number engaged in it, the average farm rather than the aggregate acreage, the mean farm income rather than the total of produce in a community, was the ideal aimed at.

A. FIELD WORK.

At the outset the Commission found that there was very little available information regarding the location of immigrant colonies, and special blanks were prepared asking for information concerning the location, race, date of settlement, probable numerical size, and form of agriculture of immigrant rural settlements. second blank called for similar information with regard to seasonal laborers. These blanks were sent to state commissioners of immigration, of agriculture, of labor, throughout the United States east of the Rocky Mountains, and to other officials likely to be informed on immigrant colonies. The returns were comparatively meager, Library references to immigrant races in agriculture in magazines. books, and official reports were sought out and verified, and government agents were appealed to for information. By these means and by a diligent searching of clues while in the field it is believed that a fairly complete list of foreign rural settlements in the East, the South, and the Middle West was secured.

The number of colonies visited has been discussed. The field work consisted of two parts: (1) The community study, or the gathering of data with regard to the soil, conditions, and form of agriculture; transportation and markets; institutions; property; standard of living; citizenship; and history of the community. These data were secured by observation, visitation, numerous interviews with public officials, business men, foreigners, churchmen, teachers, and others, and by the examination of official records, historical documents, tax lists, assessment rolls, court records, school and church reports and registers, records of vital statistics and of boards of health, reports of social and business organizations, freight shipments, and the like. (2) In practically all cases in the North and Middle West, and frequently in the South, a number of schedules of individual farm families were secured by personal visits of agents of the Commission. The number of schedules secured in a locality varied from 5 to 60, depending somewhat on the size of the community."

The information secured by means of schedules is not altogether accurate, especially on matters of farm income, indebtedness, and accounts for supplies. Practically none of the farmers visited. kept adequate accounts of income or expenditures, and family budgets showing cost of living were absolutely lacking. The data, however, were secured by expert schedule agents.

In the southern States comparatively few schedules were taken, and the reports are based largely on a general study of the communities. Each of the communities was personally investigated, however, and the material presented in the reports was collected from original sources on the field. The number of schedules secured, by race, is shown in the table following. In all, 163 rural colonies or settlements, in 19 different States, representing 12 rather important races, were visited. The number of heads of families from whom schedules were secured and tabulated is 875. In these 875 households were 5,017 persons, or 5.73 persons per household; 1,650 males and 1,337 females 14 years of age or over were enumerated.

a For schedule forms see Vol. II, pp. 653–667 and 680–681,

TABLE 2.-Households studied and number of persons for whom information was secured, by race of head of household.

Where sufficient farm schedules were obtained in one community the data secured were tabulated in text tables and inserted in the body of the reports. No general tables of the strictly agricultural data were made, and no percentage tables. The principal reason for the omission of general tables and percentages is the small number of schedules obtained in any community, and the impossibility of securing arithmetical averages, by race, covering a sufficient number of comparable instances to be of any real value; for the data were gathered from farms operated under a very wide variety of conditions, natural and social, and from almost every form of agriculture. It is obviously impossible to present in figures the "average Italian farm" as shown by a dozen market gardens in Rhode Island, 20 fruit farms in Connecticut, 100 truck and berry farms in New Jersey, 25 grain and stock farms in Wisconsin, the same number of cotton farms, fruit plantations, and strawberry plots in the South. The same is true of aggregates and other quantitative data.

Wherever possible a "typical family" table is presented showing the actual economic biographies, present financial condition, and farm incomes (the average of two years) of 6 to 12 farm families in each immigrant rural group, as gleaned from the schedules. In some instances certain large farm expenditures and the supplementary income of the farm family from outside sources are appended. For some purposes the typical tables are the most valuable tables in the report.

A number of tabulations of agricultural data gathered in the larger communities, chiefly economic, were made. These tables include a general financial summary; place of birth and race of immigrants; previous location abroad and in the United States; occupation before coming to present location; occupation in locality previous to purchase; value of property brought to the locality; size of farm and condition of land first rented or purchased; supplemental income until living could be made from the land; price paid for first purchases; acreage, condition, and value of land now owned or rented; net value of personal property and real estate; comparative table showing net property bought, property now owned and years since first purchase; crops produced, acreage, and value per farm; classified values of products produced and sold; classification of live stock on farm-kind, number, and value; farm expenditures for labor, fertilizer, feed and forage, and rent, classified by values, expended annually. All these tables are for a limited number of families as nearly typical of the agriculture of their respective communities as possible, but too few upon which to base accurate quantitative generalizations.

