The times., 1897-05-23

attack contains, it is true, very little that
is tangible, though its insinuation that
the retiring statistician is not sufficiently
trained, experienced, and competent is
distinct enough. A t one point. huweyer
this vagueness becomes specific, and the
accusation against the Agricultural stf
tisiics Of the last few years enbo,iies
itself in a quoted opinion that "all de-
partment estimates of acreage for years
have been wildly erroneous In view OF
the belief ingenuously professed By The
Times that the accession of the gentleman
''in charge OF the a gricultural division of
the Eleventh Census is going to cure all
that, il is worth while to call particular at
teDtioD to a few facts which its readers
would otherwise be likely TO overlook.
The first OF tbeseis that the deIiar tment
statistcian has no power te make an in
dependent determination OF the acreage
of any crop. The appropriation at MS
disposal is altogether too small for the
payment of agents who will take the
trouble to make an eXhaus return,
SO he is compelled to depend on voluntary
correspondents for his information Nor
can he ask them to send reports in the form
of so many acres in such a crop-so many
in such another for the plain reason that
if he undertook to use such reports, he
would find himself without half his acreage,
perhaps more than half, left altogether out.
His reporters cannot he expected to go
over a country and get complete figures
without being paid for il; their figures,
therefore, by such a method would be sure
to he incomplete What can he do then?
Simply this, and this is what he does. lie
tf hal
centage the acreage of this year, in the
territory for which they report, is Of last
years acreage. He necessarily adopts the
percentages prevailing in those parts OF a
State which send reports as applying also
to the rest of the State, and thus forms his
State average percentage; he applies tais
percentage TO the acreage reported last
year as datum, and thus obtains this
years acreage; and then he adds state
acreage to form total for the country.
lie might use a better method If he were
allowed money to compensate his county
reporters; with his present means he can
not Nor could he. even ifhe had once been
in charge of division rf the census To
expect that the new statistcian, or any
possible StatistiCian, can step in and re
organize the statistical force at his Ccrl-
mand,' when-prestol IF success AMI
confidence do not resultit will be strange,
is simple nonsense.
Secondly 1t must be pointed out how
the acreage figures are derived in the
first place. If this year S acreage depends
on last, last years on the year before, and
SO on, how can we ever come to a definite
return from which to make a start? This
necessary foundation is furnished by the
decenniai census, of course. To the acre
age for S79 given by the tenth census. the
percentages OF relative acreage returned
each year were successively applied, and
they led To report for the whole country
of 3S, 123,S59 acres under wheat in $50.
The eleventh census reported the same
acreage as 33, 579, ,514, and this gave an
altogether independent starting Point for
subsequent percentages. OF late years the
returns of wheat acreage have all depended
on these eleventh census figures, and they
viii doubtless continue so to depend until
another census has been taken.
Thirdly Attention must be called to the
precise facts with regard TO the dissatis-
faction of 1.-The large commercial and
mercantile constituency spoken of in
The Times editorial, with Government
estimates of wheat acreage and produc-
tiou. Take up any number OF the Cin,fn-
natl Price Current, and find the table
in which the alleged delinquencies Of the
Agricultural Department statistics are
set forth. Observe, first, that the ac-
cepted wheat product for 1889 is given
as 490, 600, 600 bushels or more, the
Census return OF 46S, 3T3, 96S bushels be-
ing disregarded. Observe, next, that
the years when the official returns for
annual wheat crops are said To be deficient
begin with 800, and include every year
since, under agricultural statisticians OF
both political schools. That is to say,
the very acreage that displeases the
Price Current, Dun's Review, etc, are
exactly those that depend on the census
figures Of Mr.. Hyde. The Times thus
when it ''calls the attention of those
interested to a radical change of policy
in respect to the work criticised graveIy
assumes that those finding fault with
necessary conclusions from that gentle
mems census figures, Will at once be reas-
sured and silenced by official conclusions
deduced and promulgated by the gentle
man himself
Fourthly. It must not be forgotten that
all these accusations of insufficient acre
are founded on hypothesis as to wheat
consumption which falls far short Of veri-
ficaticn. They tell us that the reported
production fails to correspond with its
distribution" without telling us that
the most important part Of this calculated
distribution, the amount consumed as food
in this country, lis little better than guess.
Reports reach US from so many quarters
that miiIers are mixing NOR e and more corn
with the wheat they grind as flour AN ad-
mixture which if made under proper pre-
cautions is rot hurtful and | S difficult of
detection-that our country could easily
consume less and less wheat per inha bitant
without becoming worse and worse nour
ished
For that reason and others, for which
there is not space, we cannot say exactly
how much wheat our fellow-citiZens eat
so that the distribution" on which all
these critics depend may easily be misleai-
ing
If The Times had confined itself to a
discreet rejoicing over the success of Mr..
HYDE in gaining a desirable office, there
would have been no complaint, and this
statement offactsneed not have been made.
Only because it made its congratulation an
occasion for attacking other people, is it
thought desirable to say SO much with
view to correcting it,
HENRY A. ROBINSON.
.CabicgraIps of Two Great Generals.
rIv -