American Industry in the Census

THE industry of the country − using that term as it is known to census-mongers− has special claims upon the authorities, legislative or administrative, of the approaching ninth census of the United States. Had the returns of population in 1860 aggregated but a miserable total of twenty millions, when it was certain that the true number could not be less than thirty millions, and when the best unofficial estimates set the population of the States a million and a half higher, no one would have questioned that it was full time to reform the methods of the census, − if, indeed, such a mortifying conclusion had not caused the suppression of the whole work as too bad for publication. Yet the seemingly extreme case which we have supposed, of failure in the population returns of the eighth census, falls far short of the actual misrepresentation with regard to the “ Products of Industry,” in the third and largest of the four quarto volumes which embody the results of the enumeration of 1860. Those tables have for years been quoted and indorsed, appealed to and argued from, by editors, economists, and statesmen, at home and abroad : they have been used with confidence in ascertaining the law of the national growth ; economical legislation has been shaped by them ; they have been made the basis of internal taxation, and have governed the distribution of banking capital among the States : yet a few simple tests are sufficient to determine that not two thirds, certainly, of the national production is represented in these pretentious tables ; while it is only the incompleteness of other parts of the work which leaves room for any doubt whether so much as one half of the actual net production of the country − properly and easily cognizable by the census − receives credit in this account of the national industry.

I have not space here for a full analysis of this portion of the last census ; but a few instances will be sufficient to give an impression of the manner in which it deals with the standard industries of the Country. The volume on “ Manufactures ” (including, besides manufactures proper, all mechanical and mining operations) professes to give, among others, the products of four of the more common trades, − coopering, blacksmithing, carpentering, and painting. Yet a comparison of these tables with the " Occupations of the People,” in the volume on Population, exhibits the startling fact that, of 43,624 coopers working at their trade, the production of only 13,750 is accounted for among the “ products of industry " ; of 112,357 blacksmiths enumerated, only 15,720, including one heroic woman, contribute to the reported production of their craft; of 242,958 carpenters, only 9,006, and of 51,695 painters, only 913, find a place in the tables of industry : that is, of the first-named trade only 32 per cent, of the second 14 per cent, of the third 3.7 per cent, and of the fourth 1.8 per cent. Or, to aggregate these figures : out of 450,634 artisans, of the most efficient and the best remunerated classes, only 39,389, or less than 9 per cent, are credited with contributing anything to the production of the country. If the 411,245 artisans thus summarily put without the pale of American industry had produced as much, man for man, as their fellows who were honored with admission to the tables of production, the gross products of industry would, by the full representation of these four trades alone, have been increased $ 475,755,951, or a little over 25 per cent of what is actually reported ; while the net production − that is, deducting the cost of raw materials consumed − would have been increased in a still higher ratio, namely, by $284,229,445 upon a total of $854,256,584, or as closely as possible to 33 1/3per cent.

It is not necessary to prove, or even to assume, that the omissions in other branches of industry were in proportion to those cited, in order to substantiate the assertion that not two thirds of the true industrial production of the country were embraced in the enumeration of 1860; nor would the admitted impracticability of including in the reported product of any given trade the production of the entire number engaged in that trade account for more than a very small part of the gigantic discrepancy that has been shown to exist. After making all the deductions that could reasonably be claimed, there would still remain a breach − to the extent of hundreds of thousands of able workmen, and hundreds of millions of clear production − between the industries of the country properly and practically within the cognizance of the enumerator, and the same as reported in the census of 1860. It is in this vast disproportion between objects and results, that we find a sufficient reason − though a reason were to be found nowhere else − for a change of method in the enumeration of 1870.

If the wholesale omissions which have been indicated were due to faults of enumeration solely or chiefly, they would have to be accepted with the best grace possible, and we should have to be content with making allowance for their probable extent and effect, since faults of enumeration will always occur ; nor is it probable that any law which Congress may enact for the organization of this service, or any endeavor, however honest and spirited, of the authorities in charge, to distribute its parts with a view to the highest efficiency, will succeed in getting the better of that wretched system of political patronage which perverts and corrupts all the offices of our government. Any scheme which depends upon unexceptionably good enumerators is destined to failure. Congressmen will continue to dictate the larger appointments, and the miserable chicane of local politics will determine the distribution of the subordinate positions.

But the grave faults which have been indicated in the census of 1860 were not due to practical defects of enumeration, but were the natural and necessary results of two capital errors incorporated in the system itself: the one was in restricting the inquiries of the census to the production of merchantable articles ; the second, in embracing only those establishments which produced to the annual value of $500.

