RESISTING THE : THE LONG TERM IMPACT OF MAINTAINING IDENTITY FOR FRANCO- IN

Mary MacKinnon and Daniel Parent

Department of Economics McGill University

August 2005

"I'm not a beatnik, I'm a Catholic." -Jean-Louis (Jack) Kerouac

Abstract

The scale of the persistent, concentrated immigration from is a source of concern to many in the . The perception is that Mexicans are not assimilating into mainstream America as previous generations of immigrants did. This paper looks at the emigration of approximately 1 million French- who moved to the United States, with the bulk of the migration occurring between the end of the Civil War and 1930 and with most settling in neighboring New England. What makes this episode particularly interesting is the fact that the French-Canadian immigrants exerted considerable efforts to maintain their language and to replicate their home country institutions, most notably the schooling system, in their new country. This explicit resistance to assimilation generated considerable attention and concern in the U.S. over many years. The concerns are strikingly similar to those often invoked today in discussions of policy options regarding immigration from countries, notably Mexico. We look at the convergence in the educational attainment of French Canadian immigrants across generations relative to native English-speaking New Englanders and to other immigrants. The educational attainment of Franco-Americans lagged that of their fellow citizens over a long period of time. Yet, by the time of the 2000 Census, they eventually, if belatedly, appeared to have largely achieved parity. Military service was a very important factor contributing to the assimilation process through a of related channels: educational attainment, language assimilation, marrying outside the , and moving out of New England. Finally, when we compare Franco-Americans to French-speaking Canadians of the same generations, it is clear that Franco-Americans substantially upgraded their educational attainment relative to what it would have been if they had not emigrated. This suggests that the "pull" factor eventually exerted a dominating influence.

______The authors thank participants at the Canadian Economics Association, Canadian Network for Economic History, and the Société canadienne de science économique conferences, and workshop participants at McGill, UBC, Trinity College (Dublin) and UC-Berkeley for valuable comments. Special thanks to David Card, David Lee, Frank Lewis, and Kevin Milligan for particularly insightful suggestions. Financial support for this project came from the SSHRC. This paper was written while Daniel Parent was visiting the Center for Labor Economics at UC- Berkeley. I) Introduction Americans have both welcomed and feared immigrants, with the balance of attitudes shifting depending on the perceived characteristics of the group in question and economic conditions in the United States. Of continuing concern is whether migrants from other parts of the are more or less desirable than overseas migrants. In

1885 (23 Sept. p. 4), the Times editorialist stated In such towns as Fall River and Holyoke the have nearly shouldered out the

native American operatives [...] They have crowded the Irish very hard, and they form a much more intractable element in the social problem [...] Their dwellings are the despair of the

sanitarians and themselves the despair of social philosophers [...] They are the Chinese of New- England inasmuch as they seem rarely to strike root in our soil. Whatever may be the fate of the

Irish immigrant there is always the hope that his children and grandchildren may be assimilated with the native population. [...] His interest in the land of his birth is chiefly sentimental and is

expressed in occasional contributions to the emergency fund. But even if the French Canadian leaves his bones here his thoughts all lie beyond the Canadian border [...] Add to this feeling of

alienism that he is absolutely unenterprising, and it becomes evident that he must be a troublesome element in the population.

In the late 1870s and 1880s, both newspaper editorialists and government officials routinely denounced the arrival of illiterate Roman Catholics from the poor farms of . A more sympathetic view is found in the lead article of the April 1898 issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics [MacDonald, 1898] which documents the quantitative importance of, and the problems generated by, the substantial influx of French-Canadians into New England. MacDonald noted that "Nowhere do [French Canadians] seem to be looked upon, as a class, with entire favor, and in private are often spoken of with contempt; but their work is necessary, their trade is important, and their political support not to be despised." [p. 278] He predicted that despite their unfavorable group characteristics, the French Canadians would eventually succumb to the pressures to assimilate experienced by all immigrants. MacDonald's assessment was made under the belief that the inflow was in decline [p. 257]. As we show below, in fact the flow persisted for another thirty years, but we find strong evidence supporting the prediction of eventual assimilation.

