We have read on pp. 11 and 12 that, when Mr. Shearman made his list of statistics of wealth distribution, “that his table was based on careful estimates of the wealth of [SN: METHODS OF RESEARCH.] the very wealthy; while the wealth of the poorer classes was estimated on the bases of assessors’ returns;” just as the table of Dr. Spahr, p. 28, which represents the very wealthy families in the 1st group, the well-to-do in the 2d, and the poor families in the 3d and 4th groups. This arrangement and representation of the families evidently agrees with that of Mr. Shearman, and proves the fact that both distinguished authorities used the same or similar methods in studying the actual distribution of wealth, and in representing their conclusions to those that were anxious to know of the distribution. 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 [SN: 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.