The most unsatisfactory data are those with regard to farm income. All of the schedules contained inquiries concerning crops and other products produced and sold. In some cases inquiry was made concerning farm expenditures, especially for labor, fertilizer, and feed for live stock. Because data with regard to expenditures were not secured in all cases and because it was not possible to accurately measure the amount of produce consumed on farms, no table of surplus, deficit, or net annual income of any value whatever could be made from the agricultural data secured in the East or South.

The table of crops produced in nearly all instances where the family lived in whole or in large part from the produce of their farms is somewhat short of the mark. No adequate account of the milk, butter, eggs, poultry, meat, and vegetables consumed by the farm family during the year could be obtained without organizing a much more extensive form of inquiry and investigation than was possible. The individual tables are discussed in the specific community accounts. recorded sales of commercial crops sold in bulk are approximately correct, but small sales at odd times, produce bartered or exchanged at country stores, and even sales of milk or poultry are frequently estimates only.

The

Values of land, improvements, and equipment are subject to individual correction. In a general way they are high for Hebrews, rather low for the Poles, and partly high and partly too low in case of the Italians. By rather careful checking the agents were usually able to secure approximations not very wide of the mark, but actual market values probably were obtained in comparatively few instances. In general, property values were checked with assessments and estimates of real-estate men, and in a given community the errors probably cancel. Individual valuations, however, are not all true.

The reports of individual communities are not of equal weight or detail. This was inevitable under the limitations of the investigation. In some communities only a short time could be spent. This was particularly true in some of the southern colonies. Some colonies merited less attention than others and in some information was more

readily secured. Certain colonies are type colonies. Others differ only in minor detail and deserve less attention.

Despite the lack of detail concerning certain settlements, the individual reports give a much more accurate and illuminating characterization of the immigrants than any summarized tables could give, and a number of them throw a good deal of light on immigrant farming in special subindustries. If any one fact more than another has been impressed upon the investigating agents of the Commission, it is the futility of endeavoring to interpret conditions as a whole, or of making any far-reaching generalizations; hence a series of monographic studies, while falling short in finished simplicity, definition, and extended analysis, are more sharp and truthful in detail, and if somewhat confused, perhaps, are more significant and valuable than any summarized account could be, and serve better to elucidate the complexity of relations in which the immigrant stands to American rural life.

GENERAL SURVEY OF THE RACES STUDIED.

ITALIANS IN AGRICULTURE.

Though the immigrants from Italy, since 1900, constitute a relatively large and increasing percentage of all immigrants to the United States, and though it is estimated that more than 60 per cent of them came from rural districts in Italy, comparatively few have become farmers in the United States. According to the Twelfth Census, a total of 293,424 male Italians over 10 years of age of the first and second generations were engaged in gainful occupations. Of this number, only 18,227, or 6.2 per cent, were engaged in agricultural pursuits. Agricultural laborers constituted 11,088 of this number, or 3.8 per cent of the total, leaving 7,139, or 2.4 per cent, farmers, planters, dairymen, truckers, overseers, florists, and other agricultural operators.

DISTRIBUTION OF THE ITALIAN SETTLEMENTS INVESTIGATED.

The table following gives the number and location of the principal Italian rural settlements in the United States east of the Mississippi River and in Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. Attention is here directed chiefly to the northern colonies. With a few important exceptions the settlements listed in New England, New York, New Jersey, and Wisconsin include most of the Italian rural communities in the northern States east of the Mississippi River. There are a few small groups of market gardeners near large cities in the East-New York, New Haven, Hartford, Newark, Trenton-and others in the outskirts of western cities. There are some truckers on Long Island and one or two isolated groups in the western part of New York State, but it is confidently believed that the list of important settlements is practically complete.

a Prof. A. Pecoroni, Annals of the American Academy. Vol. 33 (1909), p. 382 et seq. For more detailed information see Reports of the Immigration Commission on Occupations, vol. 28 (S. Doc. No. 282, 61st Cong., 2d sess.) and on Agriculture, vols. 21 and 22 (S. Doc. No. 633, pt. 24, 61st Cong., 2d sess.).

TABLE 3.-List of Italian rural communities in the United States investigated by the Immigration Commission, 1909.

[This table includes both foreign-born Italians and native-born persons of Italian descent.]

The Commission did not attempt an accurate census of these colonies, and the figures for households and persons are in most cases approximations only, based on tax lists, state census reports, or enumerations by parish priests, private persons, or agents of the Commission. They are believed to be fairly reliable. The specific reports on the various settlements in the Commission's complete report usually indicate the source of the statistical information and its relative accuracy. Not all of these families are "farm families." The estimates in the table include, in almost every instance, some families who live in hamlets or villages and who either own farm land or have some agricultural interests or are retired farmers.

The