V^. "'^-5^^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) V A -«??/ ^ XTS OI^^ITIOS. I I THE THIRD VOLUME — OF — , THE CENSUS OF 1881 -AND- ITS CRITICS. Xlie third volume of the Census of 1881, which (Contains the result of the laborious -ind intricate inquest on the mateial coiiditiong of Canada, is the subject of attacks from some newspapers. I have thougt it my duty, both in the public interest and ia justice to the officers connected with the work, especially the Chief Compiler, Mr. Layton, who have to my knowledge, honestly, diligently and intelli- gently accomplished their arduous task, to show the fallacies and the unfairness of these attacks. It should not be necessary, but, it seems, nevertheless, opportune to remark that absolute accuracy is never to be expected from such a labour as a census, no matter when, no matter where, and no matter by whom it is executed. It is a false notion to compare the operation of such inquiries to the work of book-keeping and of balancing commercial or fiaancial accounts. To impugn the results of a census and question its immense usefulness, because errors of details are detected in it, is just as absurd and mischievous as would be an assault on the whole machinery of postal or customs service, because a certain number of letters get astray and certain inaccuracies ai-e found in reports. Nothing human is unfailing, and errors will occur do what you may to guard against them : the more or less perfection is the more or less avoidance of such occurrences. Men at all acquainted with the subject will not take notice of such errors, apparent or real, unless they materially affect the general results of the investigation ; they know that when the returns give 32,350,269 bushels of wheat it means abour 32;OOO,0OO, and that such errors or inaccuracies of details, whether they "re of enumeration, of compilation, of posting or printing, some being overrating and others of under- rating, generally balance each other : the only question is to see if they arc not such ag to notably influence »he grand result and its propor- tionate deductions. With these few preliminary remarks, I shall at once take up the points which have been made the subject of the attacks I propose examining. t'ht Relation between lumbers of Dwellings and Houses ovoned. In table 1 of the first volmno is given the uiiiuber of separate dwellings subdivided into five categories, namely : vessels, shanties, inhabited h.ouses, uninhabited houses, and houses in construction, situated in eacii district ; in table XX t of the third volume are given the number of houses owned by tJie inhabitants of each district. The critics assume that the results of these two separate and quite distinct informations should exactly correspond, and on such extraordinary assumption attack the accuracy of tlie Census, because in the Census returns the figures representing these two results do not coi-rrespond. The fact of the matter is that if these figures were in precise, correspondence it would Ije proof that they had been ** cooked " and made, V)y a dishonest ])rocess, false and erroneous, for otherwise they cannot agree, being of diQerent nature and purpose. First, it is self evident that vessels afloat, shanties, tents, and wigwams of iiMUiads are not houses owned, although they are dwellings ; second, that houses owned by non-resident jiersons or companies are not to be included in the number of houses owned in Canada, although they are Canadian dwellings : this at once nnikes the number of houses owne i smaller than the number of dwellings by many thousands. The error of the critics, in this instance, is such that they haTO dwelt on the fact that in the Territories there are only 1,242 houses owned by Canadians for 11,652 occupied; when the Census shows that 9,357. of these dwellings are not houses, but the lodges of nomadic populations. But there is another reason which influences the diflfererice in a much greater ratio, coming from the fact that many, a great many, houses built nnd owned as one immovable ])roporty form two or more separate dwellings or abodes. By instruction, the enumerators were thus oi'dered in regard to dwellings to be entered in table I : "A *' separate house is to be counted wherevei the entrance from the outside "is separate." No such thing in relation to table XXI, where are entered as one property, one house owned, any such real estate which is l)y the proprietor thereof considered one building of human abode, no matter that it does oftentimes comj)riso two separate dwellings or inhabited houses witk separate entrance, under the same roof. Hence, when the Census gives (1881) 753,017 occupied dwellings it includes 116 vessels, and 14,092 shanties, tents or wigwams ; when it gives 738,209 houses as dwellings occupied, and only 712,449 owned, it is not only prima facie correct, but it also convays the information, worth having, that there were in 1881 about 25,000 houses- with double separate dwellings. * There is, on this point, no apparent error, and none to be suspected. Therefore, when the critic, on the face of these figures, exclaims : " It " ison« of those things, we fancy, that no fellah can understand," it only shows that he, the critic, has failed to understand a very simple thing. iv # ik.'