Of these records Mr. Hoffman says: "While the point to be brought out by this table is not so clear as would be desirable, it is shown .that for the colored population the mortality at the present time would seem to be higher, as a rule, than it was forty or fifty years ago." Is Mr. Hoffman's conclusion justifiable? Note that he has given here four tables in two of which the present mortality is shown to be greater than it was some years ago, while in the other two it is shown to be less. Is he justified, under such circumstances, in reaching the conclusion quoted, or in presenting a conclusion so reached as a "Race Trait?"

But note still further-on page 39 of the same book, where Mr. Hoffman is discussing another aspect of the problem, he gives nine records of colored mortality which steadily decrease, while a tenth record somewhat irregularly increases. He should have combined these records with the four already quoted above. Combining these ten tables with the four here given in full, he would have had altogether fourteen negro mortality tables to prove the increasing death rate of the colored people. Only three of these, however, show an increasing mortality, while eleven show a decreasing mortality rate. From such figures is Mr. Hoffman justified in concluding that the mortality of the negroes is increasing? Moreover, the census figures for the last century, from 1790 to 1890, show no decade in which the race has not increased by at least nine per cent.

Again, in regard to Mr. Hoffman's interpretation of the Hull-House Maps, published in 1894, the present writer, formerly a resident of Hull-House, may perhaps be allowed to point out a second error. On page 17 of his "Race Traits" he says of these maps: "The first map reveals that the colored population is concentrated in a very limited area, which contains but a small number of whites. . . . The second map shows that the section inhabited almost exclusively by colored persons is also the section which contains all the houses of ill-fame in this part of the city." If Mr. Hoffman will study and compare the two Hull-House maps he will find that there are nearly three times as many whites as negroes in the district he speaks of as "inhabited almost exclusively by colored persons," and a careful comparison and measuring of the two maps will show him that negro immorality in the section he speaks of is, in comparison with the white immorality in that section, as I to 8%1⁄2+; that is to say, there are nearly nine white brothels for every one negro brothel in this section.

Not only is it true that Mr. Hoffman has misinterpreted the actual condition in this Chicago "slum" district, but it is also true that this particular Chicago "slum" district represents facts of negro

life which are the reverse of the usual ones, as may be seen by referring to page 27 of the Seventh Special Report of the United States Commissioner of Labor on "The Slums of Great Cities." This was published in 1894, and there Mr. Hoffman might have read Commissioner Wright's statement that "the conclusions drawn from the comparisons of the slum with the total population are briefly, that in Baltimore the proportion of blacks, mulattoes, etc., in the slum districts canvassed is much less than that found in the whole city, being 4.12 per cent for the slums and 15.45 per cent for the whole city; in New York .54 of 1 per cent of the slum population are blacks, mulattoes, etc., while they compose 1.56 per cent of the total population; in Philadelphia they constitute 2.53 per cent of the slum and 3.76 per cent of the total population; in Chicago the reverse is true, the proportion of blacks, mulattoes, etc., in the slum districts being 5.69 per cent and for the whole city but 1.30 per cent." That this crowding in of negroes into the Chicago slums should be represented as a "race trait" when it has been shown by the National Labor Bureau to occur in only one of four cities investigated, while in the other three cities the tendency is strongly the other way, seems, to say the least, a hastily formed judgment.

Tenement House Legislation in New York, 1852-1900.-The Tenement House Commission has just issued a printed report of 200 pages prepared by the secretary, Mr. Lawrence Veiller, giving a history of all tenement house legislation that has been enacted in New York State since the very earliest days. The report is a very complete one, taking up every phase of the tenement house laws and tracing in detail all the changes that have occurred in reference to each subject.

The different subjects are arranged in four main classes: Fire provisions, light and ventilation provisions, sanitary and health provisions, and general provisions relating to the administration of the laws and other kindred topics.

Under the fire provisions may be found such topics as the following: Fire escapes, the construction of public halls and stairways, construction of hall partitions, the construction of elevator shafts, dumb-waiter and light and vent shafts, and so on, through the different requirements of the various laws. Among the light and ventilation provisions are to be found such subjects, as the amount of space to be left between front and rear tenements, the space to be left vacant at the rear of tenement houses, the percentage of the lot permitted to be occupied by new tenements, the size of light and air shafts, the ventilation and size of rooms and halls, and so on; a similar method of grouping or classification has been followed in reference to the sanitary provisions.

Under each one of the different topics is to be found a statement of all the changes that have taken place at different times in reference to this especial part of the law, and following such statement in each case are exact quotations from the different enactments so that the student may trace in detail each change. The present law upon each subject is also indicated and the report contains a very full and complete index; and at the end a list of all building laws and tenement laws that have been enacted in the State of New York from 1849 to the present time.