Had the latter limitation been a genuine one, honestly observed, there would have been more to say for it, although the command to despise not the day of small things applies in nothing with more force than in the economy of industry ; and there is no question with which the statesmanship of the day is more concerned than with the condition of the “ trades " as distinguished from the larger manufactures. But, in fact, the restriction was one which was not nor would be honestly observed. Such a limitation served in 1860−and would always so serve − as a wholesale excuse to all minor establishments whose production might reasonably be anywhere in the neighborhood of $ 500, whenever the proprietor preferred, for any reason, not to be enumerated, or the assistant marshal reckoned the trouble of a visit, perhaps of a journey as well as a visit, at something higher than the fifteen cents which the law allowed him for the service.

There is even less to be said for the first limitation. A restriction of the inquiries of the census to establishments of a certain annual production − if proved to be mistaken policy− was at least founded on an intelligible principle. But there is absolutely no reason for excepting from the tale of the national production that vast and varied contribution to the capital of the country, as well as to the daily comfort and enjoyments of its people, which is made by industries whose production does not take a merchantable form. The farther a people advances in the arts of life, the greater the importance which is assumed by services as distinguished from commodities. It is little better than barbarism to treat those industries as alone worthy the consideration of the economist and the care of the statesman, which depend on commerce to distribute their products. The contribution which is made by the artisans of the country is far more valuable than that which is made by its factory hands; and the prosperity of “ the trades,” where every man is a complete workman, and furnishes his own capital, is not only the best indication of the general well-being, but it is the strongest security for that great body of labor which is engaged in “ manufactures,” commonly so called, where operatives are subdivided and capital aggregated, until the individuality of the workman is lost, and his independence gravely endangered. Once break down the artisan’s power of self-support, and capital will find it easy to dominate uncontrolled over labor, dictating its seasons and methods, doling out the scantiest subsistence, and maintaining a discipline which is consistent neither with industrial nor social freedom.

And not only do the mechanical, as distinguished in popular language from the manufacturing, industries deserve a full representation at the coming census on account of the greater number of persons employed and the higher average productiveness attained, but because it is to the artisan that we owe the grandest and most substantial additions to the capital of the country. To disregard the armies of able and skilled workmen who are every year building up cities for manufacture, cities for habitation, and cities for trade in all parts of our land, bridging our rivers, connecting our navigable waters by canals, and our oceans by railways, and covering those oceans with stanchly-built fleets, and to give up the census of industry to the sole work of enumerating the production of articles that can be done up in parcels, sold across the counter, and carried off in the pocket, is irrational, and subversive of the purposes of such a national inquiry.

Enough perhaps has been said, to justify two propositions : −

That all mechanical and manufacturing industry should be enumerated, without regard to any arbitrary limit of production.

That the value of all services rendered and work done should be included, whether in the form of merchantable articles, or of jobbing and repairing.

When it is remembered how great is the body of labor, and how mighty the mass of products, which will be included or excluded, according as these propositions are accepted or rejected, we shall surely be pardoned for insisting so strenuously upon them. They are in truth fundamental; and the census of 1870 cannot be a success if these conditions are disregarded.

It might be added, but rather as a matter of administrative detail than as requiring legislative sanction, that it would be well to have these two classes of production−that is, in merchantable articles, and in direct services − distinguished, both upon the returns to the authorities of the census and upon their publications. If it were only to set these two great classes of producers in their right relation to each other, and to establish by an irrefragable demonstration the importance of industries which have hitherto been wholly neglected, or, what is worse, partially and disparagingly represented, the results would fully justify the inquiry. But there is still another consideration. The two thousand million dollars’ worth, more or less, of merchantable articles, now annually produced by the mechanical and mining industries, require the intervention of the trading class. Not less than three quarters of a million of persons are to-day engaged in the exchanges of the country, not to speak of those engaged in transportation; and of these one half, at the least, must be regarded as occupied in buying and selling the products of American industry, − using that term still in its technical sense. This body of commodities, approximating the tremendous total of two thousand millions of dollars, is conveyed from the producer to the consumer by a series of exchanges which can hardly average less than three in number, and with a percentage of expenses and profits − taking all kinds of goods together − that must amount to fifty per cent upon their original cost. What a tremendous fact ! What an addition it involves to the ultimate value of the products of the national industry ! All these additional laborers are virtually required, to complete the product for the purposes of the consumer. The cost of their maintenance, the expenses of their business, the profits on which they grow rich, or the losses by which they are ruined, alike, and all together, have to be paid by the consumer, just as truly as the cost of the raw materials, the wages of the factory hands, or the dividends of the manufacturing corporation.

