of practical interest to the statesman, who seeks to know how large a
proportion of the population are necessarily dependent upon the state or
individuals for their support; it is a matter of pecuniary importance
to the tax-payer, who is naturally desirous of learning whether these
drones in the hive, who not only perform no labor themselves, but
require others to attend them, and who often, also, from their
imbecility, are made the tools and dupes of others in the commission of
crime, cannot be transformed into producers instead of consumers, and
become quiet and orderly citizens, instead of pests in the community.

The statistics of idiocy are necessarily imperfect. No United States
census or State enumeration is at all reliable; the idea of what
constitutes idiocy is so very vague, that one census-taker would report
_none_, in a district where another might find twenty. It is very seldom
the case that the friends or relatives of an idiot will admit that he
is more than a little eccentric; many of the worst cases in the
institutions for idiots were brought there by friends who protested that
they were not idiots, but only a little singular in their habits.

In Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Ohio, efforts have been made, by
correspondence with physicians and town officers, to obtain data from
which an approximate estimate might be attained. These efforts, though
not so satisfactory as could be desired, are yet sufficient to authorize
the conclusion that there are in those three States (and probably the
same figures would hold good for the rest of the Union) about one fifth
of one per cent. of the population who are idiots of low grade, and
about the same number who are of weak and imbecile intellect. This would
give us in the United States about fifty-two thousand idiots, and as
many more imbeciles. At the lowest estimate, the cost of supporting this
vast army of the unfortunate, beyond the trifling sum which a few of