These figures are calculated using the census figure for the number of children aged 5 to 20, and the 1919 income figures of the National Bureau of Economic Research,

901

893

The richest State in the United States, if you will notice, per child is Nevada. It has tremendous natural resources and a very small population.

Then come some of the industrial States which are rich in resources, such as California, New York, Massachusetts, Washington, and so on. These are interesting figures-$3,500 annual income in some States behind each child; less than a thousand dollars, $895, in others. Mr. ROBSION. There is the State of Nevada. How do you get those figures there?

Mr. NORTON. The National Bureau of Economic Research issued a little book called "Income by States" that is recognized as an authoritative piece of work. Some of the greatest authorities in the country are on the staff of the Bureau of Economic Research. I take the figure as to the total income given for the State of Nevada for a year and divide it by the number of children according to the census. Mr. ROBSION. You do not get that income from the Federal census?

Mr. NORTON. The Federal census makes no estimate of this kind. It makes an estimate of total wealth. But mere existence of wealth is not as good a measure of ability to pay as is income.

Mr. REED. This is based on the number of children; that is, it is not based so much on the wealth as it is on the whole number of children.

Mr. NORTON. The two factors together. Take your income and your number of children and divide one by the other, and you will find how much of real fluid wealth, wealth that is available for taxation, that is produced each year behind each child.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you familiar or do you know how the Bureau of National Research arrives at its figures as to the income? Mr. NORTON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Do they take total wages and total salaries and total dividends paid on investments?

Mr. NORTON. Yes. For instance, in their investigation they came to my office and asked me for data on teachers' salaries, and I gave the most comprehensive data I could as to teachers' salaries in the United States. They spent thousands of dollars in the investigation and have a very effective staff, well supported by private contributions. A great many industrial concerns are supporting it; the National Educational Association is also one of the contributing members. We contribute $25 a year to the support of that organization. Such men as Mitchell and King, names that you will immediately recognize in the economic field, are on the technical staff of the organization.

"Income in the United States," is the name of the first book they issued. It was an epoch-making study and is recognized as authoritative throughout the country. It is referred to in some of these tables.

If you base these figures on wealth you get nearly the same results; that you find the wide differences in wealth per child in different States as in income per child.

The CHAIRMAN. You think it would be relatively about the same; the States would be relatively about the same?

Mr. NORTON. There is a close correlation. There are a few exceptions. Take, for example, Montana here [indicating on chart] in our table; wherever income is used it ranks lower than it does when wealth is used. It happens that Montana had periods of drought, reducing its income, and therefore placing it rather low here [indicating on chart], but in wealth it stands somewhere up here in rank [indicating]; but you get essentially the same rank in most of the States.

Mr. ROBSION. There is North Carolina; that stands about the sixth State in the value of the Federal income tax

Mr. NORTON. That is due to

Mr. ROBSION. Wait a minute; and a year or two ago it was fourth in the value of the agricultural products of the Nation-it stood fourth. Texas is first, Iowa second, and Illinois probably third, and North Carolina fourth.

Mr. DOUGHTON. It is fifth or sixth now.

Mr. ROBSION. Now you have got it down third from the bottom. The CHAIRMAN. They probably have a lot of children; that would account for it.

Mr. DOUGHTON. Either the Federal census of this "ability to pay" would give you the same thing. You get North Carolina relatively low, the Federal census on wealth of this study of income will give you about the same results. North Carolina is a relatively poor State per child. If you study the figures given in the report of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, you will see it, pays apparently a large tax to the Federal Government. Of course, North Carolina does not pay that at all; it is collected by the Federal Government from the people who happen to be there for the time being manufacturing tobacco, but is paid by the Nation's tobacco

consumers.

Mr. ROBSION. That is an explanation somewhat about its income tax but how do you account for its standing so high in agricultural products? It was fourth a few years ago and now is fifth or sixth. Mr. NORTON. Yes. Agricultural products are important, but at the same time only a fraction of our total wealth produced, and becoming a smaller and smaller fraction.

Mr. ROBSION. Nevada is up near the top in accordance with this chart [indicating] and North Carolina is way down.

Mr. NORTON. I don't happen to know what the rank of North Carolina is as to value of agricultural products, but of course I would not care to go back of the Federal census or this group of authorities as to the amount of income.

Mr. ROBSION. That is not based on the Federal census?

Mr. NORTON. Well, the Federal census of wealth will show essentially the same thing, that North Carolina is a poor State.

Mr. ROBSION. The last Federal census shows that North Carolina

is fourth in the value of its agricultural products.

94041-24-12

Mr. NORTON. This chart presents briefly some facts relating to one or the other provisions in the bill. [Producing another chart.]

These figures concern soldiers of the United States, and were officially issued by the Government. "Men rejected refers to those rejected for military service because of physical disabilities. Five times as many men were rejected for physical disability as were killed or wounded.

It relates to physical inefficiency or the improvement of the physical welfare of our people.

In the draft there were practically 5,991,000 men examined. Of the number examined, 4,650,000 were accepted for some type of service. A good many of these were accepted only for limited service and could not go overseas, but that many were actually accepted for the Army and Navy.

PHYSICAL INEFFICIENCY

The two following tables give some of the outstanding facts resulting from the physical examinations of the draft:

TABLE I. Rejections for physical disabilities and casualties.

These figures, furnished by The Adjutant General, September, 1922, are described as "the most reliable yet compiled."

TABLE II.-Physical rejections, by States,' December 15, 1917, to September 11, 1918

1 Second Report of the Provost Marshal General to the Secretary of War, p. 417.

The majority of these, 16.25 per cent of those examined, "possessed physical defects of such degree as to prevent them from rendering military service of any kind."