On the other hand, with that large, perhaps equally large, class of production which has been indicated, there is no such element to be reckoned in the final cost. There is no middle-man here, no exchange, no transportation. Producer and consumer are face to face. The moment the job is finished, the transfer of property is complete, or even more frequently the transfer is made with every movement of the arm : the blow is no sooner struck than the value which it creates has passed fully and finally into the possession of him for whom it is intended.

Is it not then clear that few questions could be more important than that which determines what share of these thousand millions of the national production escapes the intervention of exchange ; and upon what share commerce imposes its tremendous tax, amounting to not less than half the original cost? Is not this, indeed, a prime element in ascertaining the value of that production ? Important as it is, it may be ascertained by the simple machinery of a double column for values : one for merchantable articles, − the other for jobbing, repairing, and all direct services. In the majority of cases, the parties enumerated would be required, from the character of their business, to fill only one column, just as if there were only one ; and in the exceptional cases, where the production is of both kinds, the distinction would be found as easy as any which the census would be likely to require.

But it is clear that if all industrial establishments, great or small, are to be enumerated, the interrogatories of the census must be brought down to the capacity and opportunities of the humblest. The schedule adopted for the eighth census had this grave fault, that it made the same demands upon the small mechanic working at his bench, with perhaps a single apprentice, − unaccustomed to writing, unfamiliar with accounts, and having neither time nor spirit to enter into elaborate calculations,-− as upon a large manufacturing corporation having a corps of skilled accountants, and keeping its books by double entry. Such a want of discrimination is neither just nor reasonable. If a schedule be reduced to such simplicity as to be within the comprehension of the former, it will be puerile when applied to the major establishments of the country. On the other hand, a schedule framed to elicit all the important facts of the larger industries will prove incomprehensible to the whole body of the minor trades. And again, let a compromise be attempted between the two, and the probabilities are, as the fact has been, that the schedule will neither be made plain and practicable for the one, nor useful and comprehensive for the other. Such was the schedule of 1860. With the idea of enumerating the cobbling-shop and the giant factory upon one blank form, more was put in than was at all suitable for the former, while so much was left out as to make the results in the case of the latter of little or no value. Fourteen questions were inserted, only ten of which could have any significance in the case of the smaller establishments. Yet the four unnecessary questions added were of a character to cause more difficulty than all the remaining ten. They were the “ kinds " and “ quantities ” of raw materials used, and the kinds and quantities of the resulting product. It cannot for a moment have been supposed that the answers to these questions would be required in the case of the vast majority of the smaller establishments. We have spoken of these unnecessary and vexatious questions as four ; but in fact the inquiries were of such a nature as to require eight answers, or twelve, or some higher multiple of four, whenever the materials used, or the products resulting, were of more than one “kind.” Probably, as industries average in this respect, these four questions required not less than eight answers, by far the most difficult and annoying of the whole to a small mechanic or manufacturer. Yet−astonishing as it may seem − after 140,433 establishments had been put to the trouble of answering these questions, the answers were tabulated in the case of only 7,115 of them, or five in a hundred.

Such is the inevitable result of an attempt to enumerate all the industries of the country, and establishments of every grade, upon a single schedule. And this is not an extreme, but rather a moderate example, since the industrial schedule of 1860, from a desire to accommodate it to the capacity and comprehension of the smaller and less favored, was made painfully meagre, and indeed wholly inadequate to the enumeration of the great manufacturing interests. Had anything like a comprehensive schedule for these been taken as the common measure of all, the results would have been still more unsatisfactory. We reach, therefore, a third proposition, which I desire to emphasize as strongly as possible : −

That there should be one schedule far more simple and compact than that of 1860, upon which the whole body of smaller establishments should be enumerated, to exhibit the number of persons employed, the number interested as owners or partners, the value of materials consumed, the amount paid in wages, and the value of the annual product. This is all that should be expected from establishments of this class. Just what line should be drawn, to make division between the establishments to be thus enumerated, and those of greater industrial importance and larger opportunities, is not of great consequence. Such a line could easily be found ; and it matters less what it is, than that there should be a division. The most natural discrimination would be according to the number of persons employed. Establishments having less than a certain number should be expected to answer only the few simple inquiries that have been indicated.

And, on the other hand, it is the proper complement of our proposition regarding small establishments, that the great manufacturing industries should lie enumerated in such a way, whether by a general schedule, or by schedules specially adapted to each branch of business, as will bring out most clearly and fully the main facts of their present condition, and afford the amplest means for statistical retrospect and comparison. The facts to be elicited should not be industrial merely, but such also as are of sanitary and social significance.

