time after that period, as rapidly as before; because our territory will
not have become full.

"I do not state this inconsiderately. At the same ratio of increase
which we have maintained, on an average, from our first National census
in 1790, until that of 1860, we should, in 1900, have a population of
103,208,415. And why may we not continue that ratio far beyond that
period?

"Our abundant room--our broad National homestead--is our ample resource.
Were our territory as limited as are the British Isles, very certainly
our population could not expand as stated. Instead of receiving the
foreign born, as now, we should be compelled to send part of the
Native-born away.

"But such is not our condition. We have two million nine hundred and
sixty-three thousand square miles. Europe has three million and eight
hundred thousand, with a population averaging seventy-three and
one-third persons to the square mile. Why may not our Country at some
time, average as many? Is it less fertile? Has it more waste surface
by mountains, rivers, lakes, deserts, or other causes? Is it inferior
to Europe in any natural advantage?

"If, then, we are at some time to be as populous as Europe, how soon?
As to when this may be, we can judge by the past and the present; as to
when it will be, if ever, depends much on whether we maintain the Union.

"Several of our States are already above the average of Europe
--seventy-three and a third to the square mile. Massachusetts has 157;
Rhode Island, 133; Connecticut, 99; New York and New Jersey, each, 80.