From the census figures and the reports of the Bureau of Immigration he shows that in the decade 1890 to 1900 the increase in the Italian population of the United States was numerically equal to 46.2 per cent. of the current of Italian immigration for the decade. Applying this per cent. to the city of New York, he finds that an increase at the same rate would have made the Italian population of the city in 1900, 341,134. It was 145,433 or somewhat over one-third. This the author takes as an evidence of lack of city proclivities among the Italians, or at least of lack of tendency to stagnate in the city of arrival. To this argument we have two potent objections. First, that it is unfair to take the percentage of increase for the whole United States as a measure of the increase of New York, for the reason, as we have already pointed out, that the urban population is much more mobile than the rural population. In times of industrial depression-and the decade in question was one of them-it is not the Italian on a Connecticut farm who goes home, but his fellow-countrymen in the subways and sewers of New York. A large number of those who were lacking in the metropolis were doubtless back in Italy.

Furthermore, when it is considered that 96.3 per cent. of the supply of Italians for the whole United States enter through the port of New York and that after a decade of immigration, the closing years of which were ones of small immigration, one-third of the entire increase was found in New York City, we hold that this is evidence of a decided tendency to stay there. In other words, the figure on which Prof. Willcox reckons the per cent. of increase for New York City is virtually the same as that on which he reckons the per cent. of increase for the whole United States. If the Italian population of the whole United States has increased by 46.2 per cent. of 651,893, it is hardly to be expected that the population of New York City would have increased by 46.2 per cent. of 627,736, even if they did land there. We are not considering the claim that all the immigrants stay in the city of arrival.

If the type method is to be followed, a good way to determine the relative tendency toward cities of the older and more recent immigrants will be to take types of each class and compare them.

Prof. Willcox has chosen the Italians as a type of the newer
immigration. The Germans will serve as a type of the older.
In 1900 there were 484,027 persons of Italian birth in con-
tinental United States. Of these 296,040 or 61.2 per cent.
were living in cities of at least 25,000. At the same time there
were 2,663,418 Germans in continental United States, of whom
1,297,474 or 48.7 per cent. were in cities of the specified size.'
To be sure, the Germans had been in this country longer than the
Italians, and a little allowance must be made for this, but cer-
tainly this alone could not account for so great a diversity.

Finally, the author quotes figures published by the Census
Office showing that the urban population of Italian birth
increased from 1890 to 1900 by 176 per cent. In the same
period the rural population increased by 150 per cent. This,
he says, is no evidence of a special tendency toward city life of
the Italians when the point of entry and the general rush to the
city are considered. On this point all we can do is to take issue
squarely with the author's view. These figures certainly show
that the urban Italian population is growing more rapidly than
the rural, and that if the same thing were to continue decade
after decade, we would inevitably have a congestion of Italians
in the cities. That it is due to the conditions of arrival rather
than to a personal preference on the part of the immigrants does
not alter the outcome from the point of view of expediency for
the country. The arrival in cities and the rapid growth of cities
are parts of the conditions that we are discussing and are elements
in the tendency toward city life which has not yet been disproved.
To cite them as explanations for that tendency does not
ameliorate the evil results.

In regard to point III, Prof. Willcox states that the evidence on either side is very slight, but that what there is-and he adduces figures for the cities and country of New York Stateis in favor of the cities. To this no objections are to be offered, and the point is of minor importance at best.

The article concludes with the statement that as evidence on the first three points is lacking, the last two fall to the ground of themselves.

'U. S. Census Reports, 1900, Derivative Tables 61 and 91.

pt 3

Summing up the entire article, it would appear that the main conclusion that we can fairly draw there from is that there is no special, innate preference in the heart of the immigrant for city life, but that the disproportionate number of foreign-born in the cities is due to the conditions of arrival. To this we reply that the personal preference of the immigrant, is in itself a matter of no importance to the economic and social life of the United States. The stern fact which remains unshaken is that in 1890 61.4 per cent. of the total foreign-born population were in cities and in 1900, 66.3 per cent.

