CHAPTER SIX

THE ARGUMENT FROM NUMBERS

In the foregoing chapters it is only by way of exception that there has been made any formal use of statistical data, or any reference to scientific authorities;—in fact, there has been a studied avoidance of the sympathetic literature of the subject. But it seems wise and, above all, just to the reader, to guard well every salient position, to throw round every argumentative assertion a bulwark of mathematical evidence—a task that presents little difficulty, since in general the facts in the case are well ascertained and the testimony unanimous. At only a few points, and those of rather minor importance, do the depositions go wide apart. In casting up these circumvallations, we shall be at pains to cite only witnesses against whom no exceptions can lie; many very valuable ones shall be excluded, merely for geographical reasons; we do not ask the reader to heed even a scientific word that might be tinged with prejudice.

Next to the United States Census Reports, which must of course be our main source, we shall use, in discussing anthropometry, the great work of Frederick L. Hoffman, F. S. S., statistician to the Prudential Insurance Company of America, entitled "Race Traits and Tendencies of the American Negro," published as Vol. XI., Nos. 1, 2, and 3, of the publications of the American Economic Association, by the Macmillan Company, August, 1896,—the result of ten years' careful investigation—a book almost beyond praise. Among his more recent supplementary studies may be mentioned his "Race and Mortality," October, 1902.

The author is a German and without race prejudice. For him the problem of race pathology exists as a purely practical one: At what rates can the Negro be insured? No emotion can enter here; it is a mere question of dollars and cents, and for insurance companies a vital one. To our opponents, his judgements may sometimes sound harsh; but they are scarcely harsher than the facts, which he seldom forces, but interprets fairly. His conclusions have, of course, been passionately assailed, as by Professor Kelly Miller; but in no important particulars have they been seriously shaken.

In the following statistical tables, we shall frequently use the myriad as the unit. Thereby the data are made easier to understand and to remember; there is a great economy of space and of attention, and no appreciable sacrifice of accuracy. For in case of such immense numbers it is idle to hope for correctness in the fourth figure; errors will almost surely reach up into the thousands, if not above. Besides, we shall use these data for purely argumentative purposes, and no argument is in the least affected by a change in the thousands. Thus, the population of New Orleans is given at 287,104. No one can deny that it may have been nearer 286,000 or 288,000. We shall indicate it by twenty-nine (myriads), by which we mean merely that it is between 285,000 and 295,000. So, when we speak of a mortality of 234, we mean 234 yearly per myriad. So we shall put a recent death-rate of Chicago at 145 (per 10,000) rather than at 14.49 (per 1,000). The last digit can lay no claim to correctness.

INCREASE OF THE NEGRO POPULATION

The grand totals of the population in the Continental United States, as given by the census reports, are:

It needs no ghost from the tomb to tell us that some of these census returns are wrong, and widely wrong. An increase of 221 per thousand during a decade (1850-60) of universal and extraordinary prosperity, under singularly favourable conditions, seems every way likely and calls for no remark. But the following decade (1860-70), while it wrought ruin upon the Whites, brought freedom to the Blacks and in no way worked them any hardship. That their rate of increase should have fallen off from 221 to ninety-nine seems, then, quite incredible. Again, the next decade (1870-80) marked the end of the riot of Africanism in the South, and its second half saw white supremacy restored and the Blacks forcibly repressed. On the whole, then, it could hardly have been so favourable to the Negroes as the preceding, and yet their numbers leap up nearly two millions, at the astounding rate of 349 per thousand. Their conditions were certainly no worse during the next decade (1880-90), yet they grow only half as much, and at a rate little over one-third as fast—only 138 per thousand. There is no visible sign of improvement in conditions during the next decade, yet they multiply measurably faster—at the rate of 180 per thousand. When the results for 1880 were announced, it was felt that the game was lost for the white man. Accordingly, in 1883, Professor C. A. Gardiner, of Brooklyn, N.Y., could forecast that in thirty years the Southern Negro would outstrip the Southern White in wealth, intelligence, and numbers, and within a century would absorb that White completely!—a prediction only less buoyant and highly coloured than Gen. Pope's of July 14, 1867, that "five years will have transferred intelligence and education, so far as the masses are concerned, to the colored people of this district" (Alabama, Georgia, Florida). At such a rate the Negroes in 1900 would have numbered about fourteen millions, and in 1910 about twenty millions, in 1920 nearly thirty millions; in 1950 they would have surpassed eighty millions, the present population of our Union, and in 1990 they would have reached 320 millions. So that the practically complete Africanization of the United States would be only a question of this century. The census of 1890 showed an immense falling off in this rate (from 349 to 138) and so allayed such fears. The last census shows, apparently, a slight rise in the Negro increase (from 138 to 180)—which, however, remains notably behind that of the Whites (212), by about 15 per cent.