{\ The amount of tonnage owned h/ Canyidians in the Census does not agree with the t.jnnage registered in accordance with the > *' Merchant Shippitu/ Acts." It would be a matter for more than ordinary astouislnueat if they did, for tho two things »\ro of difTorent nature, and form no ))os.sibIe criterion of separate or comparative accuracy. One might just as well make the addition of all the births register- ed in a country for the last thirty years, and say : — that is the present population of that country. , It is with shipping nr> it is \vi\h other kinds of property : the total of acres on the maps, of houses 0|i the valuation lists, of tons of shij)- ping on the register books, are no correct indication of the number of acres, of houses and of tonnage oxtiied by the inhabitants of Canada, to the exclusion of non-residents at any given moment. In regard to shipping, the mere transfer of registration from a Canadian port to another British port, outside of Canada, and the keep- ing, on the registers, of hundreds of vessels which have ceased to exist, biit the di3aj)pearance of which has not been reported, alters the totals of tonnage to a comparatively vei-y largo ratio, at the same time tliat the first may not flter a unit in the tonnage owned in Canada and that the second diminishes it to the extent of its disappearance. Extensive aales to non-Canadians also necessarily alter tho figure of tomtajt oioned in Canada, but not necessarily the tonnage registered. A broad fact is that the amount of tonnage owned by inhabitants of Canada is, every year, increased by many thousands of tons, and the Census shows an increase of 253,588 tons during the decenniad com- prised betn'eon the years 1871 and 1881, in the four older provinces. There is no such rule apjdicablo to ^he register books, on account oi transfers of registration and the erasing on the ascertaining of disappear- ance. It is in this way that between the years 1878 and 1880, when the Canadian ownership was experiencing a large increase, the registration shows a considerable decrease in tonnage : the registered figures are, 1,333,015 for the year 1878, 1,332,094 for the yea rl879, and 1,311,218 for the year 1880; . '^ > :V . • But whether or not the registration contains the records of those facts and those fluctuations to which ships are submitted as regards ownership, and in particular Canadian ownership, such portion of t}»e 'registers which concerns them is not compiled and is not tabulated in the Reports of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, Avhicli purely and simply gives the addition of tonnage registered in Canada, no matter if they are in a greater or lesser proportion owned by inhabitants of Canada. All this looks so plain, that the wonder to me is that it could escape the understanding of any one. The Marine returns convey one sort of information, and the Census returns another sort of information ; they cannot take the place of each other, cannot be tested one by the oth>;r, and they cannot agree, unless it l)e a mere and not to bo expected coin- cidence. The only relation tho)' bear, one towards the other, is that they belong to cognate subjects. 6 7'hp. Changeg lohich have takxn place heiioeen the Two Censuses in the Ownership of Lands in Districts. Of course, changes in the acreage of hitulH owned by the inhabi- tants of each district are continual ; if such woro not constantly taking place it would show a total stagnation in land transactions, ii a country where several millions of acres of wild lands are owned by individuals, and where millions over niillioifis of Crown lands are for sale ; and when the two censuses show that, the juivatc ownershij) of lands in Canada has actually undergone, between the years 1871 and 1881, an increase of several millions of acres. - What astonishes these critics especially is, that in several districts the acreage OM'ned is less in 1881 than in 1871, and very considerably so for few districts. But the figures of the Census are simply the ex- pression of facts, of which reasoning alone demonstrates the necessary existence. It is precisely in such districts where the largest ownership of wild lands was formerly existing that immense reduction of acreage owned must take place. Why? Simply from changes in residence of owners or of limits of districts, and becau;?e these lands wei-e to be sold- tnd were actually, to a large amount, sold to inhabitants of other dis, aricts. The City of Quebec had 2,032,874 acres of lands owned in 1871, and only 588,117 in 1881 ; but the County of Quebec, which encircles the city, had only 303,727 acres owned in 1871, and as much as 1,078,005 in 1881. A simple change of residence of large owners from the limits of the city to the surrounding district explains the vastuess of the change, so far as the figures go, and when by inquiring you learn that hundreds of thousands of acres of wild lands, owned by Quebec inhabit- ants, have been sold to inhabitants of other districts, such as vast tracts situated in Anticosti, in the Eastern Townshij)s, in the seigniories of Beaupr^, Fossambault, and in many other places, the wonder vanishes away. There are other changes which are due to another cause, in addition to those mentioned, from the fact that the readjustment of electoral districts, following the Census of 1871, has made many census districts