1. On the parental generation. The children who labor mostly come from poor families, where every child up to the age of economic productivity is an economic burden. If the children go to work at an early age, the parents can afford to have more children and probably will, since the children soon become to some extent an asset rather than a liability. Child labor thus leads to a higher birth-rate of this class, abolition of child labor would lead to a lower birth-rate, since the parents could no longer afford to have so many children. Karl Pearson has found reason to believe that this result can be statistically traced in the birth-rate of English working people,--that a considerable decline in their fecundity, due to voluntary restriction, began after the passage of each of the laws which restricted child labor and made children an expense from which no return could be expected. If the abolition of child labor leads to the production of fewer children in a certain section of the population the value of the result to society, in this phase, will depend on whether or not society wants that strain proportionately increased. If it is an inferior stock, this one effect of the abolition of child labor would be eugenic. Comparing the families whose children work with those whose children do not, one is likely to conclude that the former are on the average inferior to the latter. If so, child labor is in this one particular aspect dysgenic, and its abolition, leading to a lower birth-rate in this class of the population, will be an advantage. 2. On the filial generation. The obvious result of the abolition of child labor will be, as is often and graphically told, to give children a better chance of development. If they are of superior stock, and will be better parents for not having worked as children (a proviso which requires substantiation) the abolition of their labor will be of direct eugenic benefit. Otherwise, its results will be at most indirect; or, possibly, dysgenic, if they are of undesirable stock, and are enabled to survive in greater numbers and reproduce. In necessarily passing over the social and economic aspects of the question, we do not wish it thought that we advocate child labor for the purpose of killing off an undesirable stock prematurely. We are only concerned in pointing out that the effects of child labor are many and various. The effect of its abolition within a single family further depends on whether the children who go to work are superior to those who stay at home. If the strongest and most intelligent children are sent to work and crippled or killed prematurely, while the weaklings and feeble-minded are kept at home, brought up on the earnings of the strong, and enabled to reach maturity and reproduce, then this aspect of child labor is distinctly dysgenic.