| OCR Text |
Show BUT SLEGKT FALLING OFF 71 IN AMERICAN BIRTH HATE f ; ' " t Not the old-fashioned board, at the head of which sat the father and at the foot of which sat the mother, with the sugar bowl in her lap to prevent incursions from childish fingers, flanked on either side by a row of children chil-dren with shining faces and eager appetites; ap-petites; not the family table from which the children . took turns in "waiting" when the grandparents came to occupy seats temporarily at the board or when other "company" came; not the table at which a "blessing" was asked three times daily for 365 days in each year, at which children were taught to mind their manners and wait until their , elders were served. The family table, popular at this time, is one of figures compiled by tha careful statistician. It concerns the alleged decreasing size cf families and is spread in this wise: Average size of family. 1S80. 1900. New England 4.8 4.0 New York 4.9 4.4 Pennsylvania 5.1 4.8 South Atlantic States 5.2 5.0 Ohio 5.0 4.4 Indiana 5.1 4.4 Illinois 5.2 4.7 Michigan 4.9 4.4 Wisconsin 5.2 4.9 Minnesota 5.2 5.1 Iowa 5.2 4.6 Missouri 5.4 4.7 North Dakota 4.3 4.9 South Dakota 4.3 4.8 Nebraska 5.1 4.8 Kansas 5.0 4.6 There is a scanting of averages in this, it is true, but it is not very serious. seri-ous. Not "so serious, indeed, but that any one holding this table in his hand and watching the children pour out of any one of a number of school-houses school-houses in any city in the land is able to subdue his apprehension that the race, from lack of recruiting agencies, is likely to run out. According to this table, New England does not show either the largest decrease in ten years nor the smallest average size of families. In point of fact, this decrease de-crease in New England is but two-thirds two-thirds of one per cent a decrease in quantity that, if it is not made up in quality, much educational effort has been wasted in the past decade. In New York the decrease is five-tenths or one per cent, in Pennsylvania three-tenths, three-tenths, in Ohio six-tentns, in Indiana seven-tenths, in Michigan five-tenths, in Wisconsin three-tenths, in Iowa six-tenths, six-tenths, in Missouri seven-tenths, in Kansas four-tenths. That is to say, the average size of families In New England is larger than in New York, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan, and equal to that in Iowa and Kansas. This reckoning represents repre-sents a labored process, but it is relatively rela-tively valueless. It includes all races and conditions, and has no bearing upon the relative size of families of long establishment in tie country and those of later immigration. It is a modern family table, nothing more. Any one good at figures and diligent in delving into census returns can spread it, and all who are curious or apprehensive in the matter can come to it and go away satisfied that the American family is not rapidly dying out. Portland Oregonian. |