However, since these returns involve manifest absurdities, it is hard to ground any argument upon them. Presumably, the last census is more nearly correct. It is generally admitted that the census of 1870 was grossly defective. In our judgement, both those of 1880 and especially of 1890 were far below the mark; but it would be hard to prove this rigorously. It seems that the rate from 1850 to 1860 is, on its face, the most reasonable. As the Negroes were then slaves, their numbers were very probably returned correctly by the owners. As there was no motive against and every motive for their rapid multiplication, and as their death rate was certainly much lower than after emancipation, it seems certain that 221 per thousand (say 22 per cent.) represents their maximum natural increase per decade. This would have given about 542 myriads for 1870, about 661 for 1880, about 806 for 1890, about 980 for 1900. This would indicate, then, that the census of 1880 is also nearly correct, while that of 1870 is most sadly defective, and that of 1890 seriously so. Still, this latter can hardly have erred by fifty myriads—perhaps by twenty or thirty; so that the number in 1890 should possibly be 770 myriads. In that case, the numbers since 1850 would be given, nearly enough for memory, by the hundred thousand, thus:

Of course, these numbers are not exact; but they are, on the average, more nearly so than those of the census reports given in the line below, which disprove themselves.

At any rate, the Negro numbers have been nearly doubled in forty years. This is an average rate of almost exactly 20 per cent. per decade. Since the earlier rate was certainly more than twenty, the latter must have been certainly less; in fact, even according to the census, there is a falling off from 221 to 180, and this latter figure should probably be reduced to 160. It must be reduced, unless the census of 1890 was as perfect as that of 1900, which is most unlikely. While we consider positively necessary some such amendment of the census returns as we have suggested, yet we ground no argument thereon; we rest on the certainty that the rate of increase of the Negro has fallen off at least 16 per cent. since the days of his slavery. His absolute increase has been about maintained, so that the next census (1910) will give him, perhaps, slightly under ten millions.

Meantime the total white population has advanced from 1,955 to 6,681 myriads; or, since 1860, from 2,692 to 6,681—not quite two and one-half times. But we must remember the desolating war that ravaged the North, and particularly the South, of its Caucasian bloom for four years, and left the latter utterly prostrate. This is shown in the fearful descent in gain from 377 to 248. The gain in that decade should have been about 900 instead of 667, which would have given the Whites about 8,100 myriads in 1900—almost exactly tripling the return of 1860. By natural increase, then, the white population about triples itself in forty years, while the black about doubles. Hence, the latter must form an ever-diminishing fraction of the whole population. In fact, the number of Negroes per thousand of the whole population, since 1790, is as follows:

We have seen that the estimate for 1870 is certainly much too low, as also extremely probably that for 1890. In any case, it is hereby proved that the black is rapidly falling in ratio to the white population. Such a descent, pursued for a few centuries, would bring it to comparative insignificance.

To be sure, it must not be forgotten that the White increase is due largely to immigration. But there seems to be no reason why this immigration should not be continued indefinitely; at present it is particularly heavy and will weigh very perceptibly in the census of 1910.

