But the 2d statistical table, on the preceding page, was based upon the carefully averaged conclusions of Mr. G. K. Holmes, the U. S. Census Expert on Mortgage Statistics in 1890.
“Mr. Holmes,” as the author of the 2d table says, “follows a method contrary to that of Mr. Shearman, and by estimating the wealth of the poor, arrives at the wealth of the rich. He finds that .03 per cent of the people own 20 per cent of the wealth; 8.97 per cent of the people own 51 per cent of the wealth, and 91 per cent of the people own only 29 per cent of the wealth.[[32]]
“The fact that Mr. Holmes is not a partisan either of conservatism or radicalism, gives to his estimates an unwonted value. As published in the Political Science Quarterly,” says the Editor of the Encyclopedia of Social Reform, “and in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, these estimates have resulted in these four groups of families seen in the 2d table, p. [32].”
We agree with Rev. W. Bliss and others in regarding the estimates of Mr. Holmes as exceedingly valuable, because without them we could neither have known the |IMPORTANCE OF HOLMES’ WORK.| number of the tenant families, nor the number of the mortgagor families, in the United States. And hence, we could not have known the seriousness of the situation in the economic conditions of the nation. While having the table based upon his estimates, the reader may, at the very slight examination of the first two groups of it, reflect and know the great danger implied in them for the nation. And it is this table that can tell the number of the propertyless families in the United States, even without regarding any further material on the subject.
But the first trouble about this table[[34]] is, that the author of it has omitted $38,468,981[[35]] worth of wealth from the aggregate wealth of the group 4, for the sake of roundness |FIRST DIFFICULTY.| in the great numbers, I suppose. Otherwise it is impossible to admit that the omitted wealth did not belong to anyone in the United States at the time of his making up the table. So that, restoring the $38,468,981 worth of wealth to the 4th group, we find its aggregate amounting to $48,638,468,981 worth of wealth. And it thus begins to correspond with the great masses of wealth owned by the first two groups in the 1st table, p. [28] or [29]. This omission cannot be regarded as a serious one; but, to reach a definite conclusion, we must restore it.
The second trouble in the same table, p. [32], is, that the total of families in it contains exactly 1,000,000 families more than the nation consisted of in the year 1890. For there were 12,690,152 families in the United |SECOND DIFFICULTY.| States, whereas the second table represents 13,690,152 of them, an absolutely round number having been added to some group of the families. As this table has been published since 1896, it may be that the author of it had a reason to add one million families to the 1st group, because, as the population has increased, so the families without property have also greatly increased during the seven years since 1890. And he is undoubtedly right in his calculations as to the growth of the propertyless. The statistics of 1890, also, represented an ample ground for similar calculations on the part of anyone who has studied them.
The estimates of Mr. G. Holmes, however, do not warrant the conclusion that there were 7,871,099 family-tenants of farms and homes in the United States in 1890. For, whatever degree of moderation |NOT SO MANY TENANTS.| might be in his estimates, this number of the propertyless families could not have existed at that time in the United States. For, if so many propertyless families had been in existence ten years ago, a thousand presidents at this time might lose their heads in view of the national troubles that could result from that abnormal situation of so vast an extent. The individuals that now howl about an unusual prosperity might be the indirect butchers of human flesh before they themselves are butchered. No, we drop out the surplus million families from the 1st group of the 2d table, and the table will be more correct as follows:
| Holders of Wealth. | No. of Farms. | Value in Dollars. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tenants of farms and homes | 1 | 6,871,099 | 2,837,049,500 |
| Owners of mortgaged farms and homes worth less than $5,000 | 2 | 1,483,356 | 2,614,955,764 |
| Owners of free farms and homes worth less than $5,000 | 3 | 3,078,077 | 10,946,616,952 |
| Owners of farms and homes worth $5,000 and over | 4 | 1,257,620 | 48,638,468,981 |
| Totals | 12,690,152 | 65,037,091,197 | |
The conclusions in the first two groups of families of this table now appear as trustworthy as the entire conclusions of Dr. Spahr in the 1st table, p. [28] or [29]; and, that |TRUSTWORTHY CONCLUSIONS.| the first two groups, made up on the basis of Mr. Holmes’ estimates, actually surpass everything in statistical importance for this country, no one will doubt, when he has read this work. For the first group represents the tenant-families that hire their farms and homes from others, being themselves propertyless. And the second group represents families that are in debt, and that are also rapidly becoming propertyless, as we shall see in Chapter V.
The differences between the 1st and the 2d tables, however, appear very great. The 1st table shows that the national wealth is quite abnormally concentrated in a |DIFFERENCES IN THE TABLES.| comparatively few hands, represented by the first two groups. The 2d table shows that the same wealth is more equally distributed among the families of the last two groups, than is true in the 1st table. And it is the 2d table which was compiled from the estimates that by some men were regarded as extremely moderate, and, therefore, inconsistent with the real situation of the people.