CHAPTER XVII.

TENTH ANNUAL REPORT, BUREAU OF STATISTICS, FOR THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS.

ASSACHUSETTS is largely in advance of any

ΜΑ other State in the collection of valuable labor

statistics, and their publication. But, unfortunately, the facts gathered do not appear to be of any special value in assisting its Chief to a proper understanding of their bearing upon the social and industrial problems now so pressing. Indeed, many of the facts are so tortured as to be made to support the grossest fallacies. The Tenth Annual Report, of January 22, 1879, is preeminently of that character, and presents with much plausibility several typical fallacies that merit attention, because of their general bearing. It is an extraordinary document, both from the conclusions to which it comes as to the amount of unemployed labor, or idleness, in that State and the Nation, and the methods by which its conclusions are reached. Its conclusions are, as stated on page 11, in what is there called, "The Investigation of November, 1878," that 23,000 males and females at that time represented the unemployed in that State, against 28,508 males and females in June, 1878, be

ing "those only who really want employment." “On this basis there would be 460,000 unemployed able bodied men and women in the United States, ordinarily having work and now out of employment."

No doubt the very thing was intended that has resulted from these statements--a general belief that the numbers reported in the special report of June, 1878, and the November Investigation, truly represented the idleness in that State and the Nation at those two periods. It has been so received and republished throughout our country.

But there are two unknown quantities in these statements; that of June, 1878, is represented in the qualification of "those only who really want employment." The report gives us no idea of the number of skilled and unskilled workmen, then out of work, who did not "really want employment;" nor of the inquisition nor inquisitors who ascertained this vital fact. The qualification of November, 1878, is in the words, "ordinarily having work." Here, also, we are left in the dark, not knowing what is meant by "ordinarily having work," nor the manner, time, nor persons, in which, when, or by whom this fact was ascertained. Is it possible that these two unknown quantities were designedly left as points upon which to quibble and pettifog, and render these reports of no possible value? Can it be that the persons who get but a week, or a month, or six months of work in a year, are to be considered as "employed ?"

The vital conclusions arrived at are, that 460,000 men and women now represent the amount of unemployed skilled and unskilled labor in the United

States, and 23,000 the number in that State. This is one per cent. of idleness for the whole population of the United States, or very nearly one and one third per cent. for that State; or, three per cent. of the skilled and unskilled workpeople of the United States, and nearly four per cent. of the same classes in Massachusetts. This calculation is made upon the fact that something more than one third of the total population belong to the working classes, as shown by the report under review, and the United States census.

There is not an intelligent man or woman in our country who does not know that this showing is not true. Every ascertained fact in possession of the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics proves that it is false. In spite of the two unknown quantities left open to quibbling, it is notorious that three in a hundred do not represent the unemployed men and women of our country "who really want work," or "ordinarily having work," but who are now without it.

On page 9, of this report, in the apparent effort to belittle the amount of national idleness, I find this statement:

"The absurdity of the 3,000,000 statement is readily seen when it is known that there are but about 10,000,000 people in the country engaged in productive industries."

The census of 1860 gives 8,287,043 as the number of persons engaged in the industries of our country at that time; the census of 1870 gives 12,505,923 for that period; and now, with a population of over 50,000,000, as given in the census of 1880, with the same rate of increase as in the preceding decade, the

number can not be less than 17,000,000 who belong to the productive classes and who should be at work. Consequently if there are but 10,000,000 at present engaged in the productive industries, there must be 7,000,000 who are not engaged. Does not that Bureau know that within the last twenty years we have had a large increase in our total population, and necessarily of those who do or should belong to the industrial classes ?

From page 12, I quote:

"Attempts have been made to convince the public that the June report and the census of 1875, taken and reported by this Bureau, were at great variance. And from the census returns the assertion has been made that there must now be nearly 200,000 persons out of employment in this State," et seq.

I filed with the Hewitt Labor Committee, in August, 1878, a statement, based upon the facts found in the Compendium of the Census of Massachusetts for 1875, published in 1877, showing that 92,042 persons, belonging to the industries therein enumerated (not any portion of the 638,661 contained in the first statement on page 85, Compendium), were unemployed and unaccounted for in 1875. The correctness of that statement has not yet been challenged.

In the paper which I read before the American Social Science Association, in May, 1878, upon the same authority, but in a different view of the matter, I showed that there was an idleness of not less than 97,975 persons. Those figures were made on a portion, only, of the factors in the case, and fall short of showing the actual amount of idleness. Yet the Bu

reau was swift to make up and issue its June report, with its unknown quantity. But I now emphatically say, that the idleness of 200,000 persons falls far short of representing the real idleness in that State, and that every ascertained fact, in possession of that Bureau of Statistics, proves it. I take it for granted that the Chief of the Bureau must know the facts, and their full significance, as reported by his own office, and therefore I say he must know that what I here state is true.

On pages 270-276, Compendium of 1875, is a table showing the average number of days employed in a year, in 262 occupations and subdivisions of occupations, which amount to 229 days and a fraction, showing a loss of one fourth of the working time. One fourth of the working time of the 584,690 persons who "belong to the skilled and unskilled laborers" of that State, amounts to the full time of 146,172 persons. This is only one out of many factors I might cite, but is enough to show the deceitful character of those two reports from that Bureau. I know that the table here referred to does not agree with the figures given in gross on pages 144-45 of the last report. I am under no obligation to reconcile the two reports, and much prefer the statement of items in the Compendium.

The Chief must know that the number of the industrial classes had been largely increased during the previous four years, first, as reported by himself, "from a class not furnishing competitors four years ago simply dependents . .. numbering in all 56,117. From this class there have been large numbers of recruits to the ranks of labor." See page