portions of the different groups of our European-born population from those of 1910 to those of 1890 (other things being equal), would decrease the number of defectives in our State and National custodial institutions.

In so far as the proposed change from the 1910 basis to the 1890 basis is for the purpose of decreasing the number of defectives entering the United States, these points appear deserving of consideration. To other possible grounds for the change they are not pertinent.

EXPOSITION.

1. Relative numbers of defectives in the main groups of European-born (data from Laughlin's report).

In examining the data of Laughlin's valuable report as to the numbers and relative proportions of defectives contributed to our custodial institutions by different European stocks, the vast mass of details in itself tends to obscure some of the most significant features, some of the main outlines of the situation. These reveal themselves if the material is grouped into a few chief classes. Not merely the proportions of defectives but the actual numbers of cases involved is of extreme importance for the effect on our population of any particular type of immigration. For example, in Laughlin's diagram for insanity the case of Serbia looms up larger than that of Ireland, yet there were found 18 insane from Serbia and 3,782 from Ireland. Cutting out the insane from Serbia would have little effect on our numbers of insane; cutting out those from Ireland would have a very considerable effect.

In Europe there are seven national or regional groups from which had come in 1910 some 94 per cent of our European-born population (11,071,769 out of 11,791,841); each of these had contributed more than a million of our foreignborn. Next in size, though much smaller, is an eighth group, the nations of the Balkan Peninsula, which had contributed 220,946 foreign born; this is of interest because its contribution had so greatly increased of late (from 3,726 in 1890 to 220,946 in 1910). Including this we have a group of eight regions, four in north and west Europe, four in south and east Europe, that in 1910 had yielded 96 per cent of our European-born population. Comparison of the statistics as to these gives results that are perspicuous.

The committee is familiar with the way the data are formulated in Laughlin's report-he gives the relative quota fulfillment of different groups for nine main classes of defects. Three of these classes-deafness, blindness, and deformityare small, comprising together but 80 cases out of over 30,000 defectives of European birth, and in all these the European born show a lower proportion of defectives than do the native born. In order to make the results still more perspicuous I omit these three unimportant classes-though in the class of "All defects together" they are included.

The comparative quota fulfillments from the eight major groups of European born, for the six different classes of defects, and for all classes of defectives together, are given in the following table (data from Laughlin's report):

TABLE 1.-Comparative quota fulfillments of the major racial groups in American custodial institutions (percentages).

These same relations are shown graphically in the chart, in which, howe the sources of immigration are arranged in order of increasing total de tiveness.

CHART SHOWING GRAPHICALLY THE RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF DEFECTIVES: DIFFERENT CLASSES (QUOTA FULFILLMENTS) IN THE EIGHT MAJOR GROUPS T THE EUROPEAN BORN. (FROM LAUGHLIN'S DATA.) THE DIFFERENT GROCE ARE ARRANGED IN ORDER OF INCREASING DEFECTIVENESS.

As the table and chart show, the smallest proportion of defectives from these eight main groups comes from Austria-Hungary (92 per cent), followed by Germany (107) and Great Britain (113). Then follow in order with larger and large proportions of defectives-Scandinavia (119), Italy (145), the Balkans (175), Russia-Finland (184), with Ireland last showing the largest proportion of all, a quota fulfillment of 209 per cent.

I have summarized in the following Table 2 the regions giving the largest proportions of defectives in each class of defect, together with the second and third in rank.

TABLE 2.

Groups of the foreign born who, in proportion to their share in the total population of the United States, contribute the larges number of inmates to custodial institutions, as indicated by the Laughlin survey. Classified by types of disability (with the numbers of European-born defectives in each group).

In considering these, again the actual number involved are practically very important. I have therefore added to each rubric the total number of European born of that class; and for each country the number which it contributes. The largest class is that of the insane, with 21,404 European born; here Ireland is first in proportional numbers: Russia, though second, is largest in actual numbers. In the second largest class, crime, with 4,622 European born, the Balkans come first, Italy second, Russia third. In the third largest (so far as European born are concerned), dependency, with 2.320. Ireland is again far first, with a quota fulfillment more than six times her allowance The other figures speak for themselves.

