tion and without much hope of betterment until the census was put on a more stable footing. All should welcome, therefore, the opportunity which is presented, for the first time, through the organization of a permanent bureau, for the carrying on of so important a work under the best conditions possible, and in the effort to improve the census classification suggestions are freely invited and will be most cordially welcomed.

There is, indeed, great need for a more satisfactory classification of occupations,-one that will meet, as near as may be, the wants of each and all, and no more imperative need for such a classification exists anywhere probably than in the census itself, as affecting more or less all of its more important branches.

From the point of view of more useful mortality statistics of occupations, there are two things of chief importance: (1) to provide for a more definite statement of the occupation in the population schedule and the certificate of death; and (2) to construct a reasonably limited list of important occupations which can be clearly defined and concerning which definite instructions can be given. In a measure it is possible to meet both of these needs, if the plans proposed for improving the return of occupations on the population schedule at the Thirteenth Census, on the one hand, and the effort which is now being made to secure a more specific statement of occupation on the certificate of death, on the other hand, shall prove reasonably successful, as is confidently expected. The list of occupations to be selected should not be too large,—perhaps from 100 to 200 definite occupations would be sufficient for a beginning, and it should include such occupations as are numerous in all, or even some, of the registration states, as well as those of special interest on account of their dangerous character, but, in any event, only such as are capable of being defined with some degree of precision. The instructions to accompany them should agree exactly with the instructions which will be sent out to the enumerators of population, and care should be had to clearly define the occupations thus selected

and to state their inclusions, so that all may know what kinds of labor are actually embraced in them.

In respect to agriculture, too, there is equal need for definite information concerning the number of persons so occupied as revealed by the census of population, not only because a means is thus afforded for testing the correctness of the agricultural returns,—a most important consideration in itself,—but because the schedules of agriculture contain no inquiry as to the number of persons employed on the farms or in kindred pursuits. Effort was made at the Twelfth Census to bring the statistics of agriculture into greater harmony than theretofore with the statistics of occupations and of farm proprietorship as reported on the population schedule, and, while this attempt at co-ordination was not fully successful, it was a great improvement over any preceding census. It leads to the hope, too, that, with the broadening of the work with reference to the population inquiries, another step forward may be taken at the Thirteenth Census, and, while full co-ordination is not expected, that a much closer relation may be established between the returns of these two branches of the general census work. The problem with respect to manufactures, on the other hand, presents many difficulties, and the outlook in this direction is not so promising. There has always been great disparity between the returns of persons occupied, as given on the population schedule, and those representing salaried employees and wage-earners, as given on the manufactures schedule, and the conditions governing the two collections are so dissimilar that comparisons are hardly practicable; and they will become all the more difficult if, as now proposed, the census of manufactures shall exclude, as in 1905, the so-called neighborhood, household, and hand industries.

The law now provides for a census of manufactures every five years, and the present Congress is likely to provide for a census of agriculture, on a somewhat restricted basis, in 1915, but no similar provision for a more frequent census of population is contemplated. The need for enumerating the population oftener than once in ten years was recognized as early as in

1880, when the new census act contained a section under which any state or territory, by complying with certain conditions, could take an interdecennial census of population and be reimbursed by the Federal government for a considerable proportion of the total amount so expended. This provision was made a part of the Tenth Census act, at the suggestion of General Walker, but it has not been renewed in any subsequent census act. In 1885 censuses were taken under the requirements of the law of 1880 in Colorado, Dakota, Florida, Nebraska, and New Mexico. Copies of these returns were filed as required in the office of the Secretary of the Interior, but no use was made of them by the United States government, principally because of the lack at that time of a permanent census organization. Several other states also took a census in 1885, but under the provisions of state laws and wholly at the expense of the state; and there are to-day something like 25 states in which there are laws providing for a census of population and of other subjects. In many of these states, however, this provision of law is largely inoperative, and in only a little more than one-half of them has a census been taken recently under the direction of the state government.

