his life, he devoted his intellect to the welfare of the whole country rather than to that of any part. This is particularly noticeable in his speech on the death of Mr. Sumner and in that on the silver question. Many will recall how the former, delivered in Congress at a time when the smouldering embers of civil discord were being continually fanned into life, thrilled the entire land with the sweet refrain, "My countrymen, know one another, and you will love one another." The speech on the financial question brought its author scarcely less fame; for in setting his face firmly against what he conceived to be downright repudiation, Mr. Lamar held the South to the cause of honest money. In doing so, he set at naught the "instructions" of the Mississippi legislature, whose members threatened to unseat but his constituents sent him back with enthusiasm.

him ;

Mr. Lamar made an admirable secretary of the interior; and in spite of many predictions to the contrary, appears to have done very well during his brief experience on the bench. Like other men who had joined the ill-starred Confederacy, he lived to see the complete disappearance of sectionalism from politics. No more striking demonstration of this fact could be given than his own appointment to membership in the highest court of the land. In the face of such inspiring acts of magnanimity the bitter feeling in the North and the South died of sheer inanition, and the country entered upon a new period of history with a fuller realization than ever before of the tremendous tasks and possibilities before it. B. J. RAMAGE.

UNIVERSITY OF THE SOUTH.

Southern Sidelights: A Picture of Social and Economic Life in the South a Generation before the War. By EDWARD INGLE, A.B. New York & Boston, T. Y. Crowell & Co., 1896.373 PP.

Mr. Ingle has made a valuable statistical contribution to the study of Southern history, and historians and even the general reader will thank him for the immense labor he has spent upon his book. His subtitle is, I think, something of a misnomer, for he has not put his materials together in such a way as to form a very clear picture, though he has certainly given us a storehouse of facts. His reading has been wide, but he has mainly relied on two very valuable sources of information the Southern Literary Messenger and De Bow's Review. A larger use of representative Southern newspapers would have helped him at some points, but would have

greatly increased his labor without perhaps proportionally increasing the value of his book.

There are nine chapters, one on the traits of the Southern people, one on cotton, one on phases of industry, one on trade and commerce, two on educational and literary matters, one on the Southern conventions, one on slavery and finally one describing the crisis that culminated in the Civil War. Every one of these chapters is filled with facts that give evidence of thorough and laborious research, and that will be invaluable to the student. Indeed, Mr. Ingle may flatter himself by believing that his book is not likely soon to be superseded as an authority on the matters of which it treats. I think he may felicitate himself, too, upon the moderate and fair tone which he has adopted in treating subjects that are still capable of arousing animosity. He must, however, expect the fate of the moderate man in failing to satisfy readers whose opinions and sympathies are very decided.

ures.

Mr. Ingle has succeeded best in the chapters dealing with economic matters. His sketch of ante-bellum Southern literature leaves some things to be desired, as does also his account of the endeavors to establish free schools. The chapter entitled "Plans for Progress," which is mainly occupied by a discussion of the various Southern commercial conventions, is hardly trenchant enough in its criticism, and fails to notice some of the earlier meetings held in Georgia and South Carolina that were not without interesting featThe discussion of slavery as an institution is equally lacking in trenchant treatment: in other words, I think Mr. Ingle succeeds better in gathering facts than in coördinating them and drawing conclusions from them. Some of the conclusions that he does draw puzzle me considerably, as, for example, when he remarks that "the suppression of the Bank, and the scattering of deposits through the country came too late to overcome the original advantage [with regard to an accumulation of capital] acquired by the North" ! Does Mr. Ingle believe that if the deposits had been scattered through the country from Washington's first administration it would. greatly have affected the relative situations of North and South in this matter? But I do not wish to be captious, for I recognize fully the value of Mr. Ingle's book. Some of his conclusions are not mine, and I should often prefer a more radical treatment than he has thought fit to give; but I cannot ask for a more conscientious or painstaking piece of work. W. P. TRENT.

UNIVERSITY OF THE SOUTH.

Eleventh Census: 1890. Report on Population of the United States. Part I. Washington, 1895.-4to, ccxiii, 968 pp.

This volume surpasses all previous census records of population in its elaborate technique and full presentation of results. The change is due largely to the indefatigable efforts of Mr. Wm. C. Hunt, who had charge of the population division, and who brought to the work training and experience gained in the Massachusetts enumeration of 1885. If any criticism is to be made, it is that details have sometimes been worked out without regard to their real value. An example of this is the calculation of the distribution of population according to drainage basins. It is interesting to know that 43.77% of the entire population is congregated in the basin of the Mississippi river; but it is not particularly vivifying to learn that 709 foreignborn persons live in the valley of the Pedee, and 99 colored persons in that of the Chippewa.