materially diflTerent in 1881 from what they were in 1871, in extent of territory, population, and in every other respect. Therefore, again, it is not the Census which on this point is caught in "extravagances of falsehood, &<:., &c.," but the critics. The same remarks apply to village lots, houses, warehouses, shops and vessels ; this is so self-evident that it would be almost an insult to the intelligenco of the reader to insist on it, and follow that manner of criticising through its vagaries. The Excess of Acres of Land Occupied Over the Area in Few Districts. The reason and meaning of that is explained in the introduction to the third volume, where it is said : " The exceptions are, when residents " of cities and towns occupy and WjOrk lands situated outside the limits* " tliereof, and upon wliicli no person rcsiiles. It occasionally happens " in villajjeB and old settled townships that a part of the holding extends "beyond the limits of the village or of the townsliip." It is vory simple ; the acres occupied are made to follow the person of their occupants and are registered in the same district, irrespettivo of the mutpoips'! limits; this occ'irs where there are commons, pleasure grounds and farms occupied by companies or inhabitants of a district, especially if it is of small area. It is for the same ra«|on tliat products are registered in districts out of which they were gol^ Codfish and fura for instanoe, registered in a district situate at a great distance from waters where codfish is caught, and forests where such furs are to be got : it simply means that these articles were entered where alone the information could bo procnred, without possibility o*" attributing them to any other specific district. The only alternative V^s to take them there or omit them from the reports ; great care wa$ taken not to run the risk of *lui)lic*t- ing them : it is a question, not of figures, but of tha way in which to proceed under peculiar circumstances. Besides all that, it should not be lost sight of that the areas given in volume first are from geographical measurement, when the areas carried in the third volume of land occupied are furnished, one by one, by the px'oprietors themselves ; hence to suppose that under any or whatever circumstances these figures should precisely correspond would be a piece of rare naivete to say the least. Therefore the error, fallacy, or whatever name be given to it is not chargeable to the Census, ba*; to those who assault it. TheJ'e are Industriet not at all Mentioned in some Districts. -» Of coxfrsc there are in very many instances, as a matter of fact, districts in which many industries do not exist. The critics, not taking notice of that, besides, are making a confusion between a manufacture and a shop, between the industries by which a substance is made to change its form and the commercial operation by which products are sold. Tn other instances industries do not appear under a specific name for the reason explained in the introduction to the third volume, in the following words ; •' The division of labour is " not so minute here as in older and more populous communities, and so " we find establishments grouped together, as carding and shiiigh mills, " grist and carding mill, «fec., (fee. It was found impossible to separate " one from the other, but they have been presented under the heading ** to which the parties appear to attach the greatest importance." This is plain and reasonable, and was printed before any remark was ventux'ed, from the outside, on the subject. It is in following this groundless point of criticism that a local paper remarked, with indignation, that there were no stave mills credited to the County of Lambton. The fact is that the sawing and splitting of staves in this county, as in many others, is mixed with the 8 two connex industries entered as a whole under the titles of saw inillH or cooperage, and a proof tliat th« industry of stave making has not been overlooked, as regards the County of Lanibton, lies in the fact tliat the said county is credited in the products of forests with 1,7-11,000 staves. '• „ .^.'■», '='■■■■ ^ If a demonstration was wanted, per contra, of the errors in which the assaulters of the Census ha% fallen, we could Hnd it in the com- mentaries of that paper on the stave industry. The critic says : — " 'J"he " stave industry is ane of the largest in the country, and employs "safely 1,000 nien.". The fact is that the making of staves, instead of being one of the largest, is, per ae, one of the smallest umong the important industries of the country, and that 1,000 men, exclusively em|»loyed, the whole year at stave making alone, could glut our home a:'d foreign stave markets for several years. If the writer means, by stave industry, to combine the lumbering of the raw material and the cooper's woi-k applied to the manufacture of staves into barrels, tubs, Ac, Jic, he is far short of the mark with 1,000 men ; but if he means simply stave making ho is much above the mark, being grossly in error anyliow ; a state of affairs he would hare mended for himself and his readers if, instead of unjustly attacking the Census, he had industriously studied it. w Tfte variance between the number of hands and the wages paid/or idenH' cal or eimilar industries in different districts. As