Again, it must not be disguised that the birth rate among the older New England stock of native white Americans has fallen lamentably low—even beneath the point of bare race maintenance. A thousand such couples rear only about 950 couples. This race decay seems, surely, the most alarming symptom in our national life—a tendency which it seems exceedingly hard to combat. However, there are yet vigorous and prolific Caucasian tribes in great abundance on the face of the earth; and if the native white American prefers to die out, why, let him die—no one can help it. The white foreigner will certainly step in and fill his place more virilely, if not more worthily. There is nothing, then, in this phenomenon, humiliating though it is, to shake the conclusions already stated.

But an even more interesting matter than the relation of the Negro to the Union at large is his relation to special sections. The grand divisions in the census reports are North Atlantic, South Atlantic, North Central, South Central, and Western. In only two of these, the South Atlantic and the South Central, is the Negro really a problem. In the others, he is a vanishing quantity. Thus, in the North Atlantic and the North Central, his myriads are only:

This increase has been rapid—much more rapid than elsewhere; but he remains, and must always remain, insignificant. The increase has been due to immigration, for it is conceded that his natural rate of increase in the North will not even maintain his numbers. Left to himself there, he would certainly die out. This immigration will certainly continue and will actually contribute to the destruction of the race, as it were by steadily lopping off the extreme boughs of the tree.

Of the West, nothing need be said. For the South Atlantic and South Central, the record is as follows:

Here we perceive, at once, that the situation on the Atlantic is unequivocal. The Black tinge is fading away; that population has exactly doubled itself only in fifty years, while in the South Central it has doubled in forty years. Compare now the White record in the same (South Atlantic) regions. Owing to the Civil War, the growth during the decade 1860-70 was under thirty-five myriads—less than half of the normal growth; nevertheless, the White population has more than doubled itself in thirty-five years, from 1865 to 1900. In 1850 there were 397 Blacks to every thousand, in 1900 only 356. The next half century will see a still further reduction. The White increase, in the last decade, was 20 per cent.; the Black was only 14.

Coming to the South Central, we find the case equally clear. Here again, the civil strife amerced the Whites of at least half a decade; the increase from 1860 to 1870 was only fifty myriads, whereas it should have been over 100, since it was ninety-two from 1850 to 1860. Nevertheless, we find that the White number has doubled in twenty-five years (from 1875 to 1900), but the black in forty (from 1860 to 1900). From 1850 to 1860 the Black gain was over 40 per cent., the White was under 34 per cent.; but, for the last decade (1890 to 1900), the Black gain was 20 per cent., the White about 30 per cent. In the whole half century, the Blacks have gained 181 per cent.; but the Whites, in spite of their numerous losses in four years' war, have gained over 249 per cent. In 1850, of every thousand, 347 were Black; but, in 1900, only 299.

It is demonstrated, then, that in these two focal regions of African strength not only is that strength relatively decreasing, but it is decreasing faster and faster. The hour cometh when neither by the ocean nor by the gulf will it signify more than it does now in Philadelphia or New York.

If now we turn to the statistics of the states, we shall, of course, find this general average result unevenly distributed. Only the states included in the following table can have any interest for us:

In spite of the fact that the gross defects of the ninth enumeration (1870), and in less degree of the eleventh (1890), greatly obscure these figures, their import and their implications are entirely unmistakable. Three movements deserve especial notice: the movement in the first decade, in the last decade, and during the whole half century. Looking then at Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Virginia, we see that the Negro has increased in numbers in fifty years by only 29 per cent., 42 per cent., 79 per cent., 34 per cent. The general conditions have been certainly not unfavourable, and there has been no immigration that could appreciably affect these percentages. Meantime the Whites have risen in numbers by 145 per cent., 128 per cent., 397 per cent., 136 per cent.—aided, except in Missouri, not very greatly by immigration. That they are crowding out the Blacks very rapidly, is too plain for argument.

