of No. 4 over No. 1 consists substantially of the children of those embraced in No. 1. There are exceptions to this rule, but not enough to affect in any important degree its accuracy or authority. Those exceptions are where the children of foreign parents have emigrated from one county or State to another, and where persons are found in any county or State whose parents were foreigners, but have deceased since their arrival in this country. Such instances are numerous in themselves, but they are so inconsiderable in comparison with the whole body treated, and they may so certainly be presumed to exist on both sides, so to speak, of the question, that, for the purposes of this argument, it is precisely the same as if they did not exist, and it therefore remains true that the excess of No. 4 over No. 1 is made up, practically, of the children of foreign families (foreign as to one or both of the heads thereof) living in the county or State.

But while we have thus the number of Irish and of Germans, together with the total number of foreigners, and the American increase (substantially) of such foreigners, we do not know how this increase is distributed among German and Irish families. This is, in effect, what we are seeking to obtain. It has never been given in any form. Yet though the census does not give us the number severally of children in the Irish and the German families of any one county in the United States, yet, having the facts above indicated, we may be able so far to resolve them as to yield results sufficient to show very distinctly any marked predominance of one element over the other. It will appear further on whether this has been successfully accomplished or not.

It has been stated that we have for each State and county of the United States four facts the number of foreigners, the number of Irish, the number of Germans, and the increase of the foreign population. Now it is evident that if the Irish and the Germans were everywhere in equal proportions, whether exactly or approximately equal, we should have no clue to their fecundity. But if it should be found that in nearly every State and county a new ratio appeared, the Irish in some cases very largely predominating, the Germans in others, we should be able thereupon to institute comparisons, to ascertain whether the increase of the foreign population was habitually greater according as it was composed in a larger degree of the one or the other of these elements. A single instance, where the preponderance of one of these

foreign elements was shown to be accompa nied by an unusually large number of children of foreign parents, would justify no positive conclusion, inasmuch as in one such instance the excess might be due to any one of several causes, among which might even be an exceptional fecundity on the part of one of the minor elements of the foreign population, neither Irish nor German. Moreover, if the excess of foreign parentage should be discovered, now in communities where the Irish predominate, now in communities where the Germans predominate, without any appearance of system, it would not be safe to infer the superior fecundity of either the Germans or the Irish by reason of finding the number of such instances slightly greater on the one side than on the other, though such a result might, if the comparison had been carried far enough, fully justify the provisional, or even the definitive, rejection of a superiority previously claimed and popularly allowed, in respect to the nationality thus disparaged by the investigation. If, however, the balance should be found to incline steadily, and with something approaching regularity in degree, on the side of one of these foreign elements, its prepon derance being, in by far the larger number of communities, accompanied by an increase in foreign parentage; and if, in the absence of any opportunity for direct and positive proof, it should be found that the further these comparisons, embarrassed though they be by extraneous elements (foreign, but neither Irish nor German), were carried, the wider became the divergence, it would be safe and just to pronounce, at least provisionally, pending an actual count, this stock to be the more prolific.

Such being the conditions under which this inquiry is to be prosecuted, and such the material available for the purpose, let us proceed to discuss the States of the Union according to the method proposed. And in order that our procedure may be as short, simple, and certain as possible, it is desirable to confine the inquiry to those States which meet certain reasonable conditions.

First, it will add little to the value of the results, and much to the labor of the investi gation, to include those States which have only an inconsiderable foreign population. In rough, wholesale computations like the present, we can only feel assurance when we are treating large bodies of people. From the table following will therefore be excluded all States having less than ten per cent. of their respective populations of foreign birth. In this class are embraced all the former

Slave States except Maryland and Missouri, and also the States of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. This may seem like a large exclusion, and if it were a question of taxation or of Congressional representation it would be such; but in a discussion of the law of increase in the foreign population it is other wise, the aggregate number of foreigners in these seventeen States being only 7,000 in excess of the number found in the single county of New York. It will thus appear that the omission of so much of the foreign population cannot be a great loss in an investigation like the present; while the statement that these seventeen States contain more than half the counties of the Union, will serve to show how much the time, space, and labor required for the discussion are reduced thereby. Second, it is further right and expedient that those States should be excluded, the foreign populations of which, though considerable in the aggregate, are not composed in a great measure of either Irish or Germans. This is so clear that it does not need to be dwelt upon. The virtue of the inferences to be drawn, in the course of the computations proposed, depends upon the degree to which foreign elements not Irish or German may, in the nature of our material, be disregarded.

When, therefore, such elements extraneous to our inquiry appear in numbers to overwhelm the elements we desire to treat, the best use that can be made of these cases is to drop them. They can contribute nothing of value to the result, and must cause confusion, as well as add to the labor of the work, whenever introduced. In this view it is proposed to exclude all States which have foreign populations composed less than one-half of Irish and Germans combined. The States thus ruled out are California, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, and Oregon, all but one or two of which would have been excluded under the rule next following.

