into the field to attack the German entrenchments and keep down the fire of the enemy's howitzers. 'These batteries,' wrote the Field Marshal in his despatch of Oct. 8, 'were used with considerable effect on the 24th and following days,' and it was largely owing to their fire that the enemy's howitzers were removed and the position evacuated. Observe that Sir John French did not ask for heavy guns, but for heavy howitzers. We have an excellent heavy shrapnel-throwing gun now at the front in the shape of our 60-pounder 5-inch B.L. gun, which is effective up to 10,400 yards, but the gun is useless for attacking en trenched troops since the projectiles, with their flat trajectory, pass harmlessly at a high velocity over the entrenchments without producing any effect from their shrapnel bullets." Before the war began it was known that the Germans had six-inch howitzers and 8.2-inch mortars-the mortar is an exaggerated form of howitzerboth of which pieces of ordnance had been seen at maneuvers. Nothing was known then about any heavier pieces than these. In a general way it was understood that Krupp had constructed some 28 centimeter (11-inch) howitzers, for he had already supplied the Japanese with a battery of these pieces which they used at the siege of Port Arthur. It was not known how many of these howitzers were in possession of the Germans. The existence of the 42-centimeter (16.68-inch) howitzers was quite a surprise and many experts were dubious of their reality until official mention was made of them in the Berlin wireless message of November Ist, in which it was stated that these masterpieces of ordnance were manufactured six years ago. Some were used at the sieges of Namur, Liege and Antwerp, and possibly at Maubeuge. It is unlikely that any pieces of such large caliber were brought down into France so far as the Aisne, for in case of retreat they must have fallen into the hands of the allies. Altho the allies have no howitzers of caliber corresponding to the 11-inch and 16-inch howitzers, they are well supplied, as far as quality goes, with medium howitzers, which until recently were intended for siege use only but which the circumstances of the campaign have brought into the field: "In addition to our 4.5-inch q.f. field howitzers, of which we may have some 20 batteries at the front, we have an excellent 6-inch heavy howitzer firing a shell of 100-pound weight, and which has an effective range of 6,500 yards. Four batteries of these howitzers were sent out to Sir John French at the end of last September. Then we also have a 9.45-inch heavy howitzer, which throws a shell of 280 pounds weight containing a bursting charge of 53 pounds of lyddite up to a range of 7,650 yards. This howitzer is fired from a steel carriage resting on a steel bed, which is carried with it, the howitzer and its cradle forming one load, the carriage and bed another, each load being about 4 tons in weight. It would be as risky to take these huge pieces into the field as for the Germans to take their 11-inch howitzers. "The French have no light field howitzer, as their 75 millimeter q.f. field gun is supplied with high-explosive as well as shrapnel shell; but they have a heavy 6.1-inch (Rimailho) quick-firing howitzer which is very highly spoken of, and which fires both high-explosive and shrapnel shell, the weight of the former being 95 pounds, and of the latter 88 pounds. This howitzer is a powerful weapon, and also very mobile, being carried into the field with carriage and mountings complete in two loads, each of 48 hundredweight. "For the same reason as the French the Russians have no light field howitzer, their field gun, which is perhaps the most powerful of its kind in Europe, having high-explosive as well as shrapnel shell, but it is understood that they have a large number of 15-centimeter (6-inch) heavy howitzers throwing shells of 65 pounds in weight up to an effective range of 3,500 yards." In the light of these facts it is correct to say that for tactical purposes in the field the allies are as well provided as the Germans with light and heavy artillery. For the attack and defense of fortresses and entrenched positions, on the other hand, the Aus tro-German forces have in their 11-inch howitzers-assuming them to have a sufficient supply of these pieces-more powerful weapons than are at the disposal of the allies. Owing, however, to the want of mobility of these pieces their use can be neutralized by an acdirected as to prevent them from betive artillery and infantry defense so ing brought into action near enough for their fire to be effective. For whatever reason, the defense of Liege, Namur and Antwerp did not take this form, reliance being placed on the "These weapons require a concrete platform to which the mounting is bolted down, and their transport can be effected only on very first-class roads and over bridges strong enough to bear a weight of 15 tons, or by rail. "It is the 28 centimeter (11.2-inch) which has wrought all the havoc with General Brialmont's steel cupolas. These pieces weigh only 6.3 tons, their total weight in action, i. e., including carriage, recoil cylinders, etc., being 14.8 tons. The wheels are encircled by linked steel plates, called girdles, which enable the howitzer to travel on good roads and also serve to cushion the shock of discharge, for no platform is needed, the howitzer being fired from its wheels. This is rendered possible by the