86 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
comparison of statistics of 1880 and 1890 with those of 1860 should have led others to believe in the potency of a tariff tax for the creation of wealth ! Deceived by the statistics of the tenth census, we find one so influential in molding public opinion and directing legislation as the late James G. Elaine alleging an increase in the wealth of the nation from 1860 to 1880 of 30 billion dollars as a result of our tariff policy. This assertion, first made in his letter accepting the nomination of his party for the presidency in 1884, is repeated in Twenty Years of Congress and in his discussion of the tariff question with Mr. Gladstone (North American Review, January 1 890) . This mistaken assertion has been iterated and reiterated by the greater as well as the lesser lights of the protective theory, including ex-President Harrison and President McKinley. Not only have those of one political faith been misled, but we find the free-trade champion, Roger Q. Mills, replying to Mr. Elaine's reply to Mr. Gladstone, practically indorsing Mr. Elaine's erroneous assertions (North American Review, February 1890). Mr. Elaine having properly omitted slave values in comparing the census valuation of 1860 with that of 1880, Mr. Mills charges him with an error of two billions, but is oblivious of the fact that claiming the difference between the valuation of 1860 and 1880 as measuring the increase of the nation's wealth during the period was an error of several times two billions.
The question at issue is, as was declared by Mr. Elaine, of transcendent importance to the present and future of the republic, and its discussion by the foremost advocates of opposing theories had unquestionably wide influence. "We must," said Mr. Elaine, "insist on being guided by facts and not by theories."
In the light of recent admissions by census officials, Mr. Elaine's boasted facts seem only fiction. These admissions have been made with evident reluctance, and only as attention has been called to the facts by those having no connection with the census office.
In a contribution to the Chicago Record of November 5, 1892, Mr. Robert P. Porter, late superintendent of census, placed oppo-
