To be sure, these results are greatly complicated and deeply obscured by immigration and emigration. None of them state the case correctly; but they can not all err the same way, and collectively they exhibit clearly that the Negro is losing ground everywhere in the race for numbers. But these rates furnish us no independent evidence concerning the birth rate. Such, however, we find in the number of births in the census years 1890 and 1900. The returns are certainly incorrect, certainly incomplete; they yield a mean birth rate of only 272--surely too small, leaving a deficiency of 79 or of 28-1/2 per cent. That the enumeration of births should be defective is not at all surprising; but there is no reason to suppose the returns for 1890 less imperfect, and a comparison of the two cannot fail to be instructive: U.S. N.E. C.& N. S.W. Conn. Me. Mass. N.H. N.Y. R.I. 1900 272 238 259 315 240 211 240 213 242 243 1890 269 221 268 301 213 176 215 180 233 223 Vt. Ind. Ill. Ia. Kan. Mich. Minn. Mo. Neb. N.J. 1900 213 249 255 258 258 243 287 260 272 258 1890 183 254 278 263 285 249 302 290 299 253 N.D. O. Pa. S.D. Wis. Al. Ark. Del. D.C. Fla. 1900 336 231 269 308 274 321 324 247 203 309 1890 365 242 258 318 271 306 343 250 233 287 Ga. Ky. La. Md. Miss. N.C. Okl. S.C. Tenn. Tex. 1900 321 306 305 263 312 337 337 343 307 329 1890 306 296 298 260 303 301 221 313 308 316 Va. W.Va. Ariz. Cal. Col. Ida. Mt. Nev. N.M. Or. 1900 303 332 269 183 239 304 244 189 336 204 1890 272 307 172 196 256 266 218 155 330 226 Ut. Wash. Wy. 1900 352 220 242 1890 312 238 217