The necessity of such an enumeration is not questioned. It is admitted on all hands that the next census must do a great deal more for American industry than the last, or it had better do nothing. Whatever excuse there may have been heretofore, now at least the industrial interests of the country have become of sufficient importance to deserve enumeration upon a liberal and comprehensive scheme. Few persons will be found of such narrow views as to wish to restrict the inquiries of the next census to the bounds of the last.

But upon the details of the schedule there is no such agreement. Out of the scores of questions, of social, sanitary, technical, or economical interest, which might be asked, it is a difficult task to select the twenty-five or thirty which would fill the most liberal schedule that, with due regard to the practical success of the census, could be allowed to manufactures. It is a matter of proportion wholly. Questions must be admitted into such a schedule which are of no importance in many branches of industry, on account of their great importance in others. Compromise must be made, at every step, with the known difficulties of enumeration. Not what we would have, but what we can get, must determine, in the last resort the admission of every new question. Moreover, a schedule must be a whole, − containing, it may be, inquiries which would be of no great significance in a different connection, but which are the proper complement of others, and essential to the integrity of the scheme. A schedule must, therefore, be judged as a whole, and accepted or rejected accordingly.

With so much of preface, we proceed to state, one by one, the inquiries which appear most appropriate to an enumeration of industry at this time, having regard as is due to the economical idiosyncrasies of our people, to the degree of their industrial development, and to the great open questions of the day respecting labor. Each question will be accompanied by its raison d'être, and so much of explanation as may seem necessary, and a résumé at the close will exhibit the schedule in its entirety.

First, of the purely formal questions, “ Name of company, corporation, or individual ? ” and Location ? ” the schedule should require the “ Number of persons interested as owners or partners, not stockholders.” It is surprising that the census of 1860 gives no clew to this, perhaps the most important single fact in the industry of the country. Not only is there nothing from which it can be gathered, but we are even left to conjecture whether the owners or partners of the mechanical and manufacturing establishments enumerated are or are not included in the numbers reported. Especially at the present time, when the questions of wages, of the hours of labor, and of co-operation, have risen into supreme importance, we need to know how many there are who share in the profits of business, and how many live upon stipulated wages.

“ Capital invested ? ” is a stereotyped inquiry of the census. It is popularly supposed to be of great value. It is in truth of the least consequence. Except in the case of corporations, it is a question which few business men can answer intelligently, and which fewer still are disposed to answer honestly. But there is such a degree of virtue attributed to the inquiry that no census could command popular confidence which neglected to ask it. Happy census, if obliged to make no greater sacrifice to ignorance and prejudice !

A census of industry at this time certainly should contain, with more or less particularity, an enumeration of the steam and water power employed in mining and manufacture, − an element of vast importance in determining the industrial capability of the country, yet in respect to which it is absolutely impossible, with our present information, to make the rudest conjecture.

It is a matter of more nicety, to distribute the questions relating to labor. No part of the general subject has greater claims than this. The prime distinctions of age and sex should of course be observed. Another point of value is, whether the labor is done in shop or out of shop. With male labor, the consideration involved is chiefly sanitary, the average duration of life varying considerably according to this condition. With women, however, it has an entirely different significance. When we say that a man works out of shop, we mean, also, that he works out of doors. But when we say that a woman works out of shop, it is understood that she works at home. This again implies, as a general rule,−taking all branches of female industry together,− that she is not wholly dependent on her labor for support; but, having a father, son, brother, or husband with whom she lives, takes this means of adding something to the family income, or of securing perhaps a little convenient pocket-money.

Now it is this competition of women having a partial subsistence secured that tells most speedily and heavily upon the wages of women. A class of competitors of this kind will do more to bring down and keep down the price of work than the accession of five times their number strictly and solely dependent on their labor. And they do this by lowering that scale of “ necessary wages,” as the economists express it, which prevents the remuneration of labor from sinking below the limits of a decent support. The women of our cities, although the sex is not apt to be very severely logical on the subject of its grievances, already recognize this competition as one of the chief causes which keep the price of their labor so far below that of men. The census would, therefore, make a valuable contribution to the industrial and social knowledge of the country if it would show what proportion of the half-million women employed in mechanical pursuits work in shop, and what proportion take their work home.

