The 1872 commission gathered expert testimony but never collected statistics or surveyed the poor

Evidence

As a commission of inquiry, what appeared in 1872–74 shared few of the attributes common to that genre. Most commissions are destined and designed for public consumption, yet none of this commission’s reports were made public at the time. After two years of work by the 16 members, and two subcommissions, the findings were deemed inconclusive and problematic. The commission affirmed the increase of destitute Europeans but still had no idea how many there were. Secondly, the commission was instructed to report only on Batavia and had little to say about the rest of Java. Limited to one city, the sample was considered too small, the “data” inadequate. Nor were statistics collected. Despite the hundreds of pages transcribed and the number of expert witnesses enlisted to share their views—school directors, doctors, heads of orphanages, and religious leaders—neither surveys of the impoverished nor interviews with those in contact with them were carried out. — Ann Laura Stoler, Along the Archival Grain_ Epistemic…, 835

Categorization

• XREF: This institutional paradox—expertise without data, secrecy despite the public genre—speaks to the epistemic-anxieties theme running through the whole book.