long recoil permitted by the hydraulic and compressed air cylinders by which it is controlled. A holdfast in front anchors the carriage. A special transporting wagon is provided, adapted for mechanical transport, from which the howitzer is readily shifted to its firing carriage. It is capable of being fired up to 65 degrees of elevation and has a maximum range, at 43 degrees, of 10,900 yards. The shell weighs 760 pounds and carries a burster of 114 pounds, high explosive. It is said that shrapnel do not form part of its equipment, but this is open to doubt." Newspaper readers are aware of the scare that agitated London recently in consequence of the discovery of concrete foundations in factories. It was affirmed that these factories were owned or controlled by influential Germans. The foundations of the buildings were concrete beds strong enough to hold the heaviest howitzer during a bombardment. One factory site commanded a whole district in London. The Germans would arrive at the capital of the British empire with their howitzers ready for use. An available site would be seized and London would go the way of Antwerp. Major O'Callaghan, whose words are quoted above, investigated a number of these sites after they had been seized by the police only to discover that they were not available for any artillery purpose. The rumor that certain tennis-courts were in reality concrete foundations for howitzers proved likewise baseless. I THE ORIGINAL MAN THE EXTINCT APES AS GUIDES TO THE ANTIQUITY T IS a matter of common knowledge that altho the great discoveries of the last half century have swept away all the old conceptions of the recent origin of man, those discoveries have not thus far provided anything approaching a definite solution of the problem of the age of mankind. Indeed, the divergence of opinion among scientists is probably greater to-day than it has ever been. In Science Progress (London) the distinguished English zoologist, Professor A. G. Thacker, approaches the question from a point of view which appears to have been neglected, altho recent discoveries tend to emphasize its importance. He deals with the antiquity of the stock from which mankind is believed to have arisen. At the outset he notes that such a phrase as "the antiquity of man" is a highly ambiguous one. It may mean either of two very different things. On the one hand, the expression may refer to the date of the origin of the existing species of man-true man-while on the other hand it may denote the length of time which is supposed to have elapsed since our ancestors ceased to be arboreal and became mainly ground-living creatures, with the consequent transformation of the hinder hands into feet. The foot is the chief peculiarity of the Hominidae or immediate ancestors of man, and hence any ape-like being who possessed feet could lay claim to some kind of humanity. This distinction is germane to the present subject because, to begin with, the known antiquity of our species is a very different thing from the known antiquity of the four fossil species of the human tribe, and because, in the next place, we must recognize that while the existence of apes in any given period has virtually no bearing upon the antiquity of real man, it has a most important bearing upon the probable date of the appearance of those half-human creatures who were his forerunners. "We have to suppose that the Hominidæ and the Simiidæ have originated from a common ancestor, which closely resembled both families in its anatomy. The much-discussed common ancestor was certainly biologically near both to man and to the chimpanzee, tho not necessarily geologically near. Indeed, the creature in question would probably have been correctly included in the Simiide-which is not to say, of course, that any known member of the Simiidæ, fossil or otherwise, is ancestral to man. "Now it follows from this that the presence of Simiidæ in any period implies the possible existence of primitive Hominidæ slightly later. I say advisedly 'slightly later.' The differences between the Simiide and the Hominidæ are altogether trivial, compared with the vast range of mammalian structure. Hence, in terms of geological time, Hominidæ may have appeared very soon after the higher apes, even if the Darwinian theory be true. Whilst if the mutation theory be correct, the interval might be even shorter. For instance, a quarter or a third of the Pliocene would appear to be sufficient interval, whatever be the true theory of evolution. "As already stated, anthropologists differ very widely on the subject of human antiquity. The more cautious school give Pleistocene, limit themselves to paleolithic true man only a small fraction of the implements (ranging over about the latter two-thirds of the Pleistocene), and the most they will concede is that humanoid beings may possibly have existed as early as the Late Pliocene. The extreme school, 37 including Keith, Reid, Moir, Rutot, and others, trace H. sapiens far back into the Pleistocene, discover Pliocene and Miocene eoliths, and place the origin of the human tribe in the Miocene or even in the Oligocene." Without discussing the direct evidence from the technical standpoint, Professor Thacker feels bound to state that he agrees with those scientists who are skeptical of eoliths, and he thinks, too, that the alleged proofs of the great antiquity of man proper are well-nigh valueless. He can not, therefore, be accused