a matter of fact there exists differences on these points for various districts compared with others, and, of course, and correctly, the Census returns contain the expression of these differences. But there is an explanation which applies to many cases in which the difference ia very large, and this explanation is given in the introduction to the third Tolume in the following words :-— " It may be. remarked that in many establishments the work m/^n " are not regularly employed, nor during the whole year." Thence i iie difference between the aggregate of wages, and of work done, as co^n- pared with the number of hands employed. But I admit that errors are to be found in tho Census on that point in a few instances ; they, however, do not materially influence the •aggregate results. A few of these are «rrois of enumeration, the parties being carelesa in furnishing the correct information, and a few er \ -wbigh have escaped the attention qf the proof-readers. w There are d'lHtncUt credited with jn'oducU thf,y do not /urniHh, and otheri not credited tcifh products the raw inateTicda of lohich thnj ': i. do possess, ,:• • Of course there are distritta which niauufacturo some of their law materials ; many nmnufacture the raw materials of other districts, and Rven of foreign countrieH, and many do not nuiniifnctiire lieir own or any other materials at all, except in common trades, hat let us ly to all oidinary circumstances, there is for some districts, in this instance, the special reason that, by the electoral readjustment of 1872, the limits and extents of districts IniTe been altered, creating new districts at the expense of others, and altering the conditions of many more. The acreage of land improved in a few Ditiiricfs is srnalier in the Census of 1881, as compared loiih the Census of 1871. The same explanation that is givjn in the next preceding paragraph apjilies to the ])resent one; and, moreover, several of the 14 districts inscribed in the category are city distiicta, or districts where village, urban or suburban po|)ulatioD hcis increased, and in which, consoquently, many acres must have beun transferred, from the class of improved farm lands, into the class of village or town lots. It is in this way that twenty- one aci'es less of improved farm lands in Halifax and twenty-four in Toronto are more than easily accounted for, these two cities being among the districts picked up Vjy the critics for their reproofs on this point. TJw. Area of fanturage is lens in several Districts than was reported in 1871. This is afier all, perhaps, the masterpiece of the sort of criticism which has been indulged in. Inasmuch as in Canada the improved lands not under some crops or in gardens and orchards are resorted to as pasturage for a good part of th^i summer season, if not for the whole season, the Canadian farmers report in pasturage all the improved area which is not rej)Ofted by them under somo other heading : so the column headed pasturage in the Census is tilled with the arithmetical balance of land improved not otherwise accounted for. Therefore there cannot be noticed any error in this column separately ttiken, unless it be an error of addition, and of such there have been none discovered. A diminution in the acreage of pa.3t>irage means simply a corresponding iucicase in the land under crop. As a matter of fact, the proportionate area of ])asturago must have undtjrsone a certain diminution on account of the [iiogress in the final clearing of land, and, in several districts, of t.liegreat(M- resort to stall feeding, as compared with grazing, which has characterised our live stock operations for several years past, in certain portions of our ♦^^erritory ; and the result of such alteration in our agri- I a ciillural pursuits is ^own in the general leturns of the Census, whef^ it ia seen that, while the total area in acres of the pasture lands have increased between the years 1871 and 188' in the fotir older i-wovinces of the Dominion by 17 per cent., the total area of improved lands has rep^hed an increase of 20 per cent. Another proof that every known broad fact, in ici^ard to the material conditions of the country, is ac- curately subbUaiiated by the gf^neral results of tlie Census ; and when the grand results have attained such derree of exactitude which can be expected, from the nature of things, m<'i details cannot be wrong, as a rule. . , .-■■■■■.■■■ I -* . . A' , » ■ . t a. ii These critics, the work of whom I have briefly reriewed in what they represent as tko most egregious blunders, these critics, >■ ho evidently would be delighted if the Census was really badly executed, these critics have virtually brought forward a most emphatic proof of the practical accuracy and reliability of the Census they have assailed. After such a diligent search, animated by such a craving for errors, to have come to such a failure at; to pick up few, very few errors, indeed, or possible ejxors of no general consequence, and an array of sui)[)osed errors of the Census which, in reality, are blunders on the part of the critics themselves, is certainly a result well calculated to please those who have had something to do '^dth such a vast under- taking, and to enhance public confidence in one of our most important state documents. Ottawa, 19th June, 1883. J. a TaclU. i