The most striking inference to be drawn from the foregoing table is that although the various classes of crime form widely different proportions of the total criminality in the different sets of data, the comparative relation of immigrant and native offenders to them follows a fairly constant law.

Thus, although in the figures for the New York City magistrates' courts, the police arrests of Chicago, and the commitments to Massachusetts prisons, the gainful offenses form very much smaller proportions of the total crimes than in those of the New York court of general sessions and the county and supreme courts of New York State, in all five sets of data these offenses comprise a larger percentage of the total crimes of native-born offenders than of the total crimes of foreign-born. In each instance the difference in the percentages of the two groups of offenders is sufficiently marked to very clearly bring out the fact that the gainful offenses are much more common among the criminal acts of natives than they are among those of immigrants.

In the case of the figures of the New York City magistrates' courts these offenses form nearly one-tenth of all the crimes of native-born offenders, while they compose but little more than one-sixteenth of the total offenses of the foreign-born. Of convictions in the New York court of general sessions, considerably more than three-fourths of those of native-born criminals are for the gainful offenses, while but little more than two-thirds of those of the foreign-born are for the same crimes. In the records of the county and supreme courts of New York over three-fourths of the crimes of natives and only threefifths of the crimes of immigrants consist of gainful offenses. In the figures of Chicago arrests and of commitments to Massachusetts prisons the gainful offenses form about one-seventh of all the crimes of native-born offenders and about one-tenth of those of the foreign-born.

Offenses of personal violence, on the other hand, form a larger proportion of the total crimes of immigrant offenders. In each of the five sets of data the percentage of the foreign-born is in excess of that of the native-born. In the figures of the New York City magistrates' court, the Chicago police arrests, and the Massachusetts prisons, this difference is not great. The figures from the other two sources of information, however, show considerable difference in the American and immigrant commission of the offenses of personal violence. The greatest is that found in the records of the county and supreme courts of New York, in which these crimes form 22.5 per cent of all crimes of immigrants and 11.7 per cent of those of natives. Nearly as striking are the figures of the New York court of general sessions, which show 20.8 per cent of all crimes of foreign-born offenders to have been offenses of personal violence, while only 12.8 per cent of those of native-born offenders were of this nature.

Offenses against public policy, as well as those of personal violence, are shown by this table to be more prevalent among the crimes of immigrants than among those of natives. Of the cases of foreignborn offenders coming before the New York City magistrates' courts, 88.4 per cent were for these crimes, while of the cases of native-born offenders 84.9 per cent were of this nature. The statistics of arrests in Chicago show 77.8 per cent of the offenses of the foreign-born and

73.8 per cent of those of the native-born to have been against public policy. Of all commitments of immigrants to Massachusetts prisons 80.9 per cent were for crimes of this sort, while 75.5 per cent of the commitments of natives were for like offenses. Less than 10 per cent of the convictions of natives and of immigrants in the New York court of general sessions were for offenses against public policy, 9.3 per cent of those of immigrants and 6.7 per cent of those of natives having been for such crimes. In the county and supreme courts of New York, although only 7 per cent of the convictions of native-born persons were for crimes of this kind, they were the offenses for which 12.5 per cent of the immigrant convictions were obtained.

The group of offenses against chastity does not exhibit any such constant relation to the crimes of immigrants and natives as do the three preceding classes of crime. In two of the sets of data, those of convictions in the New York court of general sessions and of arrests by the Chicago police, offenses against chastity form larger percentages of the total criminality of natives than of immigrants. Their percentage of the crimes of native-born in the court of general sessions was 0.7; of the crimes of foreign-born it was 0.6. In Chicago 5.1 per cent of the crimes of nonimmigrant offenders and 3.3 per cent of those of immigrant offenders were against chastity. The figures of the city magistrates' courts of New York show such crimes to have composed a larger proportion of the criminal acts of the foreign-born than of the native-born, forming 0.7 per cent of all crimes of immigrant offenders and 0.6 per cent of those of native offenders. In the statistics of the county and supreme courts of New York and of the penal institutions of Massachusetts offenses against chastity form the same proportions of the total criminality of immigrants and natives, these proportions being in the first-named set of data 1.9 per cent and in the latter 2.7 per cent.

THE SECOND GENERATION.

The presence of data showing the parentage of offenders of American birth makes possible a comparison of the criminality of certain immigrant groups and of American-born children of the same races and nationalities with the criminality of the group native-born of native father.