of prejudice in favor of the extreme views. But when the extreme advocates of the opposing theory set out to ridicule the attempt to find evidence of man-like apes in the miocene geological period (Miocene Homini dae) on the ground that what is styled the highest mammal could not have existed when proboscidians had primitive teeth, deer only simple antlers and horses three toes, it appears to be time to call a halt in the process of destructive criticism. If we had no more direct clue to the problem, the argument from the general evolution of the Mammalia would be legitimate, altho singularly inconclusive. But since we have fossil apes to guide us, to discuss elephants, deer or horses is illogical and misleading. Simian relics have been found in various strata from the Oligocene to the Pleistocene, but the relics consist in most cases merely of lower jaws. It is important, therefore, to speak of the Oligocene and Miocene apes with all due caution. "The lower apes, collectively known as gibbons, probably stand nearer to the common ancestor of the Simiida and the Hominidæ than do the higher apes-the chimpanzee and its kin, which seem to represent a more divergent twig of the phylogenetic tree. The notoriously gibbonoid characters of the lowest of the known Hominidæ, the Javan ape-man, are thus explicable. Perhaps we should call the common ancestor a gibbon if we could meet him in the flesh. We should therefore expect the gibbons to be more ancient than the higher apes, and this is now proved to be the case. "Nothing is known of the history of the gorilla, or of that rare African ape described by Giraud Elliot as the pseudogorilla, but the remains of a species of chimpanzee and of an orang have been recovered from the Lower Pliocene of India. This fact alone is impressive enough, but the higher apes as a group are much older than the chimpanzee. Several great apes lived in Europe during the Middle and Late Miocene and during the PlioThe best-known genus is of course that famous animal Dryopithecus, which is known from jaws discovered in the Middle Miocene of France, and from another mandible, or rather one ramus of a cene. mandible, found recently in the Upper Miocene, near Lerida, in Catalonia. . . "Perhaps the most striking of all simian fossils is a solitary femur, found in the Lower Pliocene at Eppelsheim, in Hesse Darmstadt. This bone, which is wonderfully well preserved, is longer than the corresponding structure of the gorilla, but is much more slender and more man-like in form." The gibboned group we find are still more ancient. All the living gibbons are usually included in one group, known technically as Hylobates. This genus dates from the Miocene. Very little was known of the extinct gibbons until quite recently. The Hylobates could be traced back along with the greater apes to the middle Miocene It was clear, period, but no farther. however, that the primitive gibbonoid stock must be older than the great apes. It was to be inferred that primitive apes existed at least as far back as the lower Miocene. That such an inference would have been sound is now triumphantly established by the discovery of the two branches of a small ape's jaw in the Oligocene of Fayum, Egypt. The creature differs from the Hylobates in having extremely small canine teeth. LOCATING THE SECRET OF THE W HY should one man attain a full stature, another be short, and yet another attain a medium height? In connection with this query concerning the growth of the human skeleton, it is interesting to see, observes the London Standard, what light modern research is able to shed on the cause of the variation. The actual processes that occur when a bone is growing can be very accurately seen and studied by microscopic methods and have been well known to investigators for a considerable time past; but the cause that either greatly or moderately stimulates these processes has been occult to many. a At the present day it is possible to give an answer, a little tentative, perhaps, yet one going a little nearer to the root of things, as to the reason why one man grows but moderately or why another reaches, say, the stature of the giant. A giant, as a rule, is accounted a man who grows to height of seven feet or over. Cases are known of individuals attaining a height of eight feet. According to some accounts, even nine feet is the height reached, altho there is some little doubt as to the correctness of the measurements in such extreme instances. For a long time a certain number of glands in the body, known as "ductless," have furnished an attractive yet elusive problem to physiologists. Nor can it be said that their functions are as yet adequately explained. When a gland, such, for example, as a gland of the stomach, posseses a tube or duct serving to convey the secretion manufactured by the gland to the point where that secretion is needed, it is not so difficult to obtain the secretion, to analyze its properties, and to state the uses of the gland. But when a gland has no duct? Several such exist in the body. "The theory in vogue is that these glands form 'internal secretions' which mix with the blood or lymph in which the glands are bathed, and that these internal secretions produce the various effects which we now know to result from the activities of the various glands. One such ductless gland, possessing remarkable functions, is a very small structure situated at the base (or beneath) the