A little over one hundred years later, Mexican immigration attracts similar attention. Concerns over the impact of large inflows of people range from labor market repercussions in terms of wages and jobs [Borjas,

2 2003], social program usage [Borjas and Trejo, 1993], educational outcomes of native Americans [Betts and Lofstrom, 1998], to overall "social" impacts [Huntington, 2004]. In a controversial article, Huntington [2004] asserts that the current episode of Mexican immigration is a unique event in United States history.1 Much has been said about the contemporary situation, but it is still too early to determine to what extent Mexican-Americans will eventually assimilate, socially and economically, into mainstream society.2 This paper looks at the movement of approximately 1 million French-Canadians from to the

United States. The bulk of the migration occurred between the end of the Civil War and 1930, with most settling in neighboring New England. In 1930, approximately two-thirds of first and second generation French Canadians lived in New England [Truesdell, 1943]. What makes this episode particularly relevant for the current debate is that French-Canadian immigrants exerted considerable efforts to maintain their language and to replicate their home country institutions. Probably the most notable institution was the school system. French Canadians established many "national" parishes where both church and school were bilingual or French and the priest was usually from French Canada. The Irish-Americans who ran the U.S. Roman were assimilationist. They often opposed the creation of French-Canadian parishes and when possible assigned European francophone

(or even Irish) priests who would discourage the maintenance of Canadian customs. French Canada's Roman Catholic Church played an active role in helping Franco-Americans achieve their goal of "ethnic survival" by sending large numbers of priests, nuns, and teaching brothers. Prolonged concern about French Canadian immigrants is strikingly similar to modern discussions of policy options regarding immigration from . 3 Several of the factors Huntington sees as unique to Mexican immigration (contiguity, regional concentration, persistence, and historical presence) bear a strong resemblance to the French Canadian migration. Indeed Theriault [1951, p. 2] notes: "From the point of view of resistance to assimilation the Franco-Americans appear to be most nearly comparable to the Spanish-Americans of the Southwest, with whom they also share the unique distinction among American immigrant groups of proximity to their country of origin." An understanding of the assimilation path of Franco-Americans is not a sure guide to future outcomes for Mexican immigrants. If Mexico experiences little economic growth while the U.S. prospers greatly, pressures to

1"Contemporary Mexican ... immigration is without precedent in U.S. history. The experience and lessons of past immigration have little relevance to understanding its dynamics and consequences. Mexican immigration differs from past immigration and most other contemporary immigration due to a combination of six factors: contiguity, scale, illegality, regional concentration, persistence, and historical presence" [p. 33]. 2 Although see Trejo [2003] for a look at the intergenerational progress made by Mexicans of recent cohorts. 3Concerns about the French Canadians remaining separate persisted for many years. In 1942, F.D. Roosevelt told Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King that despite recent progress he saw a need for greater assimilation of French Canadians in New England [Bothwell, 1992, p. 4].

3 move may persist for much more than sixty years. In addition, supply limitations were a factor for French Canadian much more than Mexican migration. The total francophone in 1900 was only 29 percent of the total population of New England and 2 percent of the entire U.S. population. In 1930, the French origin population in Canada was 36 percent of the total population of New England, and still 2 percent of the entire US population [Urquhart and Buckley (eds), 1965, p.18 and US Population Census of 1930, Vol. II, p. 35]. In 2004, the population of Mexico was 35.8 percent of the total population of the United States [Central

Intelligence Agency, World Factbook]. Another difference between the French Canadian migration and the recent Mexican migration is that while virtually any French Canadian could cross the border up to 1917, and any minimally literate French Canadian could do so until 1930, officially the current flow from the south is tightly regulated. French Canadians showed marked reluctance to take out American citizenship, even though virtually all were free to do so. We cannot assess the impact of having a large number of illegal, but long-resident, immigrants who cannot apply for citizenship. At the peak in 1900, a substantially higher proportion of all Canadian born francophones lived in the U.S.

