Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-05-17
MISLEADING FIGURES.
Error in Census Plan Of Estimating
Growth Of Population.
From the New York Tribune.

Aioh tHe view 10TH
The Washington Star published last week
some tables. credited to the federal census
bureau. which purported to show the poou-
lation of certain of our larger cities in
1904 and 1905. Tie totals were, of course
estimated. yet they bore the stamp of fed
eral authority. and to the casual reader,
ignorant of the method by which they were
obtained, they must have seemed both &C
curate and trustworthy. But the police
force in Washington has just completed
census of the federal district, and the CEN
sus bureaus figures failed conspicuously to
tally with the actual house-to- house count
According to the census tabulation. the
population of the District of Columbia IS
today 800. SS3. The enumeration made by
the police, however gives the District a
population of 500, 512. The Star seems TO
have been greatly perpleXed by this DIS
crepancy. 1t was willing to admit that the
police might not have made an entirely ac-
curate tally. But it naturally refused TO
believe that they could have been guilty of
overcount of 10000. IF So it said.
their enumeration is practically worthless
But If they did approximate to an accurate
count. Mr.. North estimate is worthless"
We have repeatedly called attention in
these columns TO the wOrthlessness of these
census bureau estimates. They are OBJ
tanned in a very simple way, but in a way
which encourages the grossest errors. The
method followed is purely an arithmetical
in population in any city since 1860 has
been one-tenth of its total increase between
1850 and 1900. AS Washington grew in
population from 2'0,032 in 1880 to 21S, rs in
1900. the census bureau has continued to
credit it with an annual growth Since 1860
of 4,SG0-Or from 1900 to 1895 of $1,000. But
the Washington police census shows that
during those five years the real increase
was 1854. The national capital has. in
fact, begun to develop at an accelerated
pace. From 1880 to 1900 its percentage of
gain was 300. But it is growing now at a
rate-for the decade-of 3O.06 Taking no
account of this quickened growth, the CEN
bureaus estimate for 1905 has neceS-
sarily fallen far short of the 1905 police
count.
The trouble with the bureaus method Is
that it presupposes for every city a fixed
and rigid rate of growth But it is the ex-
ception. not the rule, when an American
city shows a steady average progress
through a long period. Phiadelphia's
growth has been remarkably even in the
last three decades. But in most other cities
decennial percentages have fuctuated wide
ly. Most of our municipalities are subject
to alternating blooms" and slumps in
growth; and 1t is next to impossible to pre-
Dict under such conditions. the changes a
decade will bring. Between 1850 and 1880
Omaha's population increased from 80 900
to $4,000. But by 1900 it had fallen to 102,-
COO. Many other cities have shown varia-
lions In progress almost as erratic. To ap-
ply a hard and fast rule to urban growth
is, under such circumstances, merely to in
vite miscalculations and discrepancies. The
census bureaus estimate of greater New
Yorks population in 1905 is 1902 09T. 1t
takes for granted that the city has grown
from 1900 to 1905 as fast 1t did from
1880 to 1900. which may or may not be a
plausible assumption But the state CEN
sus in June will give much better line on
our actual progress. AS in the case Of the
District of Columbia there may be a serious
discrepancy to explain away. 1t would be
better to have it clearly understood on all
sides that the census bureaus latest popu-
lation figures are not based actual in
vestgation and that they presuppose the
continuance of conditions which in many
cities no longer exist.