The chief value of this comparison of the first generation of immigrant races and nationalities with American-born persons of corresponding foreign parentage-the "second generation"-lies in the fact that it shows whether the American-born children of immigrants become more like the American-born children of native parents in the character of their criminality.

Data obtained from two sources are of a nature admitting of such a comparison-convictions in the New York court of general sessions from October 1, 1908, to June 30, 1909, and commitments to Massachusetts penal institutions during the year ending September 30, 1909. 1. Five races of immigrants were selected from the data of the New York court of general sessions- the English, German, Hebrew, Irish, and Italian. The five corresponding native groups of foreign parentage are those composed of persons whose fathers were immigrants belonging to the English, German, Hebrew, Irish, and Italian races.

With these is shown the native white group of native parentage, which serves as a standard with which the corresponding first and second generation groups are compared.

The following table shows the proportion which each class of crime forms of the total offenses of each race and parentage group:

TABLE 9.-Distribution of classes of crime: New York court of general sessions, Oct. 1, 1908, to June 30, 1909.

A comparison of these groups of offenders brings out the fact that in certain cases the character of the criminality of native-born children of immigrants tends to swing away from that of immigrants themselves toward that of the native-born whites of nonimmigrant parentage.

Thus the above table shows that of the crimes of the English immigrant group the gainful offenses form 84.6 per cent, while of the crimes of the American-born children of English immigrants they form 79.3 per cent. As these offenses compose 79.7 per cent of the crimes of native white offenders of native father, the percentage of the American-born children of English immigrants differs from that of the

foreign-born English in the direction of the percentage of the group native white of native parentage.

The foreign-born Hebrews, it will be observed, have, in the case of the gainful offenses, a percentage of 85, while that of the second generation is 89.6. These, compared with the percentage of the native whites of native father, which is 79.7, illustrate that while both of the former are greater than the last, that of the Hebrew second generation differs from that of the first generation away from the percentage of the native white of native father instead of toward it. The same is true with regard to offenses of personal violence, where the first generation Hebrew percentage is 8.5, the second generation 5.2, and the native white of native father 9.8. Here both Hebrew percentages are less than the native white nonimmigrant standard, but the Hebrew second generation percentage, in being least of all three, indicates not only that the character of the criminality of this group, so far as offenses of personal violence are concerned, is unlike that of the first generation, but that the unlikeness is not in the direction of the native white of native father, but in the opposite direction. Offenses against public policy bear similar relations to the criminality of the first and second generation Hebrew groups. Their percentage of the former is 4.9 and of the latter 4.2, while of the crimes of the native whites of native father they form 8.9 per cent.

In each of the three cases cited above, illustrating the relations of the criminality of immigrant Hebrews and native-born children of immigrant Hebrews to that of the native whites of native father, it will be observed that the percentage of the first generation is in each case nearer that of the native white of native father than is the percentage of the second generation. Yet this may be true without resulting in the deviation of the second-generation criminality in the opposite direction from that of the American-born group of native parentage. The German first and second generation groups are evidence of this. This can perhaps be most clearly shown by arranging the percentages of the foreign-born Germans, the second-generation Germans, and the native-born whites of native father as follows:

In each of these three series of percentages that of the native white of native father stands naturally between those of the immigrant and second-generation Germans. It is evident from this that the secondgeneration percentage, even though in each case further removed from the native white of native father than that of the immigrant German group, differs from the last in the direction of the percentage of the native-white group of native parentage, instead of away from it.

A striking illustration of this difference is afforded by the Italian second-generation group, whose relative frequency of the various classes of crime is vastly unlike that of the immigrant Italian group. The following arrangement of the percentages throws this into sharper definition:

a

2. From the data of commitments to Massachusetts penal institutions five immigrant and five second-generation groups have likewise been selected for comparison with persons native-born of native father. No separation, however, of the white and negro constituents of the last-named group is possible and it is therefore a less accurate standard of comparison than that afforded by the data of the New York court of general sessions. Furthermore, the Massachusetts records do not contain any classification of the foreign-born by race, nor of the native-born by race of father. The classification is, in both cases, by country of birth.

The five pairs of immigrant and second-generation groups employed in the following analysis are the Canadian, English, German, Irish, and Scotch.

The four general classes of crime occur among the eleven groups of offenders selected for analysis as follows:

TABLE 10.-Distribution of classes of crime: Massachusetts penal institutions, Oct. 1, 1908, to Sept. 30, 1909.