The Washington herald., 1910-04-17


10000 or 10000.
One Of the odd and disconcertlng things
about the history OF statistics is the way
IN which the population sharps OF a cen
tury ago estimated the future without
the aids that should enable the Census
Bureau TO come within a few thousands
OF actual census figures In 1916 the edl-
tor OF Niles Register made a detailed es-
innate Of what the census Of 1920 would
show as 20 the population OF the United
states. He really had very little 10 20
on, and he declined 20 say Just how he
reached his conclusion, but he came
within less than $4,000 Of the census fig
ures
he said he had for years supposed that
the census OF 1890 would show a popula-
ton Of about 100000. His guess was a
trihe over 9,ss4OO0 and the actual enumer-
alton was a trihe over 9sSs, 0O0. In some
details his guess was astonlshingly near.
Only $500 Wrong.
He gave an estimate for every State
and Territory, and for New England.
Maryland. and Ohio he was only about
$500 out. In several OF these States he
was within a few hundreds Of the actual
figures, and in none was ne more than
about 1000 out He was within four Of
the actual census figures In North Caro-
lima Il was mainly IN the newer States
that he guessed too high.
The Boston Recorder tried its hand at
census guessing in 1916 with interesting
results The editor took little or no &C
count Of immigration. which was then
trihing, but he figured out from the cen
suses Of 1870. 1900. and 1910 that popula-
ton doubled every twenty-three years.
As there seemed plenty Of room for ex-
pansion and race suicide had not then
been heard Of. he concluded that the in
crease would so on at that rate for al
least a century
Upon this theory he estimated the
population for every twenty-three years
up 20 1925. He had before him figures Of
the census OF 1910. which showed about
l,240000 inhabitants He placed the popv-
lation Of 1893 at 100000. Of 1856 al 2s.-
ooo. oo0 OF 1879 at 100000. Of 1902 a. Il2.-
o0o.0Oo and OF 1925 at 224O0o,O00. He must
have been very close TO the actual fg-.-es
in 1879. for the census Of 1880 gave nearly
100000 people. He was not far OF in
1856, for the census OF 1850 showed nearly
p, 10000 inhabitants and that OF 1850
little more than g, 10000, but he was
fully 100000 too high in 1879 and more
than 100000 too high in 1902 even II the
colonies, Of which ne had no inkling. be
taken into account. His estimate for 1925
seems likely at the current rate OF in
crease in this country TO be considerably
more than 10000 90 too high
Declining Birth Rate.
The source Of his error lay in the de-
clining birth rate. which he did not fore
see When he made his estimate the
death rate had been steadily decreasing
since 17s0. when IL was . a thousand. BY
Ils2o ii had sunk 10 a shade over 20lz a
thousand. The losses of the civil war
also helped 20 throw out his calculations.
and the huge increase OF immigration. OF
which he had no thought. was not sufi-
Client 10 make UP for the checks TO popu-
] lation left out Of account
! There was much interest the country
over in the results OF the census OF 1870.
when the population surprised all but
those who had studied earlier statistics
Before the general results Of that census
were made known the Albany Plough
Boy made a computation for that year
and each decennial period 10 1900
The statstician knew that the birth
rate as Yet showed no sign OF falling of
and that the death rate was quite rapidly
decreasing. while there was vast unoe-
cUpied territory open 10 settlers. though
Texas and the region beyond the Rockies
were still IN the hands Of strangers and
the fate Of the Oregon country was un-
certain. The Plough Boy had no suspi-
oion that the trifing immigration Of the
period would grow 10 hundreds OF thou
sands annually within the next thirty
years. He was not so sanguine as the
editor who had counted upon the doubling
OF the population every tweny three years,
however, and he worked upon an elabo-
rate plan. for he gives his results not only
in thousands. but down 10 units
He was nearly 10000 too high for 1920
about 10000 TOO high for 1880. and nearly
10000 too high for IS4O, and again 200. og
too high for 1880. He had counted toe
much upon the birth rate. but by this
time immigration had begun 70 be heavy
anu MS estimate AVT 1917 was less man
10000 too high. he was more than 1.250,
1000 too high for 1870 and more than $500
IOOo too high for 1850 HIS calculation for
1880 was 100000 too high and for 1900
NEARLY 2550O.O00 too high
Proves Good Porphet.
Niles, Of the Register, undertook esu-
mates Of the population for decennial
periods about 1890 and proved a better
prophet than his contemporaries. He was
not more than q quarter OF a million out
IN any census year UP TO and including
1850. and in some years he was within
about 5000 OF the census figures.
His calculations were hopelessly wrong
for the first time as 20 the census OF $50.
and thereafter 10 the end Of the century
he was more and more az variance with
lactual census results. Like his fellow
lstatisticians. he presumed upon contin-
Iuing high birth rate and upon a steady
llessening Of the death rate. but expected
no great things OF immigration. The
elements which he neglected balanced
pretty fairly up 20 1850 but the havoc Of
the civil war and the check TO the birth
rate set him wrong after that. so thai
even the vast immigration OF the las
forty years did not make up the loss.