Methods of presentation are, however, of minor importance compared with the question of the general accuracy and trustworthiness of the census itself. Unfortunately, it must be confessed that, in public estimation, the eleventh census is somewhat under a cloud. It has cost an immense sum of money (over $11,000,000, besides printing); its publication has been unreasonably delayed (six years have elapsed and some of the most important parts are still in the hands of the printer); officials have changed, and there have been acrimonious accusations of partisan methods in the original appointment of enumerators. Nevertheless, when we consider the importance of each particular census, not only in itself, but as one of a great series of similar undertakings beginning in 1790, it is evidently the part of science to make the best of what is offered, and to try to determine how much of it can be used for scientific purposes. The material may be imperfect, yet it need not be entirely rejected. We can never have a census of 1890 again; yet we must have some sort of figures to fill that particular place. If we cannot accept the results implicitly, we must try to determine the limit of probable

error.

In testing the trustworthiness of a census there are three methods. The first consists in observing the attitude of the officials. A true statistician is inclined to underestimate the value of his results rather than to defend their absolute accuracy. He, most of all men, is conscious of the inadequacy of his material even when collected with the greatest care. The "office" should be the first to point

out the limitations imposed upon all such inquiries, and frankly to confess failure in any direction.1 In general, the attitude of our census office in this respect is not altogether satisfactory. It takes too much the position of defending its figures against all comers, as if a most difficult and delicate scientific undertaking were the private affair of a few governmental officials. What we want to know is not whether they have done their work well or ill, but whether we can use this material for political and sociological reasoning. The interests of science are much more important than the scientific reputations of the officials.

The typical case involved here is the question whether the enumeration of 1890 was complete or deficient. It is well known that, while popular expectation placed the population of 1890 at 65,000,ooo, the census return showed only 62,622,250. The increase from 1870 to 1880 was 30.08%, while from 1880 to 1890 it was only 24.86%. This seemed inexplicable, especially considering the fact that immigration during the latter decade amounted to five and one-quarter millions, against two and one-half millions during the previous decade. There is one partial explanation, namely, that the census of 1870 was incomplete, so that the increase from 1870 to 1880 had been exaggerated. General Walker has acknowledged that the enumeration of the colored population in the South was imperfect, probably to the number of 500,000 persons. The eleventh census extends this estimate to the whites, calculating a deficiency of 747,915 whites besides 512,163 negroes, on the absolutely improbable assumption "that the increase in population of the Southern states between 1860 and 1870 and between 1870 and 1880 were related to one another in a proportion similar to the corresponding rates in the Northern states during the same periods." I say this is an improbable assumption, because it implies that the war period had no greater influence on the population of the South than on that of the North. On the basis of this assumption the census shows an increase

This "rectified" table, however, involves us in the second absurdity 1 See the remarks of Dr. Ogle in regard to the statistics of occupations, English Census Report, 1891, vol. iv, p. 35. Our office has made one similar confession in regard to the statistics of negroes, mulattoes, quadroons and octoroons. See also the sharp criticism of French statistical methods by Bertillon (an official), in his Cours Élémentaire de Statistique.

of supposing that population increased faster during the war period with little immigration than during either of the subsequent peace periods with enormous immigration.

The second method of testing a census is to weigh the internal evidence. Do the figures hang together? Do they show proper relations to the figures of preceding censuses? Are these relations similar to those we ordinarily find in other countries? Unfortunately

it is extremely difficult to apply these tests to the United States, owing to the disturbing influence of immigration.

Some of the figures of the eleventh census are, however, very difficult of explanation. For example, the number of the foreignborn recorded in 1890, compared with the foreign-born of 1880 plus the immigrants from 1880 to 1890, allowing for a death-rate of fifteen per thousand and some emigration, shows, as I have elsewhere pointed out,' a deficiency of nearly a million. So, too, it is very extraordinary that, with an immigration of five and one-quarter million persons from 1880 to 1890, and a decreasing birth-rate among the native-born (as the census itself claims in its previous contention), the proportion of the foreign-born should have been only 14.77% in 1890, compared with 13.32% in 1880 and 14.44% in 1870. Another anomalous thing is the proportion of males to females. Among the foreign-born it is 842 females to 1000 males, an excess of males which the census rightly attributes to immigration. But among the native whites of native parents, where we should expect an excess of females, the proportion is only 966 females to 1000 males; and among the native whites of foreign parentage it is 989 females to 1000 males. Immigration cannot be the explanation in these cases. It would seem as if the census had either returned a good many foreign-born persons as natives or had omitted a good many native-born females, which could happen if the enumeration in rural districts was defective. At any rate, this anomalous condition of things demands explanation; for a deficiency of this sort affects all other statistics such as those of urban population, mortality, crime, conjugal condition, occupation and parental nativity.

Are

The third method of testing the accuracy of a census is by observing the conclusions which the officials draw from the figures. they scientific and justifiable, or are they superficial and misleading? The change in the superintendency of the office during the progress of the census makes it somewhat difficult to fix the responsibility. But, although this volume does not show any great degree of scientific 1 Publications of the American Statistical Association, III, p. 304.