Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1897-12-17
NJ. :Srlaht on Cost Of Census.

| the census department., TO the eHect
that the cost Of taking the census
would be at least two million dollars
less under civil service rules than un-
der the spells system has been re-
ceived with manifest incredulity on
the part of many. Accordingly he has
at the request of Senator Lodge given
his reasons for making that statement.
Judging from this explanation it APP
pears that his estimate was conserva-
tive rather than extravaganza. Mr.
Wrights statements are certainly
worthy of careful consideration. His
eminence as a statistician commands
ate ntion to his statements, especially
when they are made as deliberately as
are these in relation to the census.
In this letter to Senator Lodge lie
compares the cost of work in his de-
partment under civil service regula-
tions with the cost in the census de-
partment under the spols system,
though he says he expects by SO doing
to expose himself to captious criticism.
though he includes the census cost
when he was at the head of the de-
partment and makes it clear that the
comparison is between systems rather
than between arrangements. He frank
ly states that under his administration
of the census department a third of the
wasted" He gives his reasons for that
conclusion, showing that the force was
unnecessarily large, that the personnel
was constantly being changed and that
when the force should have been re-
duced and was to some extent new
appointments were being made. He
compares the expenditures by different
arrangements of the department when
civil service reform had not come into
effect and he concludes that the differ
ence, the greater comparative expense
lately, is largely due to the fact that
when all the departments were open
to the spokesman there was much less
pressure on the census department,
which under existing conditions is sub
jected to a grievous strain by the
patronage seekers.
Relative to the pressure for patron
age Mr.. Wright quotes Mr.. Porter as
saying: IF Congress expects an in
telligent census it must not compel its
directors to chase all over the United
States for mortgages on the one hand,
and on the other, to be chased, morn
ing, noon and night by applicants for
office"
We have not space here for the tables
which Mr. Wright has compiled to
illustrate his statements but will Civ,
his summary of them in his own
words:
There are two basis comparisons in
the foregoing table. The first relates
to the total cost in the two offices per
one thousand nonpareil ems of matter,
the cost of printing, engraving and
binding being excluded. Under this
comparison the cost of production in
the census office was 1857 per cent.
greater than in the department of la
Dor This objection may be raised that
this comparison includes the great cost
of the force of the enumeratorS and
special agents employed in the census:
so another comparison, the second one
in the table, has been made. showing
the cost per one thousand nonparel
ems of matter, exclusive of the total
cost Of collecting the material in both
offices, and of the cost of printing, en-
craving, and binding the results: III
ether words, this comparison is basel
purely on the cost of compiling tn
material after it was collected. By this:
comparison it is seen that the cost per
one thousand nonpareil ems of matter
was 1865 per cent. greater in the
census office than in the department Of
labor
Bringing this comparison to a con-
crete and cumulative statement, it is
seen that had the cost of preparing the
matter by the eleventh census Office
been at the same rate per one thou
sand nonparel ems as was the cost OF
preparing like matter in the depart
ment of labor, the total cost
under the first comparison, that is, eX
elusive of printing, engraving and
binding, would have been 1886, 49, IS.
instead of $1O,016,6776S, saving of
$6,421, 245; while under the second COM
parison, that excluding the expense OF
the field force, in collecting the ma
terial, as we'll as that of printing, en-
craving and binding, it would have
been 81, 29S, S21.94, instead of S5,67OS47.15,
a saving of $3,372,O252l.
The above statements more than
justify the opinion which I expressed
in the report on plan for a permanent
census service, for instead of an extra
cost of 100000. to which l guardedly
limited myself, it is apparent that un-
der the first comparison there was all
extra cost of $6.421. 245. and under the
second comparison of $3,372,O25 The
magnitude of the census work, the
lack of time for preparation, the tenn
porary nature of the force, ETC., may
properly, and perhaps sufficiently, ac-
count for the extraordinary expense
above the $200O,O0O which l have at
tributed to the absence of civil service