(19 percent) than was true for the Mexican born in 2000. We have no way of telling whether 2000 will turn out to be near the peak for a Mexican-born presence in the U.S. By 1930, the proportion of Canadian born francophones living south of the border had dropped to 11 percent [Truesdell, 1943 and Urquhart and Buckley, 1965, p. 18]. Franco-Americans were demographically important especially in New England towns. Nearly 5 percent of the 1900 population of New England was French Canadian born, and 9 percent were first or second generation French Canadian. In 1930, 3 percent of New England's population was French Canadian born, 9 percent first or second generation immigrants (including those with only one parent born in Canada [Truesdell, 1943, p. 77, and US Census]. As we can see from Map 1, in 1910-1920 the population of many counties was at least 10 percent first or second generation French Canadian (and 20 percent or more in roughly half of those counties). The majority of French Canadians were located in a relatively small subset of counties, which is likely more important for the creation of ethnic enclaves. Most of the counties in which the French Canadians were heavily clustered were also counties where they made up at least 10 percent of the total population.

The first goal of the paper is to look at French Canadians' convergence across generations towards the patterns seen for native white English-speaking New Englanders and for European Roman Catholic immigrants.

We focus principally on educational attainment as a measure of assimilation. In 1970, Franco-Americans still lagged their English mother-tongue fellow citizens by at least a full year of schooling. Inter-generational progress

4 was considerably slower than for in New England, despite the fact that Italian immigrants came to the United States with lower levels of schooling. By the end of the century, however, younger cohorts of French

Canadian ancestry New England residents achieved near parity in educational attainment. Marriage outside the ethnic group was important in bringing about convergence.4

As social historians have argued [Roby, 2000, pp. 372-377, 384-389], World War II was a pivotal event which accelerated the assimilation of Franco-Americans through exogamy and geographic mobility. The second part of the paper combines evidence from the 1980, 1990 and 2000 Census to investigate the sources of progress for those born in the 1910s and 1920s, and their children. Military service was a major factor accelerating the assimilation process. New England born men of French Canadian ancestry were more likely to have served in the military than other New Englanders. World War II service, in particular, directly or as a result of increased education made possible by veterans’ benefits, resulted in higher rates of residence outside New England, marriage outside the ethnic group, and lower probabilities of reporting French as the home language. We also observe declining enrollments in private (mainly parochial) schools. By 2000, children of French Canadian ancestry were no more likely than other New England children to attend private school. This was likely more the result than a cause of declining attachment to the Franco-American identity. Our final objective is to examine the extent to which French Canadian immigrants, although initially successful in replicating the institutional settings of the society they left, experienced gradually diverging outcomes. We compare Franco-Americans to French-speaking Canadians of the same generations in what arguably amounts to an experiment in "identity choice" [Akerlof and Kranton, 2000]. Although francophone Quebec society became much more urban, in many ways it was relatively stable over the years that saw substantial

Franco-American adaptation within U.S. society. Far fewer French Canadians served in the than did Franco-Americans with the U.S. military, and Canadian military service did not always entail

“English immersion.” Quebec’s “", which saw the rapid decline in the Roman Catholic Church’s power and a marked improvement in the economic position of francophones relative to anglophones did not occur until the 1960s. Franco-Americans substantially upgraded their educational attainment across generations relative to the same age cohorts in Quebec. Quebec introduced compulsory schooling legislation only in 1943, and until the late 1960s the structure of the Roman Catholic school system ensured that few children continued past primary school

[Linteau et al. 1991, pp. 63-69, 243-249, 482-493]. The contrasts between French Canadians and Franco-

4Individuals reporting their second ancestry is French Canadian are assumed to be products of mixed marriages.

5 Americans are particularly strong for post-secondary educational attainment, especially for younger females. We also find that all but the youngest age cohort of Franco-American females had fewer children than their French

Canadian counterparts in 1970. In our view, this exception provides further support for the notion that Franco- Americans were by the 1960s largely unaffected by developments in Quebec. The fertility rate had dropped precipitously in Quebec during the sixties and by 1970 was lower than the fertility rate in the United States. Overall, these results strongly suggest that the "pull" factor eventually exerted a dominating influence on how people lived, even for this group of immigrants whose initial explicit objective was to replicate familiar institutional and cultural surroundings in their new country.