It is amazing to find upon the perusal of this report how many excellent laws were enacted twenty or thirty years ago, and how much less rigid the present laws are in some cases than those laws of former times. For instance, in 1867 the law required that in all tenement houses to be occupied by four families or more, the stairs and halls should be constructed entirely fireproof of stone or iron, and the floor beams of the halls were to be of iron with brick arches. This is much more stringent than the present law upon this subject, which does not require stairs to be absolutely fireproof, except when the buildings are over five stories high, and are also arranged for four families on every floor. In other cases the stairs and halls are required to be of slow-burning construction, and in tenement houses less than three stories high no special provision is made. Similarly, in reference to the construction of hall partitions: In 1867, it appears, the law required that in all tenement houses intended to be occupied by four families or more, the hall partitions from the foundation to the roof should be made of brick not less than twelve inches in thickness, and that the floor beams of such halls should be of iron with brick arches. The present law limits this requirement only to the stairways and partitions enclosing them, and does not include the whole public hallway. Similarly in reference to having the first story constructed fireproof: the law as originally enacted in 1871, was much more rigid than it is at the present day, the earlier laws requiring that in all tenements over three stories in height, occupied by as many as six families above the first story, the first floor should be entirely fireproof. The present law does not require this unless the building is five stories in height. It is extremely interesting to find that as early as 1867, the law required all wood-bins and coal-bins in the cellars of tenement houses to be construced of fireproof material. Had this law not been repealed in 1871, a great number of our most serious tenement-house fires would never have occurred, as a large proportion of such fires start in cellars. In 1887 a law was enacted prohibiting the use of any wooden building as a tenement house, that is by more than two families. The present law, however, permits such buildings to be occupied by as many as six families.

This report of the Tenement House Commission contains many other matters of interest, and should prove of great value to architects, builders, lawyers and students of tenement house reform. It is the first history of this kind that has ever been prepared.

Tenement-House Conditions.-The New York Tenement House Commission has issued its third special report, prepared by the secretary, Mr. Lawrence Veiller, upon the subject, tenement-house conditions. This latest report, a book of some sixty pages, entitled, "Housing Conditions and Tenement Laws in Leading American Cities," deals with housing conditions in the twenty-seven largest American cities. These conditions are taken up in detail with respect to Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Boston, Baltimore, Cleveland, Buffalo, San Francisco, Cincinnati, Pittsburg, New Orleans, Detroit, Milwaukee, Washington, Jersey City, Louisville, Minneapolis, Providence, Kansas City, St. Paul, Rochester, Denver, Toledo, Columbus, Syracuse, Nashville and Hartford. Besides a description of the housing conditions in each one of these cities, the report contains a statement of the more important provisions of the tenement laws and building laws in each one of these cities, and also extracts from some of the more important laws, notably the laws in Philadelphia, Buffalo and Boston. Appended to the report is a comparative table showing the most important provisions of the different tenement-house laws in each one of these cities grouped side by side so that a person may see at a glance how these different statutes compare. This report should be of value to the legislature as affording a precedent for progressive legislation upon this subject. It appears that none of these large American cities, excepting Boston, Cincinnati, Jersey City and Hartford, have a tenement-house problem, and in the great majority of these cities the tenement-house as known in New York does not exist, the poor people and working people living generally in small, onestory or two-story houses, containing one, or, at the most, two families, while in many cities these houses are often owned by the workingmen themselves. There are, of course, in each of these cities certain bad housing conditions which give some of them what might be termed a housing problem, but this is distinct from the tenement-house problem as known in New York and Boston.

The laws of Buffalo, Philadelphia and Washington might well serve as a model for New York in many respects, especially in regard to provisions for light and air. The Buffalo law provides that "no court or shaft shall be less than six feet wide for one-story and two-story buildings, and at least eight feet wide for three-story and four-story buildings, and one foot wider for each additional story above the fourth story." The law in Philadelphia is very similar. This law

provides that "no shaft or court shall be less than eight feet wide in any part, and that any court or shaft between the wings of a tenement-house, or between two tenement-houses shall not be less in width than twelve feet; and all such shafts and courts shall be open on one side from the ground to the sky."

When one contrasts these provisions with the present provisions of the New York law, which permit, instead of wide shafts, mere slits twenty-eight inches wide and sixty feet long, and closed on all sides, one begins to realize that New York is in some respects far behind many smaller cities in her tenement-house laws.

The Mutal Life Insurance Principle.—In the Ekonomisk Tid-skrift (Häft. 2, 1909), Tedor Åström, discusses the "enigmatical nature" of certain Swedish life insurance companies, which claim to be "mutual." He asserts that the insured in these companies gain no more, lose no more, and enter into the workings of the company to no greater extent than do the policy-holders of a company organized on the joint-stock plan. Preliminary blanks of application, etc., mention no obligation save that of regular payment of premium. It is stated in the regulations merely that the action of the company is mutual. This could not be construed to mean heavy liability, nor are there any provisions made relative to conditions or grounds for extra taxation of any kind; no principle of apportionment of loss or gain is stated. The only conclusion is that policy-holders are in duty bound merely to continue the regular payment of a regular premium.

The companies themselves seem to act upon this understanding, for they keep a reserve fund in case of abnormal losses and to defray the costs of management, which fund has to be maintained at a certain figure.

The writer thinks the most important so-called mutual companies, in respect of policy-holders' rights and duties, show, in general, no essential divergence from the recognized joint-stock form, and he regards the use of "mutual" as entirely erroneous and confusing.

Proceedings of the Peabody Educational Fund.—The thirty-ninth meeting of the Board of Trustees was held in New York October 3, 1900, Chief Justice Fuller, the first vice-chairman, presiding. Reports were submitted from most of the Southern states discussing educational progress, especially in connection with the institutions aided by the Peabody Fund. The report of Hon. J. L. M. Curry, the general agent of the fund, called attention to the important place the common school plays in our whole educational system, and especially, in providing a minimum of training for citizenship in a republic, and stated that the Fund in remembrance of its past emphatic declarations 1 Contributed by Dr. A. G. Keller, Yale University.