An examination of the state census reports shows that there were fourteen states which took a census in 1905, and that for eight of them statistics of occupations are presented in more or less detail, but with little or no uniformity with respect to classification. For four of the eight states which deal with occupations, the presentation is made for a limited number of occupation groups, of no special value statistically, and in only one instance is there any explanation as to what classes or kinds of occupations are included in each group. In each of the other four states several censuses have been taken under state authority, and the subject of occupations has been made, in each case, a matter of constant inquiry and presentation.

In one of these states-Iowa-the census reports show, for 1885, an alphabetical list of occupations embracing 81 specifications; for 1895 a similar list of occupations, but comprising 147 specifications; and for 1905 a presentation by main

classes and principal occupation groups, representing substantially a condensation of the Federal classification of 1900, and comprehending all persons ten years of age and over. In another state-Kansas-the presentation at each of the last four censuses relates to persons twenty-one years of age and over and is confined to a statement of occupations by main classes only, apparently following, in each case, the Federal classification of 1870.

The third of the four states under consideration is Massachusetts, in many respects the pioneer in statistical work and investigation, and in this state the subject of occupations has naturally received a great deal of attention. There were presentations of occupations at the first two state censuses, in 1855 and 1865, but they were limited, in the one case, to free males over fifteen years of age and, in the other, to free males and females of the same age limit, following the lead of the Federal enumerations which preceded them. In 1875 there was an extended presentation of occupations, embodying the classification of the English and United States censuses, and embracing the entire population, productive and non-productive. It comprised over 1,600 designations of occupations arranged under 79 subgroups, which, in turn, were referred to 7 general classes. At the next census, in 1885, a very much more minute subdivision of occupations was attempted, representing 22 general classes, 128 subclasses, and over 17,000 specifications, but differing materially from the classification of the preceding census. In 1895 the detailed presentation of occupations was reduced to something less than 4,000 specifications, but arranged, as in 1885, under 22 general classes and about the same number of subclasses. The report on occupations for the census of 1905 not having appeared yet, no information as to the latest form of presentation is now available.

In Rhode Island-the fourth state considered-the occupations were reported in 1865 in the form of an alphabetical list only, but in 1875 they were presented under main class heads, in accordance with the Federal classification of 1870. In 1885 and 1895, however, the presentation of occupations conformed,

in the main, to the Massachusetts classifications, but with very material condensations in the number of separate specifications used at each census. In 1905 the statistics of occupations were limited to persons thirteen years of age and over, and no attempt was made to arrange the occupations under main class heads, but the various specifications, presented in alphabetical order, conform, in general, to the designations of the Federal census. In one other state-Michigan-there was also constant inquiry as to occupations up to 1904, when for some reason it was abandoned. In this state, which takes its census one year earlier than other states, the presentation of occupations in 1874 was confined to male adults, and consisted simply of an alphabetical list comprising several hundred specifications, without attempt at classification or condensation, but in 1884 and 1894 the presentations were extended to cover all persons ten years of age and over and followed, with some variations, the Federal classifications of 1880 and 1890.

It is evident, therefore, that the presentation of occupations in the state census reports has followed no general rule and that there is but little uniformity in the successive publications. And so here, as in other fields, the permanent census bureau finds its opportunity, and should make the most of it. There should be a census of population every five years at least, and if it is not possible to have the midway census taken wholly under the auspices of the Federal government, as an essential factor to the completeness of its own census system, then every effort should be made to stimulate the work of the state governments in this direction, both in sharing the cost of the state enumerations and in "standardizing" the schedules of inquiry and the instructions concerning them.

It is evident, too, that in foreign countries the return and classification of occupations have not yet been reduced to an exact science and that the work of improvement is still going on. In the foreign censuses, as in our own, much the same difficulties of enumeration have been encountered, and there have been frequent changes in the classifications under which the statistics have been presented. Occupations are still ex