These data are inexact; they are bound up with the errors of enumeration, particularly in 1890, but they confirm in general the high fecundity of the American Caucasian everywhere, save in the Northeast. The high rate indicated in the South cannot be due to the Negro. In West Virginia the coloured element is insignificant, yet the return is very large--332; in Kentucky the Negro hardly holds his own in numbers, yet the whole birth rate is 306. In the Carolinas the native Whites have far outrun the Blacks in increase, and the birth numbers are 337,343; whence it seems clear that nothing points to a Negro rate higher than 351--higher than the general average for the Union. But is the Black rate really so high? Despite the prevailing crude opinion, we feel sure that it is sensibly lower and is steadily falling. There is nothing in the history of the Negro to suggest great fecundity. He has never populated his fatherland densely and poured over into the territory of his neighbours. In the West Indies, where birth tables have been kept with some care, there is no token of great fertility. In Alabama, the records since 1888 point to a birth rate among Whites thrice as high, among Blacks only twice as high, as the death rate. In 1890 the births recorded were: Whites 13,631; Blacks 9,955--the highest in six years but one (9,961 in 1893). In this year the populations were as 100 to 83, but the births as 100 to 73. You say that the Black births were not all recorded. Very true, but neither were the White. The excess of deficiency in the Blacks must have been 14 per cent. of the whole, in order to make their rate equal to the Whites'. Maybe these records are not worth the paper they were written on; but can the same be said of the New England records? In Rhode Island, from 1861 to 1893, the _excess_ of _deaths_ over _births_, among the Negroes, was 18; in Connecticut from 1881 to 1893 the same excess was 272; in Massachusetts in 1888 it was 68. "... we must conclude, however reluctantly (sic!), that the race is not self-sustaining in this latitude" (Dr. Fisher, Registrar of Vital Statistics, Rhode Island, quoted by Hoffman). Similarly Dr. Snow, Registrar of Providence; similarly Appolino, Registrar of Boston (both quoted by Hoffman). We could go on massing such evidence, but it may all be scouted as irrelevant, since the question is not about the Negro in the North, but in the South. However, it is precisely in the North, especially the Northeast, that his numbers are increasing, of course by immigration, faster and faster; if, then, he "is doomed to extinction" there, his numbers elsewhere must suffer corresponding depletion.