1902 was therefore 100 per cent of 114.7, the relative price in 1901, which gives 114.7 as the relative price in 1902. The average price of harness leather in 1910 was 99.58 per cent of the average price in 1909; therefore the relative price in 1910 was 99.58 per cent of 131.5, the relative price of 1909, which gives 130.9 as the relative price in 1910. This method was used in computing relative prices for each month. The same method of computing the relative prices was followed for sheep, crackers, herring, blankets, boots and shoes, calico, hosiery, leather, overcoatings, serge, sheetings, shirtings, women's dress goods, worsted yarns, augers, bar iron, butts, copper, vises, doors, plate glass, white pine, shingles, bedroom sets, and jute. For trouserings and underwear the exact grade quoted for 1903 was not manufactured in 1902. The manufacturer of trouserings, however, estimated that one half of the advance in price over the price for the grade quoted for previous years was due to the fact that it was a better article and the other half to the advance in price of material and cost of manufacture. The advance was $0.1125 per yard over the price in 1902; one-half of this, $0.05625, was added to the 1902 price of the 22 to 23 ounce trouserings to secure a theoretical 1902 price for the 21 to 22 ounce trouserings, and the 1903 relative price was then computed as above. Underwear was arbitrarily given the same relative price in 1903 as in 1902, as the all-wool underwear manufactured by the same firm showed no change in price. In 1904 and following years relative prices of trouserings and underwear were found in the same way as explained above for harness leather.

Table III.-Yearly relative prices of commodities, 1890 to 1910, and monthly relative prices, January to December, 1910, pages 465 to 499.— In this table the relative prices appearing in Table II are repeated and arranged in groups for convenience in comparison. In addition, averages are presented for the several groups and subgroups.

In 1908, as elsewhere stated, a number of articles were quoted for the first time. Relative prices for these articles could not be computed, as the prices for the base period, 1890 to 1899, were not obtained. As these articles were added, however, to make a larger representation for the groups in which they were included, it was deemed necessary to carry their price into the group and subgroup averages. Up to this time such averages were simple averages of the relative prices of the several articles in the group, but as relative prices for these articles could not be computed, a different method had to be followed, which is here briefly explained:

When the 1908 prices were obtained, prices were obtained for 1907. The 1908 price for each article, old and new, was divided by the 1907 price, giving a percentage based on the 1907 price. These several percentages for the articles in the group were then added and divided by the number of such percentages, giving an average percentage

showing the per cent the price for the group in 1908 was of the price for the group of 1907. The relative price of the group for 1907 having been established in the preceding report, such relative price for 1907 was multiplied by the average percentage above described, producing the relative price for the group in 1908.

This method of obtaining the yearly relative price for a group was followed in obtaining the monthly relative price for a group, the yearly average actual price in 1907 being used as the base and divided into each monthly actual price of 1908. In other words, having obtained the average percentage for a group, the relative price for a group was computed as was the relative price for a single article when a substitution was made therein, for an explanation of which see page 348. This system also was followed in computing the relative price for all commodities taken as a whole.

Averages for the year 1909 and the year and months of 1910 were computed by the same method.

The following table shows for each of the nine general groups the relative prices of 1910, compared with the average for 1890 to 1899. There are included in this table only those commodities which have retained practically the same description throughout the 21-year period. The average price for 1890 to 1899 is in every case the base, or 100 per cent. It should be kept in mind, in using the table, that the comparison is between the relative prices for 1910 and the average price for the base period.

RELATIVE PRICES, 1910, COMPARED WITH AVERAGE FOR 1890-1899.
Farm products, 14 articles.

[For a more detailed description of the articles see Table I, page 362 et seq. Average for 1890-1899-100.0.]

RELATIVE PRICES, 1910, COMPARED WITH AVERAGE FOR 1890-1899-Continued. Food, etc., 48 articles-Concluded.

RELATIVE PRICES, 1910, COMPARED WITH AVERAGE FOR 1890-1899-Continued.

RELATIVE PRICES, 1910, COMPARED WITH AVERAGE FOR 1890-1899-Concluded.

The facts presented. in the foregoing table are summarized in the following table, which shows the changes in prices of articles in each group, classified by per cent of change:

CHANGES IN PRICES OF ARTICLES IN EACH GROUP, CLASSIFIED BY PER CENT OF CHANGE, 1910, COMPARED WITH AVERAGE FOR 1890-1899.

The number and per cent of the above articles which showed each classified increase or decrease are given in the following table:

NUMBER AND PER CENT OF ARTICLES, BY CLASSIFIED PER CENT OF INCREASE OR DECREASE IN PRICE, 1910, COMPARED WITH AVERAGE FOR 1890-1899.