But not only is the Negro yielding—he is yielding faster and faster. In the first decade (1850-60) his gains were 7 per cent. (not quite), 4 per cent., 32 per cent., 4 per cent.; whereas in twenty years (1880-1900), the gains have been only 5 per cent., 12 per cent., 11 per cent., 7 per cent. The total percentage of gain has been actually less in the two decades than in the one. In these states, then, the doom of the Black is sealed.

In Louisiana, the course of fate is not less sure. In 1850 the Blacks were slightly preponderant—262,271 against 255,491; in 1870, "by reason of slaughterous war," they had increased their lead decidedly, and very greatly in 1880 (483,655 against 454,954); but in 1900 they have fallen far behind—only 650,804 against 729,612. Of this state, then, the redemption is sure and in rapid progress.

Not less manifest is the bleaching of North Carolina. There the coloured population has not doubled itself in fifty years, whereas the White has far more than doubled and, but for the plague of war, would certainly have trebled itself. In the first decade (1850-1860), the Whites and Blacks increased each by not quite 15 per cent.; but in the double decade (1880-1900) the Whites increased by 46 per cent., the Blacks by not quite 18 per cent.

There is quite a similar tale to be told of Tennessee. The great empire of Texas shows a much better record; there the Negro has, indeed, ten-folded himself—largely, of course, by immigration; but the Whites have been multiplied by nearly sixteen. In the first decade the Whites increased by 173 per cent., the Blacks by 312 per cent.; in the last decade the former increased by 39 per cent., the latter by little over 27 per cent. Surely, ambiguity here is quite out of the question.

South Carolina has long had the unenviable distinction of being by far the darkest state in the Union. In 1850 the ratio was twenty-seven to thirty-nine. She suffered ruinously for her secession folly, and for nearly twenty years her White population was practically stationary; in 1870 she had only twenty-nine myriads, and even in 1880 only thirty-nine against sixty of Blacks. But, at last, the tide has begun to turn. The introduction of manufactures promises redemption to the Palmetto State. From 1880 to 1900 the Negroes increased by nearly 30 per cent., but the Whites by 43 per cent. The hue of the state is now almost precisely the same as at the firing on Fort Sumter; she has at last made good the losses of the war.

Georgia is the watermelon paradise of the Black folk. In the first decade they gained greatly on the Whites, advancing their ratio from thirty-eight to fifty-two up to forty-seven to fifty-nine; they still further increased their gain in the next twenty years, till in 1880 the ratio stood seventy-three to eighty-two. But this was the high-water mark; since then it has sunk back slightly to 103 to 118; the Whites are now gaining slowly. This \example is very instructive and very encouraging; for it shows that even a steady gain of the Black over the White continued through a whole generation may yet be turned into a loss in the next generation.

A similar case is presented by Alabama. Here the Negro's increase in the first decade was 27 per cent., the Caucasian's only 23 per cent. The state suffered frightfully during the war, and in 1870 the White population had actually fallen from 526,271 (in 1860) back to 521,384. The Black population was then returned at 475,510, but it was almost certainly over 500,000; for in the preceding decade it rose from 345,109 to 437,770; it must (in 1870) have exceeded or at least equalled the White. But now the Caucasian begins once more to demonstrate his superior life-powers; in the next three decades he nearly doubles his numbers (521,384 to 1,001,152), while the Negro rises only to 827,307. With the establishment of industries in iron, the triumph of the White in Alabama has been assured.

There remain only Arkansas, Florida, and Mississippi. In the hot and moist alluvial lands of these states, the Negro seems likely to make his most stubborn stand against the encroachment of the Caucasian. In these three, he is still multiplying faster than his competitors; in one he is already far ahead in numbers. Must he not, then, ultimately make them completely his own? At first sight it would seem we should answer yes, but closer inspection reveals tendencies that must finally reverse the present conditions. In Arkansas, the White rate has gained rapidly on the Black. In 1850-60 these rates were: White 100 per cent., Black 133 per cent.—one-third more; but in 1890-1900, White 15.4, Negro 18.7, and for the double decade, 1880-1900, they were: White 59, Negro 74. From having been one-third greater, the Negro rate has become about one-fifth greater.

