rious as the states waken to the needs of the case and
attempt to educate their children.

Yet again, this fact of habitat should lead us to be very chary of
making local facts extend over the entire South and of making deductions
for the entire country based on observations in a few places. Neglect of
this precaution often leads to very erroneous and misleading conceptions
of actual conditions. For instance, on page 419, Vol. VI, Census of
1900, in discussing the fact that Negro receives nearly as much per acre
for his cotton as does the white, it is stated: "Considering the fact
that he emerged from slavery only one-third of a century ago, and
considering also his comparative lack of means for procuring the best
land or for getting the best results from what he has, this near
approach to the standard attained by the white man's experience for more
than a century denotes remarkable progress." This may or may not be
true, but the reason and proof are open to question. It assumes that the
land cultivated by the Negroes is of the same quality as that farmed by
the whites. This certainly is not true of Arkansas, of which it is
stated that "Arkansas shows a greater production per acre by colored
farmers for all three tenures." The three tenures are owners,
cash-tenants, share-tenants. Mississippi agrees with Arkansas in showing
higher production for both classes of tenants. Are we to infer that the
Negroes in Arkansas and Mississippi are better farmers than the whites,
and that, therefore, their progress has infinitely surpassed his? By no
means. The explanation is that in the two states mentioned the Negroes
cultivate the rich bottom land while the white farmers are found in the
hills. The alluvial land easily raises twice the cotton, and that of a
better quality, commanding about a cent a pound more in the market.
There may possibly be similar conditions in other states; certainly in
Alabama the black prairie tilled by the Negroes is esteemed better than
the other land. Since this was first written I have chanced upon the
report of the Geological Survey of Alabama for 1881 and 1882, in which
Mr. E. A. Smith sums up this same problem as follows:

"(1) That where the blacks are in excess of the whites, there are
the originally most fertile lands of the state. The natural
advantages of the soils are, however, more than counterbalanced by
the bad system prevailing in such sections, viz.; large farms