It is certainly not difficult to misrepresent the whole situation even without intending to do any wrong to the nation. For the right or the wrong representation of realities [SN: COULD BE MADE UNINTENTIONALLY.] depends very greatly upon the handling of the averages in the distribution of wealth among the people. The census facts or the assessors’ returns may be right, as well as the classifications of these facts or returns. And yet the final representations of them may be twisted, either according to the desire of the statisticians or according to the abstract rules of arithmetic. So that these rules and desires may be satisfied, but the realities may easily be obscured, and even the greatest national dangers may be concealed under an improper use of the averages. Thus, we have seen the average of Mr. Shearman, which, including some of the well-to-do families among millions of the poor, makes these poor appear as if every [SN: OR WITH A BIAS OF WILL.] one of them possessed $209, because Mr. Shearman’s average covered nearly 56-millions of individuals.[36] While Mr. Carroll D. Wright,[37] describing the problem: “Are the rich growing richer and the poor poorer?” makes a single average on the basis of the entire population. His sweeping average actually and correctly makes, not only the 56-millions of the poor of Mr. Shearman, but every pauper, every tramp, and everyone in hundreds of the lunatic and other asylums, worth $1,036 of wealth. Whereas, in reality, 1 per cent of the population held more wealth than the remaining 99, as Dr. Chas. Spahr has proved.[38] Now, something similar has taken place in the 3d group of the 2d table, where more than 3-million families are represented as the “owners of free farms and [SN: A DEGREE OF MODERATION.] homes worth less than $5,000.” And, consequently, the difference between the 1st table and the 2d table in the wealthy groups appeared. The 2d table contradicts nearly all statistical authorities and has been spoken of as based upon extremely moderate conclusions. It is, therefore, necessary to show the degree of moderation implied in its distribution of wealth. The fact that all families in the United States [SN: FIRM BASIS OF CLASSIFICATION.] were classified according to their economic worth, as families worth $5,000 and over and $5,000 and under, gives us the best basis for a comparison of the two contradictory tables of the great authorities. Let us first see the inconsistency in the groups of families which represent the middle classes in the two tables.