In Florida and Mississippi, the complexion, though still very dusky, is lighter than half a century ago. In the former, the white excess in 1880 was hardly thirteen per hundred Negroes; in 1900 it had risen to twenty-nine. In the great cotton state, the darkest spot on the continent, the Blacks have long been in a seemingly hopeless majority. This amounted to 15,000 in 1850; in 1860 it had risen to 84,000; in 1900 to 266,000. During the last decade the Black increase per thousand was 222, the White only 177. So the situation would seem to be growing steadily worse. However, there is still a ray of hope. The Blacks are still gaining, but at a decreasing rate. From 1850 to 1860 their gain per thousand was 408, but from 1880 to 1900 it was hardly 396; they gained not nearly half so fast. Meantime, the White gain from 1850 to 1860 was only 196 per thousand, whereas from 1880 to 1900 it was 337; while the Black gain fell from 408 to 396, the White rose from 196 to 337. At this rate the White must surely overtake and pass the Black, and another half century will almost certainly see the white numbers greatly preponderant.

The case of Mississippi is especially interesting as showing the prospect of the Blacks at its brightest and of the Whites at its darkest. This state has no large city, but few towns of moderate size, and no manufactures. It is almost exclusively agricultural. Here, then, the conditions that make for the Whites are at their worst; those that make for the Blacks are at their best. Here, if anywhere on our continent, the odds are all for the Negro; and yet, even here, he makes a losing fight—he still has the advantage, but it is slipping from his hands.

We can think of only one objection likely to be raised against the foregoing statistical argument. Some one may say that we have made too little use of the decade 1890-1900, but have preferred the score of years 1880-1900. It is true that the last decade (1890-1900) shows better for the Negro than the preceding (1880-90)—which, indeed, indicated his over-rapid decadence throughout the South. But it seems hardly possible that this showing should not be deceptive. For there is not a single known circumstance that favoured him in his last decade rather than in the preceding. The explanation seems very simple; the coloured returns of the eleventh census were incomplete—not nearly so incomplete as those of the ninth, yet enough so in comparison with the tenth and the twelfth to make the showing for 1880 to 1890 too bad, and for 1890 to 1900 too good. The census reports of the Black population for 1850 and 1860 seem to have been substantially correct; for 1870, extremely incomplete; for 1880, greatly better; for 1890, not nearly so good; for 1900, much better again. For 1870 this is now conceded. Thus, in Mississippi the coloured population increased from 1850 to 1860 by 126,000; from 1870 to 1880 by 206,090; but from 1860 to 1870 by only 6,797 (impossible!). In Kentucky it actually lost (1860-70) 13,957, but gained (1870-80) 49,241; and once more lost (1880-90) 3,380. So, in South Carolina, the Negro gain was (1870-80) nearly 190,000, but (1860-70) only 3,500. So, in Missouri, a gain of 28,463 (1850-60) and of 27,279 (1870-80), but (1860-70) a loss of 432.

The indications of imperfection in the census of 1890 seem clear, though not so glaring as in that of 1870. Such, for instance, are the actual decreases in the Negro population of Kentucky and Missouri, and the extremely small gains (1880-90) of 5,500 (Maryland), 5,000 (Missouri), 4,000 (Virginia), against gains (1890-1900) of 19,500 (Maryland), 11,000 (Missouri), 25,000 (Virginia). Other imperfections, not so glaring, but quite as unmistakable, a careful eye may detect only too frequently. Thus, consider the following returns per 1,000,000 for the census years—

In all these classes a steady increase up to 1880, then a sudden falling off in 1890.