The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 documents French-Canadian immigration patterns and Section 3 describes the immigrants’ attempts to insulate themselves from New England society. We describe the

Franco-American education system and how it differed from the Quebec system. Section 4 explains the data used and we show empirical results on educational attainment by ethnic group in Section 5. Section 6 considers the ways World War II helped to break up the Franco-American enclaves, and in Section 7 we compare the condition of emigrant French Canadians and their cousins who remained in Quebec. We provide concluding remarks in

Section 8. II) Immigration Patterns

In the nineteenth century, the rate of natural increase among the francophone Canadian population was high, and possibilities to obtain good farmland were low. While urban centers in Canada absorbed some of those eager to leave agriculture, the U.S. offered a much greater number of manufacturing jobs. Textile mill owners recruited some of the earliest groups of migrants [Roby, 2000, p. 27]. While the early French Canadians of New

England were derided as the "Chinese of Eastern ,"5 unlike most Chinese immigrants to the western states, it was common for French Canadian families, as well as single men, to move, with young adolescents readily able to find work in the mills.6 Travel costs, in both time and money, were minimal for French Canadians moving to New England. One day and (around 1900) at most five dollars (about a week's wages for a low skilled man in Quebec) was sufficient to get to the mill towns of southern New England [Green, MacKinnon, and Minns, 2005]. While many participants in streams of immigration come with the intention of returning home, it was far easier for French Canadians than for European immigrants to actually return. The cost of an Atlantic voyage was

5French Canadians were not only compared with the Chinese. Another New York Times editorial (June 6, 1892) noted that "No other people, except the Indians, are so persistent at repeating themselves. Where they halt they stay, and where they stay they multiply and cover the earth." The Bureau of Statistics of Labor Reports [1881 and 1882] report on hearings studying French Canadian immigrants. 6Roby [1993, pp. 13-27] discusses the earliest phases of migration. The most detailed account of family employment in the textiles industry is Hareven [1982].

6 more like $25 and travel time around two weeks.7 Whenever there was a downturn in the New England mill towns, Canadian authorities predicted both the end of the outflow, and a massive return by the unemployed. There were repeated attempts to convince emigrants either to move to the Canadian west or to return to Quebec to take up farms in areas north of the St. Lawrence valley. If going "home" is an easy option, then the willingness to make both symbolic and practical breaks with the past is likely lessened. French Canadian migrants in New England took out American citizenship less often than most other immigrants.8 It is extremely doubtful that it was ties to Queen Victoria or her descendants that they were unwilling to renounce. For the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec (and New England), faith and language were inextricably linked. It was easy to encourage convents to set up schools in the "Little ". The need was understood to be great, and the cost of sending Canadian-born nuns to New England was minimal. From 1917, migrants from Canada were subject to the U.S.-imposed test, and some French Canadians failed it [Ramirez, 2001]. There had been very considerable improvements in literacy among the

French Canadian population since the 1870s, so that the new test did not have a major negative impact on the possibility of getting into the States. 9 The slower growth of the New England textile industry was probably more important in limiting migration to New England in the 1920s.

To get an idea of the gross yearly flows into New England from French Canada, we combine arrival years reported in the 1900-1930 census by French Canadians living in New England and plot the distribution of arrival years (see Figure 1). This procedure misses those who had died or returned to Canada by each census year, and correspondingly over-weights recent in-migrants who might be passing through.10 It does, however, highlight that MacDonald (1898) was incorrect in thinking the immigration phase was over by the late 1890's. Fairly high rates of immigration continued until roughly 1915. Immigration rates remained very low throughout the depression and World War II.11

7According to the Immigration Commission, in 1908, almost 60% of the sampled French Canadian male employees living in the U.S. for ten years or more had made at least one trip home. Not quite a third of the Italian men had been back [Immigration Commission, Vol. 20, pp. 983, 994, 995]. 8In 1908, 28% of French Canadian foreign born adult men in the U.S. for 10 years or more were fully naturalized, while 42% of Italians were [Immigration Commission, Vol. 20, pp. 1316, 1324-25].

9Only about half of working-age francophone men in Canada could read and write in 1871.

