Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-06-11
THE REAL cULPRITS.
Father Crowley Says They Are Not
Foreigners But Native Boodlers.

array of figures in Thursday morning $
Republican has with the assimilation
OF the foreigner is not clearly mani
fest. If my memory serves me right
ly census returns have always shown
large percentage of foreign-born
criminals. Yet that has not kept
them from becoming assimilated In
the past. When our immigration came
from northern Europe the census lists
We're paraded with a flare OF trumpets
to show that the incoming strangers
were a menace to the land. Time,
that rights so many things, has given
us an opportunity to change our views
on that subject and to realize that the
apparent danger melted away into
mist. The Republican editorial
quotes the census of 1890 The re-
turns from that census were for ten
years, consequently nearly twenty
years have passed since the foreign
material In that census came to these
shores. And vet the country hns had
its greatest prosperity In those twenty
years and much of it Is due to this
same foreign element who have been
the laborers to carry on that part of
the work that only a small proportion
of the native-born would care to do
The editorial SAYS that 'sof persons
confined in prisons 4319 were of the
native element and 1851 of the for
eign element" These figures are eas
ily misleading. The question is, what
proportion does the 1851 per cent rep
resent Of the foreign element who
came here during those years2 1t
might easily be that the 1851 per cent
was relatively only small proportion
of the foreign element. 1t must be
remembered that the foreigner labors
under a decided disadvantage for he
has no friend at court to plead for
him. he has not the means many
times to settle his case out of court,
and must therefore appear on the
criminal record. If to 43. 10 per cent
of native-born sent to prison there
were added the number of cases set
tied out of court and the number OF
cases where fines were paid, am Of
the opinion that the average would
foot up nearly equal
Add to this the number of offenseS
(for which the foreigner would have
to go to jail because he could not pay
the fine) committed yearly by our
young college men, who year after
year make things howl and whose
vandalism and drunkenness and dis
turbance of the peace brings forth
well-merited condemnation, and 1
think the criminal list of the native
born would be very materially in
creased, If the foreign element en-
gagged in such antics as do so many
of our young collegians we would like
ly call out the troops. ea9@1H88
The editor of the Republicnnsis fond
of calling attention to the people of
southern Europe and he deals in sta
tistics, Very we'll Let statistics
tell the tale. | quote from the census
OF 1890, giving comparative table of
foreign-born paupers and foreign-born
criminals.
Canada paupers, s15; English
criminals, 1,4S1; Denmark, ia
paupers, 113 criminals: Eng
land, 1855 paupers. 1914 Grim
inals; Germany, 6,773 paupers, q
936 criminals; Norway. 800 paupers,
Los criminals; Scotland. 675 paupers
and 40 criminals; Sweden. 646 pau
pers, 348 criminals; Italy, 145 paupers,
562 criminals; Sicily, no paupcrs, 8
criminals; Portugal, ~ paupers, 8
| criminals; Spain IA paupers, 26 Grim
1nals. These figures speak for them.
selves and show that up to 1900 the
immigration from northern Europe,
SO far as pauperism and crime are
| concerned, did not begin to be as IA
vQrable as that from southern Europe,
And these figures are fust to the for
eigner for they deal with the
percentage Of pauper and criminal as
related to the total emigration from
each country
as9s4nw 4I,o n..-..EfA-~.x
much, too, of the illiteracy of the for
eigner 1t might be well to recall to
| mind the words Of the historian ALI
son, who. WRITING in 1852 History of
Europe Volume /. Chapter q, said:
Experience has now abundantiy vePi-
fed the melancholy truth that intellec-
tual cultivation has no effect in avert
ing the sources of evil In the human
heart: that it alters the direction of
the crime but does not alter Its
amount" In confirmation of this let
me again cite statistics. They are for
1890 and are as follows:
Sing Sing prison, educated, 1.42O: IL
literate, 1888; Auburn prison, educated,
1898; illiterate, 1926; Clinton prison. ed
ucated. I'll; illiterate, 90: San Quen-
tin, California, educated. 1.152: Hitter
ate, $40: PHILADELPHIA State peniten-
tiary. educated, 462; illiterate, 50. In
quoting these figures / do not wish to
be considered as favoring illiteracy.
God forbid! ! merely wish to show
from our prison records that the hit
eracy OF the foreigner (and / admit
many of them are illiteratel does not
necessarily mean that he IS going to
become a criminal. AS matter of
fact. some of the slickest rascals who
ever disgraced the criminal record
have been native-born and educated
right here In our own institutions.
The Republican editorial quotes Mr.
Ainsworth as saying that out of 55,-
1875 held for trial or summarily con-
victed 27,O31 were born In foreign
countries. This was in the first di-
vision. What about the convictions
In other divisions? The word "con-
victed" is significant How many
non-foreigners escaped conviction be-
cause of the influence that could be
brought to bear or because their cases
We're settled out of court? The for
eigner Is beginning to catch on to the