Once more, the death rate in the non-registration area in 1880 was 13.42 per thousand; in 1880 it was only 10.79. Such an improvement in health, especially in districts mainly rural, is quite incredible. The fact is that for many purposes of comparison the eleventh census is unavailable—a fact that greatly strengthens many of our contentions.

On its face, it is quite too improbable that the Blacks should gain only 138 per thousand in the decennium 1880-90 and then, without any assignable cause, leap to 180 per thousand for the next decennium (1890-1900). Only two things could bring this about—increase of birth rate, decrease of death rate. The former is quite inexplicable and incredible; the latter is contradicted by the facts of the case. It would mean a fall of four in the annual mortality per thousand, and there has been nothing of the kind.

The defect in enumeration, certainly so great in 1870 and almost certainly present in less degree in 1890, is very easy to understand and antecedently probable. For the prejudice against "numbering the people" has been strong since the days of David and of Judas of Galilee, and the Negro flees from the census-taker as from a tax-gatherer, or vaccinator, or even a kodak fiend.

Be this as it may, it is generally admitted that, in all arguments from statistics, the larger the numbers and the longer the space of time, the more trustworthy the indications; in any case then we are more than justified in taking the double decennium (1880-1900) in comparison with the first decade (1850-60); since the census of 1870 is admittedly grossly in error, no other basis of comparison nearly so trustworthy is present.

Herewith then we close the argument. It seems hardly necessary to add that the higher percentage of Negro gain in the North Atlantic and North Central States signifies nothing except that small numbers have been greatly swollen by immigration. It is well known that in these regions the Negro, unfed by immigration, tends swiftly to extinction. Viewed thus from what point of the compass you will, the general movement of the life of the continent is towards the elimination of the African element. We admit that figures may be made to lie, but we have subjected them to no captious cross-examination; we have let them speak for themselves; we have neither forcibly repressed nor forcibly extorted any testimony; their voluntary witness is singularly consistent and unequivocal and wholly irresistible.

ANTHROPOMETRY

It has been proved by the foregoing statistical study, varied in every way and taking every significant fact into consideration, that the Negro is everywhere in the United States yielding and making place for the Caucasian. We might, indeed, have anticipated that such a result would follow infallibly upon exposing the two races to open competition. For the Negro has never voluntarily extended himself beyond his African home; he has never eagerly sought out new habitats, nor readily adapted himself to new environments; whereas the Caucasian has traversed and colonized the earth from the equator to either pole; he has plumbed every abyss; he has scaled every height; he has spied out every secret place: for him no sea has been too wide, no plains too broad, no mountains too high, no sands too hot, no snow too cold, no jungles too dark and deadly. He pits himself against Nature, he forges for himself Achillean armour, he grasps the shield, he shakes the spear, and rushes joyfully to the encounter. Nothing of all this, nothing in any way like aught of this, has the Negro ever done; naught, in our judgement, will he ever do. The massive facts, then, of the geographical distribution of the races give token unmistakable that, in any collision within any but the tropical regions, the Negro must go down before the Caucasian.

This superior vigour, this aggressive vitality need not reveal itself to any mass-measurements; it might hide away in the cells and the finest tissue; it might be not anatomic, but histotomic only. The distinguished surgeon, Dr. Rudolph Matas, as the result of wide observation and careful inquiry, declares that pathological-anatomical peculiarities of the Negro are not recognizable chirurgically; Black and White are sensibly the same.