10To avoid double counting, we use the 1900 census for those who arrived before 1896, the 1910 census for those arriving between 1896 and 1905, the 1920 census for those arriving between 1906 and 1915 and the 1930 census for all arrivals between 1916 and 1930. Except for 1926 to 1930, we do not use the 5 years leading up to and including each census year to minimize the likelihood of picking up short-term residents. There is clearly considerable year heaping in recalling the date of immigration. 11 Paquet and Smith (1983) computed decadal net migration rates suggesting more substantial flows to the United States in the 1920s, but many of these migrants were headed for .

7 As we will see below, wartime service and economic opportunities tended to break up the francophone enclaves in New England. After the war, low rates of immigration coupled with suburbanization of the population made it much harder to maintain viable French-language institutions (newspapers, schools, churches) [Roby, 2000, pp 353-475].

Over time, discussion developed within the Franco-American community about the desirability of taking out American citizenship [Petrin, 1990]. The same reports that noted the number of children at (bilingual) parochial schools also listed the number of voters and boasted of the city councilors and state legislators of French background [Hamon, 1891, Belanger, 1935]. To remain distinct, it helped to have a voice in the American political process. In 1930, over half of the French Canadian born adult men in the US were citizens. However, proportions naturalized were generally lower in the New England states than in the rest of the U.S. [Truesdell,

1943, pp. 111, 117]. III) Franco-American and French-Canadian Educational Institutions

As Brault [1986, p. 73] stresses "the cornerstone on which the Franco-American school was built was the profound conviction that abandoning the was tantamount to abandoning the Catholic faith."

While the earliest schools for Franco-American children were set up by mills, as immigration continued and many French Canadians located in a fairly small set of towns, religious orders took over or established parochial schools.

Key components of the parochial schools were their focus on the French language, French Canadian culture, and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. The use of French raised the greatest concerns among native Americans. English-language parochial schools were suspect (but already long-established by Irish immigrants); French-language parochial schools were clearly dangerous. Recognition of parochial schools was an issue early on precisely because instruction was not provided in English [Brault, 1986, p. 75]. Bilingual parochial schooling, however, was acceptable to the authorities requiring school attendance. From about 1900 to the 1950s, most parochial schools taught half a day in French, half a day in English. French was used for catechism, Bible study, Canadian history, art, and music (and for prayers). Reading, writing, arithmetic, American history, geography, civics, and hygiene were taught in English [Brault, 1986, p. 95]. Usually Canadian religious taught in French while Americans taught in English.12 The short-term goals for religious instruction were to prepare the younger children for First Communion (around age 7), and the older children for Confirmation (around age 12). Although it was not customary for Franco-Americans to attend high school or college, a few did. Initially,

12In areas where Franco-Americans were long settled, and a small minority, by the 1930s parochial schools were moving away from French-language instruction. This was the case in Newburyport, MA, where there were about 1,500 persons of French Canadian origin out of a total population of roughly 17,000 [Warner and Srole, 1945, pp. 28, 235, 241-2].

8 the options were to attend U.S. public schools, Catholic institutions, or return to Canada where girls could attend a convent boarding school or boys a church-run "Classical College". The 8-year Classical

College curriculum led roughly to a B.A. degree, with the first four years corresponding to high school education. This system was a remnant of the pre-revolutionary education system in and it was not publicly funded.

With increased demand by Franco-Americans for post-elementary but not secular schooling in New England, several convents began to offer schooling for teenaged girls. The first U.S. Classical College, Assumption

College, was established in Worcester, MA, in 1904. By the late 1930s instruction at Assumption was bilingual [Brault, 1986, p. 98].13 Franco-Americans tried hard to re-create the educational institutions of French Canada. Three main differences in the educational environment made the New England "flavor" different and played key roles in the eventual absorption of Franco-Americans into mainstream society. First, except in the very early years, all the U.S. schools provided substantial instruction in English. Second, all children were eligible to enroll in the public school system. Franco-Americans were subject to pressures from native Americans to enroll their children in the public schools at the same time that their priests preached the importance of sending the children to the parochial school.14 Although parents in urban Quebec could in principle enroll their children in English-speaking Catholic schools, in practice few did. Finally, there were no compulsory schooling laws in Quebec until the 1940s. While in New England manufacturing towns it may have been fairly easy for children just below the school-leaving age to evade compulsory schooling laws, by the early twentieth century there was strong external pressure to ensure attendance for seven or eight years.15 IV) Data

