insisted that he should serve more drinks. One man was killed
in a quarrel over politics, one in a fuss over some beer, one
in a card game, one trying to rob a fruit-stand, one in a
dispute with a ship's officer, one in a dance hall row. One
man killed another whom he found with his wife, and one wife
killed her husband for a similar cause; another wife killed
her husband simply because she "could not stand him," and one
because he was fighting with their son. One man was killed by
another who was trying to collect from him a debt of six
hundred dollars. One quarrel resulting in homicide arose
because the defendant had pointed out deceased to the police,
another because the participants called each other names, and
another arose out of an alleged seduction. Three homicides
grew out of street rows originating in various ways. One man
killed another who was fighting with a friend of the first, a
janitor was killed in a "continuous row" which had been going
on for a long time, and one homicide was committed for
"nothing in particular."

This astonishing olla podrida of reasons for depriving men of
their lives leaves one stunned and confused. Is it possible
to deduce any order out of such homicidal chaos? Still, an
attempt to classify such diverse causes enables one to reach
certain general conclusions. Out of the sixty-two homicides
there were seventeen cold-blooded murders, with deliberation
and premeditation (in such cases the reasons for the killing
are by comparison unimportant); three homicides due to
negligence, five committed while perpetrating a felony;
thirty-seven manslaughters, due in sixteen cases to quarrels
(simply), thirteen to drink, four to disputes over money,