New-York tribune., 1920-06-13
DIR. Laidlaw Saws
n. Y. Census Is
'Puncture Proof
Committee Secretary In
sists 1920 Returns Are
Correct; Makes Minute
Inspection of the Returns
From The Trtou,e's Washington Bureau

From. The Tribune's Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON, June 12.-New York's
census count, as announced by the Cen
sus Bureau, is puncture proof, accord
ing to DR.. Walter Laidaw, of New
York City executive secretary Of the
New York City 1920 Census Committee
who has just completed a minute in
spection OF the returns from Manhat-
tan Island. DR.. Laidlaw tonight issued
the following statement of his findings:
After working for the last three
days with the portfolios and hand
counts of enumeration districts on
Manhsttan Island, l am positively GER
tain that, though realty agents may
rage, and some city departments i'm
aglne vain thing for the verifcation
OF their records, the 1920 census an
nouncement for New York City as
whole and for Manhattan Borough as a
component is puncture proof.
Il do not mean to imply by this that
some individuals were not missed in the
enumeration nor do | vouch for the ac-
tual correctness of inclusion in the ranks
of resident New Workers. as of January
l, 1920, of every one of the twice a mil
lion people whose names are found in
the twenty thousand sheets and more
containing the individual records of
enumeration. But I do mean to assert
that my inspection has shown me that
the census bureau has used the utmost
diligence to discover persons unenumer-
ated, by newspapers. motion picture
screen and correspondence publicity, and
that the 'moppirg up processes have
added names, as such processes should.
IN at least 80 per cent of the 131 sani-
tary districts which | have inspected.
Found All Names
Every name of persons known to
me, claiming to have been neglected in
the daily ministration of enumeration
from January to it's close have found
on the portfolios with the exception of
one-and what is one or even one thou
sand among two million? What is clear
IS that more pains has been put upon
this follow-up process in Manhattan. in
TINS census than in any other since 1890.
There are three of four large con-
slderations which, to my mind, validate
the census for reference and inference
purposes.
"First-Manhattan shows a gain of
l62,563 persons in the sanitary dis
tricts which lie north of Fifty-ninth
Street on the east and west sides of
Central Park. South of Fifty-ninth
Street, on the contrary, there has been
a loss since 1910 of 210,0O2 persons
Manhattan south of Fiftyninth Street,
however, has shown a loss in every
census since 1900, and from 1905 to
1910 would have shown a loss of 251,-
226 persons. if during those five years
248,967 persons coming to America as
immigrants had not settled on Manhat-
tan Island south of Fifty y-ninth Street
TO be enumerated by the census takers
of April 10. 1910. With all this enor-
nous increase from immigration New
York south OF Fifty-ninth Street, from
1905 to 1910, still had loss of 2.259
people.
District Shows Gain
"The main part of the loss south of
Fifty-ninth Street is south of Four
teenth Street. South of Fourteenth
Street from 1905 to 1910 the there was
gain of population of 26,225 persons.
But it took 1s2,s47 names of immi-
grants of the years 1905-1910 to pro-
duce this increase, and above Four
teenth Street to Fifty-ninth Street
there was loss of 22,488, although
56,020 immigrant names of the years
19O5-1910 were included in the port
folos of April Is, 1910.
"In the census just taken, on the
other hand, New York south of Four
teenth Street shows loss of 165,876
persons. and from Fourteenth Street
to Sixtieth Street the loss is 44,126
persons. A tabulation of immigration
into the United States since the cen
sus of 1910 and of emigration proves
to me that New York south Of Fifty
ninth Street could not possibly grow
from immigration as it did in the years
19O5-1910. The detail of this I will