Previous quantitative studies of French Canadians in New England have generally focused on a small set of communities (as in Theriault [1951]). To get a broader view, we use the IPUMS of the for most 20th Century census years as well as the 2000 Census to create samples of New England residents of several ethnic backgrounds and also samples of New England born individuals of French Canadian origin living in other parts of the U.S. We focus on New England because the concentration of French Canadians was highest and the institutions necessary to permit the maintenance of a separate identity flourished there. In Michigan or

13The 1935 Guide Franco-Americain included advertisements for secondary and post-secondary bilingual and French-language institutions on both sides of the border. Some offered commercial training as well as the traditional academic curriculum. 14In some towns, it was also possible to attend an English-language parochial school. In Newburyport MA in the early 1930s, only a quarter of elementary school age French Canadian children attended the French parochial school [Warner and Srole, 1945, p.233].

15In 1941, over 40% of the men 25-34 in rural Quebec reported at most six years of schooling.

9 , living in French was really not an option. Residents of Fall River or Woonsocket could more plausibly act as if living in the U.S. was either a temporary event, or that New England was a southern extension to Quebec and . We put a strong emphasis on 1970 U.S. Census data. We are interested in the long-term effect on immigrants of French-Canadian heritage, and 1970 is roughly forty years after the border closed. The Form 2 samples of the 1970 Census contain the most detailed information of all post-war censuses about birthplace and mother tongue for respondents and both their parents.16 Another factor which makes us rely heavily on 1970 is that a micro-data sample of the 1971 Canadian census is available.17 Questions about mother tongue and birthplace allow us to select French-speaking residents of the Province of Quebec born in that province.18 Most census questions in 1971 were similar to the questions asked of Americans in 1970. Thus for 1970/71 we can construct a sample of French-speaking Americans and Canadians. As discussed in Section III, the Quebec Catholic school system (which changed little until the late 1960s) was the model for the parochial schools of New

England. The educational institutions experienced by (many to most) Franco-American and (virtually all) French- Canadian adults in 1970/71 were quite similar. As noted above, there were three very important features which only affected Franco-Americans: instruction was carried out in English for roughly half the day, the public school system was an option, and there were compulsory schooling laws.

The 1980 to 2000 U.S. Censuses are less appropriate for the purpose of evaluating intergenerational progress because they contain only the self-reported first and possibly second ancestry of the respondent. The absence of information about parental birthplace precludes looking at convergence across generations. By 2000, there were few Franco-Americans under 70 who had been born in French Canada. We pick up some third (or even higher) generation descendants of immigrants with the "ancestry" response, but we cannot separate each generation. In addition, because respondents could answer "American" to the ancestry question, some individuals are assigned to the comparison group when they should be in the French-Canadian ancestry group. However, these censuses allow those who never spoke French to still identify with the French Canadian ethnic group and thus identify links between education, mobility, not speaking French at home, and exogamy (which we identify as

16Except for the basic descriptive statistics shown in Table 3, we exclude both respondents who report French as their mother tongue but birthplace in any French-speaking country other than Canada and those reporting parental birthplace in a French- speaking country other than Canada. Few observations were deleted – to be francophone in New England virtually always was to be of French Canadian descent. 17The 1901 Census is the only previous 20th century Canadian census for which an individual-level sample is currently available. 18We exclude U.S. born French speakers. These would be 0.9% of the sample if they were included. The fraction of U.S. born respondents is approximately 3.5% for those over 60, only about 0.5% for those below 60. In the late 19th and early 20th Century much effort was exerted to repatriate people back to Quebec [Vicero, 1968]. 1971 data suggest limited success for these efforts, as MacDonald [1898, p. 268] asserted, and almost no return movement by the 1920s.