Third, it is necessary to exclude all States which are so new as to defeat the object of investigation, by reason of the fact that time has not been allowed for the clear development of the tendencies which we are discussing Populations that have doubled or trebled by immigration within five or ten years, manifestly must exhibit such disturb ances as to render useless inquiries like the present in respect to them. It is difficult to say just where the line should be drawn to cut off States in this condition. It is clear that in addition to the Territories, and to some of the States mentioned under the

second head, Minnesota, which increased between 1860 and 1870 from 172,023 to 439,706, should be excluded. It seems best also for the integrity of the discussion that Iowa, which increased within the same period from 674,913 to 1,194,020, showing a rate of growth nearly double that of any State remaining on the list, should be omitted. This leaves but twelve States for investigation: a small number, seemingly, yet these States embrace more than eight elevenths of the foreign populations, while, of the two specific foreign elements, they account for a still larger proportion, containing as they do 1,526,250 out of the 1,855.779 Irish, and 1,345,457 out of the 1,690,533, Germans in the United States.

Having thus obtained our list of States, let us further divide them as Irish or German States, according to the preponderance of the one element or the other, and present them, thus arranged, with all the facts pertinent to the present inquiry. In Table I. each of these States will be found, with the following statistical information : 1st, the number of persons of foreign birth; 2d, the number (embraced of course in 1) born in Ireland; 3d, the number (embraced also in 1) born in Germany; 4th, the number of persons resident in the State, one or both of whose parents were born abroad; 5th, the number of persons in 4 to every 1,000 persons in 1. Inasmuch, however, as one term of the ratio is thus constant, viz., always 1,000, only the other term is expressed in column 5. Thus the entry 1,792 against Connecticut signifies that there are in that State 1,792 persons of foreign parentage to each 1,000 persons of foreign birth. As has before been remarked, the 1,792 in this and all similar cases substantially includes the 1,000; the excess, 792, indicates, for all practical purposes, the American increase of the 1,000 foreigners.

It will be seen by the following table that the number of persons of foreign parentage to each 1,000 persons of foreign birth is, in the six Irish States, severally as follows: 1,717, 1,772, 1,792, 1,853, 1,955, 2, 111; in the six German States, 1,942, 1,969, 2,093, 2,174, 2,281, 2,410; in the six Irish States collectively, 1,941; in the six German States, 2,084. From this it would appear that the number of persons born in the United States of parents born abroad is approximately as follows: in the six Irish States, 717, 772, 792, 853, 955, 1,111; in the six German States, 942, 969, 1,093, 1,174, 1,281, 1,410; in the six Irish States collectively, 941; in the six German States, 1,084.

Now there can be but two rational explanations of a preponderance so nearly uniform and so decided. Either the German States show a higher degree of fecundity because they are German States, the excess in the number of persons of foreign parentage being due to qualities of that stock as developed on Amercan soil (which is to admit everything in controversy), or, the entire foreign populations of these States, without distinction of nationality,-German, Irish, British American, Swedish, and Norwegian alike, are more prolific because of the greater treedom of life in the West, and the more general pursuit of agriculture. It may be premature to assume here the truth of the first explanation offered, but it must be noted that the second, in effect, no less concedes the whole ground. Whether the latter group of States are increasing so much more rapidly than the former because they are German States, or because they are mainly agricultural, it is still of record that 63 per cent. of the whole number of Irish in the United States are residing in States which exhibit the ratio 1,941: 1,000, while only 18 per cent. are residing in the States with the ratio, 2,084: 1,000. On the other hand, 46 per cent. of the Germans of the United States are found in the latter group of States, and presumably share in the general increase of the foreign population characterizing this group, while but 33 per cent. are found in the former group. So that, in the least favorable view of the case, the Germans of the country are, by virtue of the general movement of the foreign population of the country, if not by their own inherent quality, increasing, as matter of fact, more rapidly than the Irish.

But a somewhat extensive and laborious investigation has convinced the writer that the more rapid increase of the German States is only in part due to differences in location and occupation. If the statistical information which has thus far been used in the discussion were only given by totals of States, the inquiry could be pursued no further, and each of us would have to be content with his own private opinion as to the cause of the facts exhibited in Table I. But we have precisely the same information given in respect to each county of the United States, and a canvass of counties in the States which we have discussed ap pears so strongly to corroborate the opinion expressed as to justify the exposition of the results, even at the risk of some added tedious

ness.

out.

It is neither necessary nor desirable that all the counties of these States should be taken for the purpose; but it is essential that the selections should be made upon a determinate principle. The grounds of exclusion have been very much the same as those taken with respect to States. First, only those counties have been treated which have a considerable foreign population. For this purpose the limit was fixed at 5,000. Second, all counties have been excluded where the foreign population is made up, less than one-half, of Irish and Germans combined. Third, counties in which these two specific foreign elements are found in proportions corresponding in general to those of the State at large, are also counted It is obvious that the inclusion of such counties would be entirely without significance, while their number would add much to the time and space necessary for the discussion. And here it should be noted, that it is on the variation of counties from the ratios prevailing through the State that the whole value of this second stage of our investigation depends. If the Irish and Germans of a State were apportioned uniformly, or nearly so, among its counties, nothing could be added to what has already been given on the subject. But in fact these elements are in nearly every State very irregularly distributed. Strong German counties are found in Irish States and strong Irish counties in German States. It is by separating these from the mass of the counties which conform to the general propor tions, and discussing the facts of their population by the same method which we have applied to their States, as wholes, that we are able to approach more closely to the inmos truth of the case.

By the application of the several rules in dicated, the counties with which we have to