As for the seaboard cities, an idea of the progress of affairs may be gained from the following figures: From 1890 to 1900 the foreign-born population of the whole United States increased by 11.8 per cent. The foreign-born population of New York City increased by 98.5 per cent., that of Boston by 26.4 per cent., that of Philadelphia by 9.6 per cent., while Baltimore shows a decrease of 1 per cent. And in considering all these comparisons it must be emphasized at the risk of tediousness that the census of 1900 was taken at the close of a period of slight immigration and comparatively numerous departures. If the figures could be taken now, when the immigration for the single year 1906 almost equalled the total immigration for the half decade 1895-99, and the immigration for the two years 1905-06 exceeded it by 753,585, the showing would probably be vastly different. ✔The foreign-born city population is growing, and whether it is composed of the same individuals for year after year is a matter of slight importance. Undoubtedly there is a great change in the personnel of our foreign city settlements. But it is by no means certain that new immigrants make better citizens for our great cities than those of longer residence. With these facts before us it is hard to convince oneself that the actual, practical tendency of the foreign-born toward city life is not excessive, and that the resultant conditions are not a matter worthy of thoughtful consideration.

Yale University.

H. P. FAIRCHILD.

NOTES.

Florida Finance in the Civil War.

After a rather sad experience with banks in her Territorial days, Florida was without any chartered institutions of the kind until the later 50's.

In 1853 the legislature passed a general banking law, largely copied from the Free Banking Law of New York.

According to the provisions of this law and subsequent amendments, any person or association of persons for the purpose of banking might transfer to the comptroller public stock of the United States or of any state, or the bonds of any railroad, county, city, or town bonds of Florida issued for internal improvement or school purposes, or gold or silver, and for such transfer, receive notes therefor ranging in denomination from $5 to $100 to be circulated as money. No company could begin business until $100,000 of securities had been deposited, and no individual with less than $50,000. Upon the failure of any bank to redeem its notes on demand the comptroller was to announce that he would redeem all such out of the proceeds of the stock in his hands and the bank's funds. A law of 1859 required the agents of foreign banks to redeem their notes in specie, but this law was not to be operative on any agency until six months after a bank had been established within fifty miles of it."

About two years after the passage of the general banking law a charter was issued to the Bank of the State of Florida at Tallahassee. The capital was to be $500,000 in shares of $100 each. Debts, exclusive of deposits, were not to exceed double the capital paid in. Before any dividend was paid 3 per cent. of the net profits was to be set aside semi-annually as a State tax in lieu of all other taxes on the capital stock. Three agencies might be established in East Florida and three in West Florida. By 1859 the capital paid in amounted to $130,000.*

The Bank of Fernandina was chartered in 1859 with an authorized capital of $1,000,000. In the course of 1860-1 four

1 Act of Jan. 8, 1853. Laws, II-22.

* Act of Jan. 15, 1859.

'Dec. 14, 1855. Laws, 18-26.
'Bankers' Magazine, xiii, 903.
* Jan. 19, 1859. Laws, 86 et seq.

other banks were chartered with authorized capitals ranging from $100,000 to $1,000,000, but none of them ever materialized.

6

Besides the chartered banks there were in 1860 ten private banks, and by June, 1861, the number had risen to thirteen, but they did not take advantage of the banking law and the State had no connection with them. The capital of the Bank of Fernandina never exceeded $100,000. In December, 1859, the two banks had a circulation of $200,000 and $50,000 of specie on hand. Between June, 1860, and April, 1861, the Bank of the State of Florida increased its capital from $130,000 to $300,000.

Another kind of currency common in Florida at the outbreak of the Civil War was "railroad money," commonly spoken of as change bills. The largest of these that has come to the notice of the writer was $3, the smallest $1, though it is clear that smaller denominations were common. They were not legal tender, but were paid out by the railroads to any who would take them in discharge of their obligations, and in turn were "receivable in payment of all our dues." Just when the railroads began to issue these bills is not clear; they continued to circulate for a good part of the war and for some time after it closed.

Some of the cities had been in the habit of issuing change bills for local use, but it is not known to the writer whether any of them were circulating in 1861 or not. The Library of Congress has one of 64 cents issued by Appalachicola which probably belongs to this date.

When the State withdrew from the Union in 1861 it faced a grave financial situation. Owing to large arrears of taxes the receipts at the treasury had hardly balanced expenditures. Besides, a large amount of bonds, about $500,000, had been issued under the act of 1856 for the benefit of internal improvements. Now the extraordinary expenses consequent upon a war had to be met.

To do this and to supply a circulating medium, five days after the ordinance of secession was adopted in convention, the legislature provided for the issue of treasury notes. In denomination they. were to range from $1 to $100 and the total issue was limited to $500,000. These notes were a legal tender in payment of all dues to the State and might be used in payment of warrants for sums due by the State, but the holder of such warrants was not obliged to receive them. After January, 1862, no person, company, or corporation was to be allowed to issue bills of less than $5, change Bankers' Magazine, xv, 54, 956.