brain, known as the 'pituitary body.' Roughly speaking, it may be considered as being divided into an anterior and a posterior portion; each exercizes a different effect on the processes of the body, and each shows a different structure under the mi croscope. "There seems little room for doubt, from the results of experiment and evidences of disease, that the anterior portion of the pituitary body pours an internal secretion into the blood which influences growth in a remarkable manner. For the sake of completeness we may note that the posterior portion subserves entirely different functions. When an extract of this part is prepared-and it is used in modern medicine and injected into a vein, it causes a great rise to occur in the pressure at which the blood is flowing, dilates the arteries of the kidneys, and stimulates those organs to extreme activity, together with one or two other physical results which need not detain us here. Thus, at the base of the brain we possess an organ the one part of which is without doubt largely concerned with kidney function and the other largely concerned with the phenomenon of growth." Small as it is, the presence of the pituitary gland is essential to life. The organ has been removed experimentally and the loss has proved fatal in a few days. The posterior lobe may be removed and, provided the whole or part of the anterior be left, life goes on. But a striking effect is produced when a fraction of the anterior portion is taken away. The body becomes adipose among other things. In addition, when the operation is performed before adolescence a condition of infantilism persists. The injection of an extract made from the anterior lobes of other animals relieves these symptoms and prolongs life where the whole anterior lobe has been removed. The important bearing of these results in dealing with cases of defective growth and infantilism arising in the human species from deficient pituitary secretions may be readily surmized. We are now in a position to see that the inordinate growth of the bones constituting a man a giant, or the amount of growth determining his height generally — assuming, of course, the ab sence growth of the bones-is in all likeliof any disease affecting the hood due to the greater or the lesser amount of internal secretion produced by the anterior lobe of the pituitary body. RELIGION AND SOCIAL ETHICS + B ON THE TRAIL OF THE PILGRIM SOUL RITISH searches after an interpretation of the Russian spirit are not to be wondered at now when that spirit, whatever it is, has been drawn into fighting alliance with Great Britain. The Church, it appears, is the mother, not the tool, of the Russian empire. Therefore, Russian religion is very real tho very difficult in some respects for the Englishman to understand. Sir William Robertson Niccoll, a D.D. and LL.D., tells us all this in a leading editorial in his British Weekly, on "The Pilgrim Soul of Russia." It is based chiefly upon Mouravieff's writings and the recent travel sketches by Stephen Graham, and it compels attention. OF RUSSIA "It is told, for example, of one saintly prelate that his humility was ambitious and gigantic. In his case, meditation led to the most bitter and piercing penitence. When he wished, after a long life of prayer and mortification, to express the The their places in battles, sometimes with a depth of his humility, the prostration and horror which his inmost soul felt at the sight of itself, he could not do it by ordinary language or signs. He sought "This was Nikon, who had for many within the lowest depth a lower still, and years prayed and fasted, enduring the ended in what may be called a rude bar- severest rigors of monastic life in the baric act or a majesty of self-abasement. depths of the North. Called by stress of The dying saint anathematized himself; he circumstances, he often emerged as an burial, and ordered it to be cast out like forbade his body the rites of Christian courtier and companion for a king. He was a man of native elegance and rethe carcase of a beast in the desert. His finement, an eloquent and impassioned friends dared not trifle with the awful preacher, and a successful administrator. command. For three days his lean body With all their asceticism the Russians have was exposed on the plain to the beasts of always loved ritual and ceremony. Nikon prey. But no beast touched the sacred was no exception. In his cathedral he corpse. After the third day his friends carried the pomp and beauty of devotion came, and his unviolated remains could no to its greatest height. For two years he was in sole charge of the government of Russia, ruling both church and state. But when his public work was over he fell back in a moment on his hermit life. All through the glittering show of it he had kept up his monastic character and habits. Power, occupation and splendor never im paired his asceticism. In his last days he worked, tho old and emaciated, like a common mason, on building a church." Russia's religion, says Dr. Niccoll, is the religion of a country which is Eastern as much as Western-both European and Asiatic. "It is colored by circumstances, and especially by the aspects and scenery of the great land. Vastness is the attribute of the North. The immense spaces of Russia, the lengths and breadths of her landscapes, her moors and wildernesses, her vistas and her long, interminable lines, correspond with the fire and mystery of her