Of course, the hours of labor, for summer and for winter, should be shown, and the number of months each establishment has been running less than full time. Two other questions relating to labor, although not vitally important, would be exceedingly interesting and instructive, as tending to show the Ishmaelitish character of our industry ; viz., the greatest number employed at any one time, and the total number of persons employed during the year. The difference between these figures and those which show the average number engaged (the stereotyped question of the census) would present very striking and very significant results, both in regard to the quality of our labor and the habits of our people.

That, after requiring these particulars, the schedule should call for the “amount paid in wages during the year,” is not one of the disputed points. The only question might be as to the form of the inquiry. That given above is preferable to “cost of labor” (as in 1860), since the latter is ambiguous, and is commonly understood to embrace the value of the labor of owners or partners when working at their trade, which is precisely what ought not to be included. Their remuneration is to be derived from the profits of their business, and those are to be calculated from the difference between the united cost of labor, materials, and power, and the total value of the resultingproduct. It is of prime importance to obtain the wages of the country, pure and simple.

Next after these facts relating to labor, the schedule of industry should require the number and kinds of “ special machines,” such as Jacquard or coach-lace looms in the silk manufacture, braiding and circular machines in worsted-mills, “ sets ” of machinery in woollen-mills, spindles and looms in cotton-mills, pegging and sewing machines in boot and shoe manufactories, etc., etc. The trouble of answering these questions is merely the trouble of writing down the figure and the words, while the tabulated results would be not only of the highest value to the several trades, but of general interest as showing the extensive introduction of these auxiliaries of human power.

The “ cost of fuel for power,” when steam or caloric engines are used, is another matter well worthy of a single inquiry. The cost of fuel for heating, on the other hand, or for such special processes as vulcanizing india-rubber, or calendering paper, should be merged in the “cost of materials ” generally,− on the principle that two items, one large and the other small, should not be lumped, since in that case you know neither the one nor the other. If, for example, I say that Mr. Stewart’s income and my own unitedly make the sum of $3,025,800, I convey but little idea to a stranger of the wealth of Mr. Stewart and myself respectively ; whereas the former gentleman’s $ 3,025,000 well deserves to be stated separately, and my snug little salary of three figures might as well be left to the imagination.

The “amount paid for transportation ” is another point of great and growing interest. The total railroad freights of the country, of course, could and should be obtained from the railroads themselves ; but it is also desirable to show how this tremendous aggregate, which employs forty thousand miles of rail, is divided among the three great branches of production, − manufacturing, mining, and commerce ; and, still further, how it is distributed among the various industries. This item should include the amounts paid, both for the freight of materials to the factory or mine, and for the transportation of the product to market.

We come again upon disputed ground when we add the questions, “kinds,” “quantities,” and “values” of materials consumed, and of the resulting products. The strongest objection which is made to requiring these facts is derived from the circumstance that so little use was made of this information in the last census. After exacting these answers, confessedly the most difficult and perplexing of all, from more than one hundred and forty thousand establishments, the results were tabulated for only about seven thousand, leaving a hundred and thirty-three thousand proprietors, put to this trouble for nothing.

The plea is certainly a strong one, but it does not disprove the importance of obtaining quantitative statements relative to the great staple industries of the country. We have already, it will be remembered, provided for the exemption of the whole body of small manufacturers and mechanics, the information from whom could not be of much value, while it would be obtained with undue difficulty and annoyance. Seventy-five per cent of the establishments to be enumerated at the coming census (not by any means − please to observe − three quarters of the labor employed, or of the values produced) would come within this exception. The remainder ought to be enumerated by quantities ; and of these, with anything like proper arrangements, the replies of four fifths ought to be in such shape as to be tabulated with a considerable fulness of detail ; that is, instead of five per cent, as in 1860, twenty per cent of the establishments embraced in another census (involving perhaps fifty per cent of the labor and the production) ought to be tabulated with respect to the principal facts of consumption and production. The country wishes to know what it is that these establishments produce, and how much there is of it. It is a surprising fact that, with over twelve thousand boot and shoe factories in 1860, we do not learn even approximately how many pairs were made in the United States. The people should be enabled to learn the amount of coal and iron, lead and copper, gold and silver, annually mined ; the cotton, woollen, worsted, silk, and linen fabrics, woven and spun, and the amount of the staple consumed in each ; the quantities of bar, boiler, plate, and railroad iron produced, and of steel, cutlery, and machinery of all kinds turned out from the fast multiplying establishments of the country ; the number of locomotives and stationary engines ; the number of the principal classes of agricultural implements ; the thousands of mowers and reapers, tedders and threshers, not to speak of the hundreds of thousands of sewing-machines for domestic relief; the tons of writing, printing, and wall paper, and what share of it is made from native or imported rags, what share from old paper or cotton waste, what from poplar or other woods, and what from that new product of the Iberian peninsula, the already famous “Esparto grass”; the boots and shoes made, counted by millions of pairs ; the annual yield of our flouring-mills ; the lumber sawn and planed; the amount of coal used by the hundreds of gas companies in our cities and larger towns, the amount of gas produced, and its cost to the consumer.

