now governing the part of Poland in which the immigrant was born. Because of this difficulty the distribution of the Italians has been chosen for special study.

To study the distribution of Italians from New York City between 1890 and 1900, it is important to ascertain the number living in 1890 within the present limits of Greater New York. I have determined that number as follows, the figures for Queens and Westchester being estimates:

The number of Italians in 1890 within the present limits of Queens County has been estimated on the assumption that the part cut off from Queens in 1899 to form Nassau County contained in 1890 the same proportion that it did in 1900 of all the Italians in the former Queens County at the same date. The number of Italians in 1890 in the part of Westchester later incorporated in New York has been estimated as 10.1 per cent of the total number of Italians in Westchester in 1890 (namely, 1820) because 10.1 per cent of the population of that county in 1890 was included in the part transferred to New York.

During the decade between 1890 and 1900 651,893 Italia: immigrants landed in the United States. In the same peri‹ st

d

the number of Italians residing in the United States increased 301,447, a number equal to 46.2 per cent of the current of immigration. During the same decade about 627,736 immigrants from Italy, or 96.3 per cent of the total current, landed in New York City. Assuming that 46.2 per cent of these immigrants, or 290,000, remained in the country until 1900, and contributed to swell its population of Italian birth at that date (the others either returning or dying or filling gaps caused by deaths among the Italians in the country in 1890), and assuming, further, that none of these 290,000 removed from New York City, the Italian-born population of that city in 1900 would have been 341,134. It was 145,433, indicating that about 196,000, or two thirds, of the Italian additions to the population of New York City during the decade had left before its close.

A different method of analysis is made easier by some figures recently published by the Census Office. The country has been divided into urban and rural by putting into the urban class for 1890 and 1900 all places which had 25,000 or more inhabitants in 1890 and into the rural all the rest of the population. The urban population of Italian birth was 107,337 in 1890 and 296,040 in 1900, showing an increase of 176 per cent in ten years. The rural population of Italian birth was 75,243 in 1890 and 187,987 in 1900, showing an increase of 150 per cent in ten years. When one considers that at least nine tenths of the additions to the foreign-born population are made in the first instance to the cities, and also that cities, especially in the North, have a much more rapid growth than country districts, it is hard to find in these figures any evidence of a tendency to city life distinguishing the Italians either from the native population or from other classes of the foreign-born.

With regard to the second point the evidence seems to warrant the conclusion that neither recent immigrants as a class nor Italian immigrants who were selected as the most available national type of recent immigrants show any characteristic tendency towards or fondness for city life.

1 The figures for Italians landing in New York 1890-1896, inclusive, are in the published reports of the Bureau of Immigration, those for 1898-1900 have been kindly furnished me from manuscript records of the Bureau, the non-existent figures for 1896-1898 have been estimated on the assumption that the average proportion in the other eight years (96.3 per cent) held true for those.

III. The evidence on the third point, that this tendency towards urban life is characteristic of illiterate immigrants, is so slight as to require little analysis. On December 13, 14, and 15, 1895, members of the Executive Committee of the Immigration Restriction League examined "about 1000 immigrants over sixteen years" of age concerning their destination and their ability to read and write. The figures indicate that 865 were actually examined, of whom 331 were found on a test to be illiterate and 534 able to read. Seventeen per cent of the 534 literates and 11 per cent of the 331 illiterates gave as their destination some State of the Mississippi Valley.' The difference is too slight to be significant, the numerical basis too small to furnish more than a mere indication, the statements made at landing regarding the intended destination are untrustworthy as evidence of what residence will be chosen, and the illiterates as a class would know less of American geography, and be less likely to have definite plans. The same report recites evidence from the Commissioner of Labor's Report that the slum districts of Baltimore, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia are largely tenanted by illiterate foreigners and their children. But this evidence throws little light upon the real issue.

If we were to admit that illiteracy is more prevalent among the urban foreign-born, this would not prove a tendency of illiterates towards cities. It might be due either to the fact that the urban foreign-born had been in the country, as already proved, a shorter time than the rural foreign-born, and in many instances not long enough to have learned to read and write, or to the fact that the urban foreign-born are the survivors from a more recent current of immigration, and that recent immigrants are more illiterate than those who formerly came to this country.

But first we may ask the question, Is illiteracy more prevalent among urban immigrants? The following table gives the figures for the city and country districts of New York State. The per cent of illiterates among the foreign-born white population of the cities of 25,000 and the rest of the State, 1900, is shown by the table on the next page.

Each of the twelve cities of 25,000+ in New York State, except Schenectady, has a lower per cent of illiteracy among the

1 Fifty-fourth Congress, First Session, Senate Report No. 290.

immigrants than is found outside these cities. In other States similar results would be found. As a rule, illiteracy in any class of the population is more prevalent outside of cities than in them. Not merely is there a lack of evidence to prove the third point, there is also direct evidence to disprove it.

The first three positions being found to lack evidence, the third and fourth, which assumed their truth, fall to the ground. If there is no evidence of a disadvantageous or dangerous tendency towards cities on the part of immigrants as a class, of recent immigrants, or of illiterate immigrants, the main argument in favor of intervention by the government to distribute them properly falls to the ground.

SCHEMES TO "DISTRIBUTE" IMMIGRANTS

SAMUEL GOMPERS, PRESIDENT AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR

WHAT

WHAT is the meaning of the persistent and widespread promotion in this country of the scheme for State and philanthropic employment bureaus? What motive animates the active promoters of the scheme? Have our philanthropists who give money to "help the jobless man to the manless job" any idea of the broader effects on the country of their immediate local charity? What class of wage earners are chiefly the beneficiaries of either State or philanthropic bureaus in obtaining work? Are the interests of any capitalists served by such agencies?

To these questions we shall indicate at the outset what in our opinion are the correct replies. But because we put forth that opinion without labored preliminary it must not be inferred that it is given hastily, without well weighing the necessary evidence. The subject has long received our attention. As we proceed we shall bring to bear on the matter sufficient testimony to establish good grounds for our judgment.

If the reader will but give due weight to the fact that the transatlantic steamship combine is one of the greatest "pools" in the world, and that it is without cease reaching out for dividends, to be obtained by every business method possible, he will have a key to the secret of many of the activities of individuals and organizations, and even foreign governments, in relation to the distribution of laborers in the United States. If the reader will also bear in mind that the industrial trusts, the employers' associations in the centers of population, and the mining and railroad interests aim at employing the cheapest effective manual labor, he will find himself taking account of the proportion of newly arrived non-English-speaking laborers among their workmen.