Nevertheless, broad distinctions are actually present and come to light wherever extensive observations have been made. It is jauntily declared by a great protagonist of the Black man that "physically, he is the equal of the white man; he is as tall and as strong," and such is perhaps the general opinion. There is a fine irony, however, in the fact that precisely these moments in which his equality is so incautiously affirmed are the ones in which he is distinctly inferior. He is in truth neither so tall nor so strong, though vertical inch for inch he is somewhat heavier. It seems needless to copy down table after table to prove these statements. We quote the words of Hoffman, summing up extensive comparisons: "The average stature of the negro is less than that of the white, and the difference, though slight, prevails at all ages." From Gould's "Military Statistics," pp. 461-465, we learn as distinctly as we can learn any such facts, that the Negro is not so strong as the Caucasian; that the mean lifting strength of the Black is very markedly below that of the White at all ages above seventeen, with the exceptions of thirty-one to thirty-four, where the Black excess is nearly five pounds, and of forty-five to forty-nine, where the Black average is 328.7, the White only 325.7—a Black excess of three pounds. Under seventeen the White average is only 250.4, the Black 258.9—another Black excess of 8.5, very considerable and noteworthy, and for seventeen the Black excess is 295-292.8 = 3.2. For all other ages, the White excesses are as follows:

Hence, it appears that up to seventeen the Negro is on the average stronger than the White; he is also stronger in the cases measured from thirty-one to thirty-four and from forty-five to forty-nine, though his advantage is not great; but everywhere else he is markedly not so strong. Of course, it is easy to except to such statistics—to say that the averages are untrustworthy; but it would be very strange if so many distinct and independent indications were all wrong. As the lowest age for soldiers is hardly below sixteen, we see that the Black excels, and only slightly, in only twelve years, the White in twenty-three years up to fifty and in all above, and on the whole very considerably, his excess rising twice to 26.8. The indication, then, is of a more tropical nature in the Black; he attains his maximum sooner, but he maintains it not so long nor so high; and this might certainly have been expected.

Similar is the indication of the respiration. In full vigour the average respiration per minute of Whites, Blacks, Mulattoes are 16.44, 17.75, 19.01; while with impaired vigour the average rates are for Whites 16.84, for Blacks and Mulattoes 20.71. Here this excessive frequency is found at every age, both in health and still more in disease, both for Blacks and still more for Mulattoes. It seems impossible, then, that the indications should be erroneous. On the other hand, the pulse of the White, in vigour and in ailment, is faster than the full Black's, but slower than the Mulatto's; Whites 74.84, 77.21; Blacks 74.02, 76.91; Mulattoes 76.97, 83.12. Here the differences are too slight for emphasis, and we do not know that there is any advantage in a somewhat slower pulse. But what is the meaning of the quicker respiration? It means the decidedly lower lung capacity of the Black. Since the Black weighs more per inch of height than the White, we are prepared to find his chest measurements greater after respiration. These measurements confirm each other. Of 315,620 White soldiers the average girth of chest was 33.42 inches, but of 25,828 coloured soldiers it was 33.69; and this difference in favour of the Blacks maintained itself for all statures. However, the lung capacity or mobility of chest (i.e. the difference between the girth at forced inspiration and forced expiration) is greater in the Whites; in 6,359 Whites the average was 3.24; in 377 Negroes it was 3.23. This difference is too small to be worth noting, but mark you! in the under-weights (100 to 120 pounds) the mobility was far greater in the Blacks (3.33 against 3.15), also in the overweights (180 and more) (3.38 against 3.27); but in the normal weights (120 to 180) it everywhere favoured the Whites. Moreover, these Whites were about an inch taller than the Blacks (67.30 against 66.39) at all ages; their chest girth was nearly half an inch less (32.49 against 32.84), and yet their lung capacity was greater. The indication of stronger lungs seems unmistakable.

At this point it seems necessary to point out that in this extremely important matter of chest mobility, the Negro is not maintaining himself but is perceptibly declining. In 1861-65 the excess favoured the Whites for the ages thirty to thirty-nine, and under twenty; for all other ages it favoured the Blacks, who fell behind only .01 on the general average (3.24 and 3.23). But in 1892-94 it favours the Whites at all ages; and the White excess has increased to .35 (2.93 and 2.58). (Reports of Provost-Marshal General, Vol. I., and of Surgeon General of U.S.A., 1893-95.) The indication is not in itself infallible, but it has great significance in connection with other corroborative evidence.