We have now gone through the list of inquiries, which, having regard to all circumstances and conditions, the intrinsic difficulties of enumeration, the present demands of economical science, and the peculiarities of the national industry, appear to us on the whole, and as a whole, most appropriate to be placed on the schedule of manufactures. Let us throw them into order, dropping, for convenience, the tabular form : −

Name of corporation, company, or individual ? Location ?

Number of persons interested as owners or partners (not stockholders) ?

Capital invested ?

Power {

Kind?

Number of water-wheels or of steam-engines ?

Total horse-power ?

Labor employed ?

Average number of males over 16yrs. in shop?

“ " “ “ “ out of shop?

Average number of females over 15 yrs. in shop ?

“ “ “ “ “ out of shop ?

Average number of children and youths?

Greatest number employed at any one time ?

Total number of persons employed during year?

Hours of labor, − summer ?

“ “ winter?

No. of months running on full time?

“ “ “ half or three-quarter time ?

Amount paid in wages during the year ?

Cost of fuel for power ?

Special machines, number?

“ " description ?

Materials used, kinds ?

“ “ quantities?

“ “ values?

Amount of these materials presumably of foreign

production ?

Amount paid for transportation ?

Products, merchantable, kinds ?

“ " quantities?

“ " values ?

Value of all jobbing and repairing clone during year ?

Another principal feature of the enumeration of manufactures should be the use of special schedules for all those industries which by reason of their magnitude, their novelty, or their relation to the social condition of the people, are of sufficient importance to justify a separate line of inquiry.

The objects to be attained through such schedules are, firstly, to secure a greater uniformity and completeness in the statement of the kinds and quantities of materials and of products than is possible under a general blank ; and, secondly, to elicit facts which are purely special to the industry and could not be reached by any series of general interrogatories. There is hardly a branch of production in reference to which, by means of blanks specially prepared for it, some few questions cannot be introduced which add little or nothing to the labor of enumeration, but add almost incalculably to the real worth of the results obtained.

Yet, while the value of information thus obtained could not be overestimated, the more immediate and palpable advantage of the special blank is to secure such uniformity in the methods of returning “ kinds,” “ quantities,” and “ special machinery,” as to render tabulation not only possible but easy.

We have seen the results of employing general blanks only, in the last census. We have seen that hardly five per cent of the establishments enumerated made their returns in form for tabulation. Something of this want of success was due undoubtedly to exceptional causes ; but the great source of the mischief was in the system alone. Such has been the result in every census of industry taken upon this plan ; and such, in the nature of the case, it must be. Under the general blank, each man is left to fill out the columns, “kinds,” “quantities,” and “values” (twice, − once for materials, and once for products), according to his own tastes or inclination. He has no idea how much particularity is desired, or how fully his neighbors and rivals will report their operations. If he really wishes to comply with the intention of the law, he is at a complete loss to decide what is the best method of classifying the kinds of his materials and products. The determination of this question, which is a matter for serious consideration by the best-informed statistician, is thus thrown by turns upon each one of many thousands of manufacturers. It is no exaggeration to say that this uncertainty alone is likely to cause more trouble and annoyance than answering any reasonable number of specific questions.

The result of it all is that some, out of conscientiousness or from a real interest in securing a complete and correct census of their industry, will make their answers even more full and explicit than is necessary ; while others will put in just as little as possible, disregarding perhaps the plainest natural divisions between the different classes of products and materials. Each man’s inclination is thus made the measure of his duty; and uniformity of practice becomes impossible. Where there is no uniformity of practice, there can be no comparison and no tabulation of results. No matter how fully and intelligently nine tenths of a trade report their operations, if the remainder, from ignorance, indolence, or indifference, fail to do the same, the benefit of the whole is lost.

For all this uncertainty, vexation, and confusion to enumerator, enumerated, and compiler, the special schedule offers a clear and easy remedy, substituting for the diverse tastes and inclinations of a thousand manufacturers a single straight rule by which all can govern themselves, and which, by making compilation a mere work of transcription, saves far more in clerical service than the trifling additional cost of printing required.

