The section following is entitled: “Schuldbetreibungs- und Konkurs-statistik als Ausdruck der wirtschaftlichen Lage der Bevölkerung und Kriminalität.” When we examine Plate II for the period 1832–1852, we see that the curves of bankruptcy and of offenses against property are parallel. From Plate III (1852–1892) we note that offenses against property are influenced by failures as well as by the price of grain. At times the two forces act in the same direction and reënforce one another, and at times their direction is opposite, and they more or less neutralize each other. It must be remarked that in 1867 an epidemic of cholera raged in the canton, and that the relief fund which was then given out kept the figure for criminality below what the economic situation would have produced. [PLATE I (MEYER)] Dr. Meyer’s conclusion from what has been said is this: “The result of the researches proves that in the course of years the number of crimes against property is strictly bound up with material conditions; the greater the difficulty of getting a living, the more numerous the crimes against property. The statistics of crimes against property show at the same time the degrees of the prosperity of the country, as the statistics of failures, for example, prove.” [69] [PLATE II (MEYER)] Plate IV gives a comparison of crimes against persons with economic conditions, and shows that these crimes increase when economic conditions improve, and that vintages more or less abundant are not without importance. On page 44, the author commences his examination of the criminality in the different districts of the canton of Zürich, investigating its distribution, both as to where the crimes are committed, and where the criminals come from. According to the first distribution the districts of Zürich, of Dielsdorf, and of Horgen have the highest figures; those of Hinweill, of Meilen, and of Pfäffikon the lowest. According to the second distribution it is again the districts of Dielsdorf and of Horgen that have the highest figures, while Hinweill, Meilen, and Pfäffikon take the last place here also. Zürich and Winterthür, which in the first distribution held the first place, in the second have the eighth and tenth. We see from this that, however great the number of crimes the last two districts produce, the authors of the crimes are outsiders. Dr. Meyer then compares the districts of Hinweill and Pfäffikon, which have the lowest figures, with the districts of Horgen and Dielsdorf, which have the highest. He concludes that the two former districts are the poorest, and the two latter the most well-to-do, a conclusion which he bases upon different facts, among others upon the appropriations which the public charities of the different districts receive from the state. And according to him it follows that in this case the connection between criminality and economic conditions is not direct.