Lung capacity is not chest mobility, but the two are closely related. Gould's measurements indicate a very decidedly smaller number of cubic inches of air in case of the Negro, and this for all heights and weights. The White excess increases steadily from eight cubic inches (for under-heights, sixty inches) up to fifteen and one-half cubic inches for over-heights (seventy-one inches), but falls back to fourteen and one-half for six-footers. On the other hand, this White excess falls from twenty-five and one-half cubic inches for narrow chests (30 inches) down to two cubic inches for large girths (40 inches); but its uniform presence shows that the excess is a fact, whatever may be the varying size of the fact. Here again the indication is unambiguous that the Negro is short-winded, weak-lunged as compared with his White rival.

This indication is immensely strengthened by combination with another exceedingly important fact. It has been said that the Negro is stouter than the White, at all ages and all statures, weighing more per inch of height. Now this extra weight per vertical inch is considered of all outward signs the best for lung strength and lung soundness. "Are you gaining in weight?" is the all-important question that the physician asks of his tuberculotic patient. The Negro has (or had) here very much outwardly in his favour; the lower height, the heavier build, the greater girth of chest; so important is the single item of weight that it is held on the basis of the broadest induction that even a very slight overplus in heaviness may suffice to counteract effectively a hereditary disposition towards tubercle, while actuaries are agreed that slightness in proportion to age and height greatly determines susceptibility to consumption.

And yet, in spite of all, he is the peculiar victim of tuberculosis, which attacks him not only with great and increasing frequency, but with especial malignance. Of his enormous death rate from lung affections, we have yet to speak. Here we would merely point out the obvious conclusion, that histologically the Negro thus appears inferior to the White man; not only do his tissues offer ready lodgement to the invading bacillus, but they offer far less stubborn and protracted resistance to such inroads when once in progress.

At this point, it seems well to quote the conclusions of Hoffman (pp. 170-171):

"First. The average weight of the colored male of military age, and of colored male and female children, is greater than that of whites of the same classes. This excess in weight prevails irrespective of age, stature, or circumference of the chest.

"Second. Already quoted. (p 217).

"Third. The greater weight and smaller stature of the negro as compared with the white are found to prevail practically the same to-day as thirty years ago. The race has therefore undergone no decided change in respect to these conditions of bodily structure.

"Fourth. The average girth of chest of the negro male of thirty years ago was slightly greater than that of the white, but at the present time the chest expansion of the colored male is less than that of the white. This decrease in the size of the living thorax in part explains the increase in the mortality from consumption and respiratory diseases.

"Fifth. The capacity of the lungs of the negro is considerably below that of the white. This fact coupled with the smaller weight of the lungs (4 oz.) is without question another powerful factor in the great mortality from diseases of the lungs.

"Sixth. The mean frequency of respiration is greater in the negro than in the white. As accelerated respiration indicates a tendency towards disease, the fact just stated fully supports those regarding inferior vital capacity and lesser degree of mobility of the chest.

"Seventh. The mean lifting strength of the white is in excess of that of the negro. The prevailing opinion that the negro is on the whole more capable of enduring physical exercise is therefore disproved." [H.'s "therefore" is quite unwarranted. There is no such necessary connection between strength to lift and strength to endure. However, his conclusion, although illogical, is nevertheless correct, as appears plainly from a large body of other evidence.] "This fully agrees with the facts regarding excessive mortality, which in itself is proof" [or at least indication] "of a lesser degree of physical strength.

"Eighth. The power of vision of the negro is inferior to that of the white, but he is less liable to diseases of the eye, especially color blindness."

In the light of these "conclusions," which accord so perfectly with the great facts of geographical distribution, how is it possible to speak of the Negro as physically equal to the Caucasian?

But not only is this comparative structural weakness clearly indicated, but it is becoming more and more apparent. The marked apparent decline in the chest expansion between 1863 and 1894 (from 3.23 to 2.58), the increasing mortality, the decreasing immunity, the vague but unvarying testimony of general observation—all tell one and the same unambiguous story.