It would be easy to show, by a few illustrations, that the special blank, besides accomplishing what the general blank so commonly fails to do, is economical both of space and time ; and that the same information can be gathered by it with half the number of questions to ask and answer. But in truth, special schedules have been used to such an extent and with such a degree of success as to excuse us from discussing their practical details at length. Such forms, distributed from the office of the marshal of the district, a week or two before the enumeration, to be filled out at leisure, taken up by the assistants on their rounds, and forwarded, without any attempt at compilation, to the central bureau, would present a view of the national industry such as no enumeration on a single stereotyped form could effect, and would afford results to the economist and the statesman, of the highest and most lasting value.

There still remains one division of the census to be spoken of, which, although it is embraced in the schedule of population, and not of manufactures, pertains as much as any other to the industry of the country. It is the enumeration of the “occupations of the people.” Perhaps no matter treated by the last census is more of popular interest than this. There are no technicalities about these tables ; the terms are those of common life ; and the least studious person is almost equally interested with the scholar in seeing what his countrymen are about, and what proportion the various trades and professions bear to each other. It has also an additional importance in the economical point of view, inasmuch as the products of the industry of many classes must, at the best, escape direct enumeration.

Unfortunately, this portion of the work attained a bad pre-eminence in the census of 1860, as the worst-taken in the enumeration and the most unintelligently handled in the compilation. Indeed, it is difficult to see how any man could allow his name to be affixed to such a preposterous publication. We shall best indicate the measures necessary to reform this branch of the census, by locating, as precisely as possible, the failures of the last enumeration.

The more obvious of these mistakes fall naturally into two classes. The first is where some technical occupation, which notoriously employs a large number of persons, is put down as affording employment only to hundreds, or tens, or even less than ten, throughout the country, the explanation being simply that those engaged have been reported under some other and more general class. In such a case it would seem but natural that such special occupation should be omitted entirely, instead of being put down with numbers that are manifestly disproportionate. For example, we find the number of “rectifiers” in the United States gravely reported as two. “ Bobbin-makers ” are three in number ; willow-workers, three; cellar-diggers, four, all in Missouri ; boot-blacks, fourteen, all in California ; cotton-brokers, two, both in North Carolina; chandeliermakers, three ; “ smelters,” two ; edgetool makers, live, all in Kentucky ; instrument-makers, two; sleigh-makers, two ; “ grinders ” (whatever that may signify), seventy-nine. Perhaps the following is even more grotesque : Book-keepers, in Illinois, 554 ; in Massachusetts, 593 ; in Pennsylvania, 519; in Texas, 68; in New York, none.

In another class of cases, the same occupation has been reported under several different names ; and the central authorities have not ventured on the great responsibility of combining and reducing them. Thus, under the head " Domestics,” we have the following entries : Alabama, none ; Arkansas, 797; California, none : Connecticut, none; Delaware, 1638 ; Florida, 631; Georgia, none ; Illinois, none ; Indiana, none ; Iowa, − more civilized, − 358 ; Kansas, none ; Kentucky, 1782. These States alone report; Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, etc., being apparently destitute of such accessaries − after the fact − of civilization. Turning, however, to the title of“ Servants,” we find the deficiencies explained, the number reported unner that head reaching the very pretty total of 559,908 ; New York, which had not a domestic, employing, it seems, 155,288 servants. Now it need not be said that the domestics of Arkansas, Delaware, Kentucky, and Iowa are the same with the servants of Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, and New York.

An even more noticeable case is that of some of the commercial interests. In addition to large bodies of grocers, coal and flour dealers, etc., we find 14,063 reported simply as “dealers,” 123,378 as “merchants,” 7,863 as “ store-keepers,” and 11,195 as “traders.” The ingenuity with which this body of 156,499 gentlemen commercially disposed is made to do duty in so many different ways in the tables of occupations is certainly to be admired, if not imitated.

The errors which have been noted above, though absurd and annoying enough, are such as it would be within the power of the authorities of the census to correct. But there is a still more general fault in the enumeration of occupations heretofore, which no ingenuity could remedy. It is absolutely impossible from these tables to construct anything like a satisfactory scheme of the actual distribution of the people among the different branches of industry. There is a fantastic accuracy in the enumeration of occupations curious, rare, and outlandish; while some of the largest classes are wholly lost, or reduced to such proportions as make the statement absurd. The best test of the utter uselessness of the tables of occupations in 1860 is found in the substantial failure of Mr. Elliott’s attempt to reduce the classification to something like a logical order. That gentleman, an eminent statistician in the office of the Special Commissioner of the Revenue, has done all that could be done to resolve the anomalies of these tables ; but not science nor genius could contend successfully with such crude and “impossible ” material. What, indeed, could be done with a classification of occupations which gave only 2,022 persons, male and female, as employed in all the branches of the woollen and worsted manufacture, and credited the industry of the United States with three bobbin-makers, two sleigh-makers, five edge-tool makers, and two smelters ?

