This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1901 Excerpt: ...which it had received in the Ninth Census. The ages of children under one were not, in 1880, differentiated by months, as in 1870. Dr. J. S. Billings, who contributed the discussion of vital statistics, did not treat this subject further than to say that "the number of children reported as living, under 1 year of age, is too small, owing to omissions and the tendency to report ages in round 1 Contained in Xinth Census, 1870, Vital Statistics, pp. 517-531.-However, Mr. Elliot made an important suggestion that is worth quoting: "An important influencing cause of the irregularities is believed to be found in the fact that, although the enumeration Was made with reference to the population as it existed on the 1st day of June, 1870, yet the actual collection of facts by the marshals was extended over a period of several months subsequent to that date, some of the enumerations having been made as late as nine months after the date designated by law. Inquiries, therefore, relative to the month of birth of children under the age of twelve months, living on the tirst day of June, 1870, required, not infrequently, that investigation be made relative to the month of birth of children who were, at the date of actual enumeration, from 16 to 20 months of age. With respect to these more distant months of birth, it is believed that there was less effort, in general, by the enumerator to secure the requisite information, and greater difficulty encountered in successfully conducting the inquiries.--Loc. cit., pp. 520, 521. numbers, causing many infants 10 or 11 months of age to be reported as 1 year old."1 So far as the United States is concerned, the discussion of this question may be said to have stood where it was left by Dr. Jarvis and General Walker in 1...