Evening star., 1901-09-26
MARYLAND CENSUS
Director Merriam Announces Result
Of Investigation.
FEDERAL And SFATBFIGURES CORRECT
Kent County Representation Not
to Be Reduced.
STAKES UNAVOIDABLE

| Director Merriam of the census Office to-
| day gave out a statement in which the
| differences between the federal and state
| censuses of Kent county, Maryland. are
! explained in detail. The director shows
| that the census taken by the state, which
| reduced the popuIa atfon of Kent county 99s,
| and thereby also reduced by one the rep
resentation of the county in the state leg
| islature. was erroneous
Director Merriam says:
at Is well known that the population of
Kent county has been reported by the fed
eral authorities to have been IS, 1856 in
June, 1900. while the state authorities
ported it to have been II, ,7SS in May 1901.
difference of 99S. The investigation of
this difference, with view to a correct
and satisfactory explanation. has been
work of great difficulty, and has just been
completed.
According to the federal plan of sub
division of territory. there were eleven emu
meration districts in the county, in two of
which the figures were so close that it was
not deemed necessary to make house to
house canvass in more than nine of the
eleven districts.
Method of Investigation.
1.-THE method of investigation pursued
was as follows:
made of the names upon the federal CEN
sus schedules. These cards were taken to
Baltimore, and by the courtesy of the
state superintendent of census a force of
clerks detailed for that purpose from
Washington. was permitted to compare the
state and federal lists, name by name
checking those returned by both sets of
enumeratorS, and leaving unchecked those
on the federal but not on the state schedules
AT the same time, list was made of
names found upon the state but not upon
the federal schedules. After the compile
tion of these supplementary list a detail
of clerks sent to Kent county for the
purpose of inquiring with reference to each
name either list, whether the person
indicated was correctly returned by the ed
eral or by the state enumerators. the
case might be- After the reports made by
these special agents in the field had been
received a thorough search was made in
the office for duplicates Of al sorts in the
federal and state lists separately and as
between the two, and it is the minute char |
acter of this search in detail which has |
delayed the publication of any authorita-
tive statement with reference to the result |
Obviously two lists of persons residing
in any given territory, taken at intervals OF
eleven months apart, could, by any possi- |
bility. be Identical. Part of the difference
between the two sets of schedules is ac- |
counted for by the number of births. |
deaths and changes of residence which oc-
CURED between June, 1860, and May, 1901.
Perfect Census Impossible.
1T is impossible to enumerate population |
anywhere, under any circumstances, with |
out the occurrence of errors, of omission on |
the one hand and of duplication on the |
other. The theory upon which statistical |
reasoning proceeds is that the number of |
errors by excess approximately equals the |
number of errors by defect These dupIi- |
cations occur in various ways, but princi- |
pally through the enumeration of the same |
person as member of the family to which |
oa1 1el0 al- tNz
or in some other district, as member of |
the household in which he is employed or
actually resides. The Implications between |
the two sets of schedules are due to diff
ferences of name and the fact that the
same individual is reported under one name
by one enumerator and under another
name by another, as for instance, when
girl who was single in June, 1900 and went
by her maiden name at that date, was re-
ported under the name of her husband in
May, 1901, having married during the year
There are also many persons (for the most
part neSroes) who are known by various
names in the community in which they
live, being called sometimes by one name
and sometimes by another. This happens
for instance, where mother has children
by different husbands, who are reported by
one enumerator under the name of their
actual father and by another under the
name of their stepfather. These and other
similar cases illustrate the difficulty CT
determining with precision in every in
stance whether the same individual is or is
not meant by both sets of enumera tors
The house to house canvass (omitting
the families which were identically re-
turned by both sets of enumerators) which
was made by the special agents of the cor-
sus ONCE In Kent county enabled the Office
to determine, in individual instan noes near
ly all, If not all, of the questions thus
raised. and also to ascertain what individ-
ualS returned by the federal enumerazo-s
put not by those of the state. had IN fact,
dled or removed from the district or from
the county before the state census; also
in many cases, which of the persons re-
turned by the state but not by the federal
enumerators had been born or moved into
the district or the county during the eleven
months following June l, 1900
General Result.
The general result of this Investigation
Is as follows:
The population of the five election dis
tricts canVassed was. according to the fed
eral census, 15,64O. BY the state census II
was 1851. The federal census therefore
shows 1109 more persons than the state
enumeration The number of names found
on both sets of schedules Is PASS leaving
a,lo2 names on the federal, but not on the
state list and 2043 names on the state,
put 3,n not on the federal list which makes a
dlHerence, as above, Of 1 ,109. >
The accuracy of the state census need
not be discussed. except In so far as a |
study of the state schedules incidentally
throws light upon the question of the ac-
curacy of the federal census
"Of the 3.152 names ON the federal but
not on the state list our investigation
shows that 1857 had removed from the
enumeration districts in which they were
reported June 1, 1900. between that date
and May /, 1901; that 1SO had died. that |
16S We're duplicated in the districts in |
which reported. and 256 duplicated in other
districts in the county in which they were
properly enumerated; that "a were i'm
properly enumerated; that 139 were un-
known or fictitious: that 1S could not be
located, making 2,432 names in all which |
should not have been reported by the state
enumerators and were not and leaving 72O |
which should have been returned by them,
but were in fact omitted.
Federal Census Too Small.
with these facts in our possession. the
federal census requires correction In the
first instance by the elimination of CAT |
names duplicated or improperly enumer-
ated.