inner spirit." The chief figures of the Russian Church have shown a vigorous, ascetic spirit, a simple-minded enthusiasm, a whole-hearted and passionate faith. The hermit spirit arose from the deep individual impulses and cravings of 'holy minds. "The primitive Russian saint had the power of intensity rather than of grace and finish. His religion was grounded on abstraction and separation from the world. With fixed, rooted, tenacious and singleeyed faith, he longed to look into the mysteries revealed and yet to be revealed, and he cared for nothing else. It is this spirit that rests upon Russia's forests and lakes, her wide plains and her rolling rivers." longer be excluded from a grave.” Disciples gathered around such spiritual persons, and hermitages swelled into monasteries, which became missionary centers. From time to time great saints appeared. They were called out into the world, for the monasteries became the centers of Russian civilization, order and unity. "So far from the state founding the church in Russia, the church founded the state. The church was the mother of the empire, and not its tool. The metropolitans and patriarchs were laborious, ardent, enthusiastic rulers and champions of the church. The church was their only care on earth, the only object of their love. There were high saints among them, and there are well-attested incidents of lofty Christian flights and ascents in grace, of humility, rigor, and perpetual devotion. Many of them were called to occupy positions of great splendor and power, but they looked back with longing and fond regret on the contemplative life they had led, and coveted a return to it. Many did return to cells and hermitages and caves, putting on the Schema (the robe of death). The metropolitan Theodosius, in withdrawing from the See, took with him a poor, feeble old man to his cell, and tended him as a servant, washing his sores as a pattern of Christian humility. His successor, Philip, wore heavy irons on his The high ambition of these holy men courted desolation, observes Dr. Niccoll. They were at home on the mortified, emaciated body; they were disfarthest shore of solitude and in the covered at his death and hung over his most inaccessible caverns. It is not tomb. The Russian people attributed to wonderful that there was a certain them miraculous powers, as if the intenwildness and exaggeration in their sity of grace had overflowed into the out lives and deaths. Grace assumed in them heraldic and mystical dimensions. Russian saints, Dr. Niccoll would have us remember, loved best to dwell in caves which they hollowed out with their own hands, and thus to share the lot of their Master, who descended to the lower parts of the earth. They were of those who confess themselves strangers and pilgrims on the earth and declare plainly that they seek a country. Turning to the fresh modern witness of Mr. Stephen Graham, Dr. Niccoll finds great vividness and true feeling in his description of a recent pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the company of thousands of Russian peasants, who were urged on to their hard journey by some deep religious force they could. not understand. These men had risen above the lowlands and materialities of life. Many of them were called suddenly from a movement in the depths of their spirits. To quote Mr. Graham: "The incurable drunkard of the village picks himself up out of the mire one afterward world and acted on nature." noon, renouncing drinking, and starts off for Jerusalem. The avaricious old mouHermit saints, we are told, took zhik, who has been hoarding for half a century, wakens up one morning, gives all his money to someone, and sets off begging his way to a far-off shrine. The re served and silent peasant, who has hidden his thoughts from those who loved him all his days, meets an utter stranger one afternoon, and with tears tells the story of his life, and reveals to him the secret of his heart; he also, perchance, starts on a pilgrimage. In Russia, as nowhere else in the world, it is the unexpected and mysterious which happens. 'Why didn't you remain in Russia and put the money in the bank, or buy books and learn what is going on in the world? Why do you waste your time making this long journey when you might be earning good money in the fields and the towns?' Then a peasant would answer: 'I don't know. You speak too fast. It seems God didn't make man only to work and earn money, like a horse or a cow. And did not God live and die in the land that we are going to?" " That is the secret, comments Dr. Niccoll. "They believe that Jesus was Very God of Very God. They know full well that Earth 'holds as chief treasure one forsaken grave.' Nietz sche, who was a great student of Russia through the eyes of Dostoievsky, 'that profound man,' noted what he called 'an excess of will in Russia.' There is something volcanic about the Russians, which may be found beneath the surface even of the quietest and stupidest." And when the Russian pilgrims reach Jerusalem they visit and pray at the sacred shrines, accepting the identifications without question. Pilgrims who die on the journey are accounted most happy. B PROTESTANTISM FALLING BEHIND THROUGH UNPRODUCTIVE MARRIAGES ECAUSE of a greater Roman Catholic birth-rate, the United States is becoming a great stronghold of the Roman Catholic Church. For the same reason, that Church has been ascending toward a predominant position in Great