The north and west division of Europe thus has the larger proportion of defectives in the largest class-insanity; and in dependency; these are the two in which Ireland is first. The southeast has the larger proportion in the other four. For all defects together a larger proportion comes from the south and east (143 per cent to 130 per cent). The country with the largest proportion of defectives (Ireland, with 209 per cent), is from the northwest; that with the smallest proportion (Austria-Hungary, with 92 per cent) is from the southeast. The division into northwest and southeast with relation to comparative defectiveness is therefore not a sharp one.

2. Effect of a change from the 1910 basis to the 1890 basis.

On page 734 of his report of Laughlin gives grounds for referring the conditions just outlined to the proportions of different national groups in the population prevailing at the time of the census of 1910; and his tables and analysis are based on those proportions. The assumption underlying this, I take it, is that a European-born population remaining continuously in the numbers and proportions prevailing in 1910 would continue to yield about the same numbers of defectives found in his survey, carried out in 1921. There is, of course, large opportunity for error on this point, and this fact must be kept in mind in evaluating any conclusions drawn from the data. Yet this 1910 basis seems the best justified of any that can be taken (compare the table near the top of 754 in Laughlin's report); and if conclusions of any sort are to be deduced from the data, they should be reached by sound systematic treatment, not by general impression. A negative conclusion on certain im portant matters will be found justified in any case.

Accepting provisionally, therefore, the reference of these conditions to the tuation prevailing in 1910, how would the numbers of European-born in the ustodial institutions be altered if the European-born population were constiuted according to the proportions found in 1890, in place of those found in 910? This is the situation toward which tends the proposed change in the asis of admission.

Laughlin's data make it possible to compute the answer to this question n the assumption just set forth. The comparison must be made on the basis f an equal number of European-born persons in the two cases; only so can he relative defectiveness of the two types of population be evaluated.

A cursory view shows that in 1890 the proportional numbers of persons livng in the United States who were born in Germany, Ireland, and Great Britain were much greater than in 1910, while the proportional numbers from Italy, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and the Balkans were much less. Considertion of these facts in connection with the data for quota fulfillment shown n our first table lead one to anticipate that the change to the proportions prevailing in 1890 will be found to increase the numbers of insane and dependents and decrease the criminals; the effect on the other classes and on the totals is not at once obvious.

Proceeding to a more critical examination, computations to determine how far such changes and other changes brought about would be based, for the utmost formal exactitude, on the smallest subdivisions of the European population for which data as to quota fulfillment are available. But the outlines of the picture will not differ appreciably if we employ the larger groups, and it is only a general picture that we can in any case get from such a computation. I have therefore based the computation on the proportions of the eight major groups hitherto dealt with, but including also the relatively small numbers contributed from the remaining parts of Europe. The relevant figures for these major groups are the following:

Table 3.-Numbers of European-born inhabitants of the United States in 1890 and in 1910 for the major groups.

The method of computation may be indicated as follows: Let a be the total number of European born with which we are dealing; this number is to be the same on both bases. Illustrating now with the case of Ireland-in 1910 Ireland contributed 11.5 per cent of the European born in the United States; in 1890 it contributed 23 per cent. For the purposes of comparison, therefore, Ireland contributes on the 1910 basis, 11.5 per cent of r; on the 1890 basis, 23.5 per cent of a. That is, on the 1890 basis the number contributed by Ireland is twice as great (actually 2.03 times as great). The number of defectives of each class contributed by Ireland will, therefore, other conditions remaining the same, be twice as great on the 1890 basis as on the 1910 basis. On the other hand, the proportion contributed by Italy is found to be almost exactly one-fifth as great on the 1890 basis as on the 1910 basis; therefore on the former basis Italy will contribute one-fifth as many defectives of each class as it does on the 1910 basis. Thus, if the total European-born defectives on the 1910 basis be designated y, Ireland contributes on the 1910 basis .115y; on the 1890 basis, .230y; and so of the other groups. Summing up the totals contributed by all the groups on the 1890 basis we discover whether this amounts to more or less than 100 per cent of y; if more, the number of defectives is increased by the change to the 1890 basis; if less, it is increased.