It is quite common to hear the inherent difficulties which attend a census of occupations dwelt upon, as if they were so great as to preclude all hope of improvement. These difficulties exist, and will affect the results of the census whatever is done ; but they are no greater nor more obstinate than those which beset any other portion of the work, and it is entirely practicable to reduce them within very narrow limits. The means for effecting this are easy and simple. The “ enumerator’s book” should contain a printed list of occupations, such as it is desirable to have enumerated. This will serve as a guide to him in his inquiries, and will yield results which are susceptible of tabulation and comparison. In almost all cases where occupations are unsatisfactorily reported, it is because neither the enumerator nor the person interrogated has any idea how particularly it is desired to report occupations, or into what classes the statistician and the economist would seek to divide them. One answers that he is a mechanic, or a factory hand, when he would just as readily and cheerfully state in what kind of mechanical labor, or in what kind of a factory, − whether woollen, cotton, or paper, − if he only knew it was desired.

Such a list of occupations, arranged according to a rational plan, and using the most familiar name for each, would insure a uniform and intelligible report with even the stupidest of enumerators. Of course, such a list could only mark the main divisions of employment. It is undoubtedly very interesting and amusing for gentlemen of leisure, to take down the ponderous volumes of the census, and find that there were ten submarine divers in the United States in 1860, and five chiropodists (as many chiropodists as edge-tool makers, then cutting the corns of “ the people ”!), and twenty taxidermists stuffing squirrels and robins, and the poorer sort of game that boys shoot. But it is of a great deal more consequence that the statesman and the economist should be able to turn to the volumes of the census, and ascertain the number of those who are following each great branch of industry, and whose health, happiness, and fortune depend on its sanitary and economical conditions, and are subject to every change which law or fashion may prescribe for it.

In a word, the “curiosities” of the census must give way to its vast and far-reaching practical uses. It is of more consequence to be able to number approximately the host of workers in woollen, than to know the precise number of the workers in wax, who, it would seem, in 1860 aggregated the astonishing sum of five. And if we cannot have the two things together, − as it would seem we cannot, from this same census, which reports just 2,022 in all branches of the worsted and woollen industry, while there were twenty-five times as many in the United States at that time, − why then, the erratic characters who tell fortunes, stuff birds, and remit the penalties of tight boots, must be left to shift for themselves ; the “ grinders ” may cease, because they are few ; the submarine divers come up to be enumerated, or stay under, as they please ; so only we have a true account of the ten million laborers and artisans of the country.

I will close this article by suggesting two additional questions in connection with this matter of occupation, upon what is known as the population schedule of the census. In 1860, the occupation or profession alone was required,−with what result has been seen. I have proposed a plan by which this column may be made to yield results of the highest value, − proper material for legislation and scientific study, not food for laughter.

But it is also of great importance to know how many of the ten or twelve millions who are to be enumerated in that column in 1870 are working for themselves, and sharing in the profits of business, and how many are dependent upon stipulated wages. The greatest social and industrial questions of the day connect themselves with this. I propose, therefore, another column, very narrow, leaving just room enough for an x as a mark of affirmation (the absence of any entry being understood as a negative), to be headed, “ Receiving Wages or Salary.”

It is also of capital importance to know, not merely how the ten or eleven millions herein enumerated are employed, but how the twenty-eight millions of unenumerated are supported. For this purpose, we would say, let a third column be added, to show the “number of persons dependent” on each person whose occupation is reported. A schedule of this form, filled up with a brief and comprehensive list of occupations, would exhibit, successively, the number of persons engaged in each one of the main branches of industry ; the number of these who are masters or employers ; and lastly, and most important, in what proportion the far greater numbers of the unemployed and dependent are “ picketed ” upon the helpful labor of the country, − how many agriculture provides for, how many are supported by manufacturing industry, how many mouths the transportation of the country is taxed to feed, how many live upon the profits of trade, how many grow fat or grow lean upon the salaries of the clergy, or the fees of lawyer or doctor.

Such an enumeration of occupations, with these kindred facts, would be a census by itself. It would convey, in a more accurate and striking form than any other which could be devised, a synopsis of the real economical condition of the country, its industrial capacity, and even its civilization ; for it is in the occupations of the people that we find their habits, their tastes, their ruling appetites, their social patterns, and their moral standards more truthfully revealed than ever in any book of travels or history.