Britain and gaining in France and Germany. In Russia, the land of the Eastern Church, the annual excess of births over deaths is much greater than in all the Protestant countries in the world put together. Present-day Protestantism, which in practice stands for a declining birth-rate, is thus being driven back in all the great centers of civilization, according to the conclusion of Dr. Meyrick Booth, a scientific contributor to the Hibbert Journal. He has brought together data only recently made available bearing upon the connection between religious belief and the movement of population, which, he points out, is much more intimate than the sociologists of a few decades ago would have been willing to admit. In England, for example, Mr. Sidney Webb has shown that town-dwelling alone can not be held to account for declining birth-rate, because the fall in many country districts has exceeded that in some of the largest cities. Nor does luxury account for it, since the decline is quite as marked in many poor districts as in well-to-do centers. Compared with rapid decline in England during ten years, the Irish birthrate rose by 3 per cent. and the Dublin rate by 9 per cent. English towns and boroughs of London, where Jews or Roman Catholics are most numerous, show the smallest decrease in birthrate. Other figures covering approximately twenty years exhibit a Roman Catholic birth-rate of 6.6 children per marriage, against 3.74 among the Protestant landed families. From the "Catholic Year Book" a birth-rate of 38.6 per 1,000 is contrasted with the general rate of 24.0 for England and Wales. Says Dr. Booth: "It would seem that the English middle-class birth-rate has fallen to the extent of over 50 per cent. during the last forty years; and we have actual figures showing that the well-to-do artisan birth-rate has declined, in the last thirty years, by 52 per cent.! Seeing that the Protestant churches draw their members mainly from these very classes, we have not far to seek for an explanation of the empty Sundayschools." In France, where the general birthrate is lower than in England, Dr. Booth finds Roman Catholic districts which show a higher rate than the usual English country district. And he quotes the opinion of M. LeroyBeaulieu "that the Catholic Church tends, by means of its whole atmosphere, to promote a natural increase of population; for, more than other types of Christianity, it condemns egoism, materialism and inordinate ambition for self or family; and, moreover, it works in the same direction through its uncompromizing condemnation of modern Malthusian practices." Dr. Booth says that Germany shows a similar condition, tho the differences there are less marked. The situation in the United States is attributed to the influx of large masses of European Catholics who cling tena ciously to their religion, and to the much greater prolificity of these stocks as compared with the native population. "The New England States, the original home of American Puritanism, are now important centers of Catholicism (Massachusetts shows 1,100,000 members of the Roman Catholic Church and 450,000 members of all Protestant Churches combined!). In Illinois there are about a million Roman Catholics, while the strongest Protestant body (the Methodists) cannot show more than 300,000 adherents. In New York state we find 2,300,000 Catholics and about 300,000 Methodists, while no other Protestant body numbers more than 200,000." From statistics representing the five States of Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, California and Kentucky, where the proportion of Roman Catholics and the foreign element is comparatively small, Dr. Booth shows that in every one of them the birth-rate is excessively lowlower even than in France - and in three of them, Indiana, Maryland and California, there is an actual excess of deaths over births. On the other hand, the five States of New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Connecticut, in which the Roman Catholic and foreign element is well represented, make a very different showing of higher birth-rate (22.0 to 25.0 per 1,000 compared to 13.0 to 16.0 in the first group), and a very marked excess of births over deaths in each State. Definite statistics for other important States are said to be lacking, but those given indicate a remarkable increase of the foreign and non-Protestant section of the American people as compared with the Anglo-Saxon and Protestant section, an increase which Dr. Booth says must result less in absorption than in a gradual alteration of national character, customs and beliefs. Numerous other observations are cited by Dr. Booth to bear out the conclusion that the Anglo-Saxon Protestant element, which has all along formed the core of American civilization, is now a diminishing quantity. For instance, the number of children per marriage in Massachusetts in the years 1870, 1880, 1890, was: native stock -2.2, 2.2, and 2.4 respectively; foreign stock-4.4, 5.0, 4.3 respectively. In Boston, 1900, the native birth-rate was 18.2, foreign 31.1; in Providence, the same year, native birth-rate 16.0, foreign 31.1. In Connecticut, 1900, "there were 173,000 married women, of whom 66,000 were foreign-born whites; and in that year these 66,000 gave birth to almost exactly the same number of children as the remaining 107,000-a little over one-third of the married women in the State thus producing half the children." |