The author then explains the indirect connection as follows: “In Hinweill as in Pfäffikon, there exists a general impoverishment, caused by the unfavorable state of the soil and of the population, heavy mortgages, bad cultivation by the small farmers, the diminution of industry, the lack of education, etc,—an impoverishment that threatens the ruin of entire communities.” [70] Then, an increase of crime is not to be feared in countries where poverty strikes the whole population, for the thief has nothing to steal. Since in the well-to-do districts the differences of possessions are more marked, the opportunity for wrong-doing is greater, and it is this which makes criminality greater also. The conclusion of Dr. Meyer upon what has gone before is this: “Criminality is an historical product, and economic conditions are only one, though a significant, factor. Under like economic conditions ... the number of crimes against property need not necessarily be like. It depends upon how the population has accommodated itself to the economic situation, whether it makes higher or lower demands upon life, what views it holds as to the end of human existence, etc.” [71] As to the occupations of those convicted the data of Dr. Meyer are incomplete. The conclusion drawn from them is that the agricultural population is less criminal than the industrial proletariat. Here is the reason, according to Dr. Meyer: “An explanation of this phenomena that agrees fully with our investigations has already been given by von Valentini when he says: ‘Small holdings make direct and exhausting demands upon the labor of the whole family, while, on the other hand, they provide sufficiently for the immediate and indispensable needs of the household, so that idleness as well as anxiety about sustenance are generally both excluded from such a family.’” [72] “It is otherwise in manufacturing. The greater independence of the industrial worker, his receiving his wages in money exclusively, the dependence of industry upon the conjunctures of the market, give instead of the stability of existence, enjoyed by agriculture, a life fluctuating and insecure. Abundance as well as want visits industrial workers, and each of the two begets in him a corresponding kind of crime.” [73] —The expression “abundance” as describing the state in which the proletariat live, is a strange one. A man who is not indigent and has a few sous does not on that account live in abundance. The author adds a quotation from Garofalo to point out how the proletariat spend a great part of their “abundance” in the wine-shops. The reader is, however, referred to Part II of this work, where I have pointed out the social and economic causes of alcoholism.—