointment III xo MD not have ex
csedrd . 10. as a matter or fact. the tota! nuhpe
OF individuals not including special agents. upoi
than me the highest number employed at any on.
time. This statement lndeates, tn f tho Censt,
shifting nature of the personnel OF the Ce"su'