10 being the case when the second reported ancestry is French Canadian). The 1900, 1910, 1920, and 1930 Census IPUMS (the latter being the recent preliminary release) are used to assess literacy and school enrollment. The 1940 Census includes most of the relevant variables also in the 1970 Census. This allows us to study the "mid-term" education-related outcomes of Franco-Americans shortly after the end of the migration period. The sample size is smaller, however, because only "sample-line" members (one per household) were asked questions on mother tongue and parents' birthplace. We added observations to the sample- line member sample by looking at each household member's relationship to the head of the household and to the sample-line individual. For example, if a non sample line member is the son of the head of household and the head's wife is the sample-line individual, and her mother tongue is French, then the son is considered to be a Franco-American.19

V) Educational Attainment 1910-2000 Many European immigrant groups were mainly Roman Catholic. We concentrate on Italians as the main comparison for French Canadians because there were almost as many persons of Italian origin in New England in 1930 as there were French Canadians.20 By the early twentieth century a high proportion of the “Irish” were grandchildren or great-grandchildren of immigrants, and almost always listed English as their mother tongue, so they cannot be distinguished in the census. Tables 1 and 2 show the fractions of the 1970 New England population by age group reporting French or Italian as their mother tongue. As in 1930 for the entire population of the , the 1970 census identifies somewhat more of New England’s adults as French Canadian than Italian origin. Using mother tongue as the identifier of ethnic background is restrictive. By 1970, some grandchildren of

French Canadian migrants had never spoken French and thus are counted as English speaking New Englanders. Data limitations in the 1970 Census prevent us from using any other criterion to identify ancestry for those beyond the second generation, and we think that self-reported language background is relevant. We want to assess the impact on successive generations of holding onto the mother country institutions, and language is a critical part of those institutions (Chiswick and Miller [2003]). The educational outcomes of a group with strong identification to

19 When the sample line individual in the household is a non-relative, we cannot infer anything about ethnic origins, unless someone in the family group was born in French Canada. 20 While there were 4.5 million Italian immigrants and their children in the US in 1930, only 660 thousand lived in New England. 740 thousand out of a total of 1.1 million French Canadians were in New England [US Census of Population, Vol. II, Table 7]. Italians were more concentrated in and Massachusetts than were the French Canadians. Only about 360 thousand Polish immigrants and their children lived in New England.

11 a community where post-secondary, if not post-elementary, education was traditionally a low priority provides us with a "most adverse case" perspective on long term assimilation.

The most striking feature of Tables 1 and 2 is that while the fractions of New England residents reporting French or Italian as mother tongue are broadly similar, clear differences emerge once the samples are broken down by nativity status and age. Given low levels of immigration after 1924 and 1930, and declines in the use of French and Italian among longer-settled families, we would expect there to be fewer French and Italian speakers among younger than older adults. The contrast is much sharper for Italians, suggesting greater language assimilation by younger cohorts. Table 1 also emphasizes that many francophones were long-settled in the U.S. Roughly a third of the group born around 1920 were (at least) grandchildren, not children, of French Canadians. Table 3 shows one of the main results in the paper, one that continues to hold once we control for measurable characteristics in regression analysis. In 1970, even among the youngest adults and those whose parents were both born in the U.S., Franco-Americans’ average educational attainment lagged that of white

English-speakers by over one full year. Not surprisingly, the largest deficit in educational attainment is observed among first generation immigrants, many of whom attended school in Canada. For the immigrants that average years of schooling were "capped" around 9 is not a surprise; the schooling system in French Canada long imposed a hard ceiling except for those from prosperous family backgrounds.

Retrospective reports collected in 1970 about total years of school attendance by each age group match up quite well with current responses in earlier census years about children’s school attendance. By tracing the characteristics of Franco-Americans and Italian-Americans over the 20th century in terms of literacy, school enrollment, and type of school attended relative to the English speakers, we can get a better sense of why educational assimilation proceeded slowly up to World War II. We also present evidence for Quebec to get an idea of the effects of emigration.

Figures 2a and b show school attendance rates for three groups of New Englanders in 1910, and for urban and rural Quebec francophones in 1901.21 French-speaking children were more likely to attend school in New

England than had been the case a decade earlier in Quebec, but as soon as French boys were considered able to work, almost all left school. A broadly similar age pattern is observed for girls, but with both a perceptible drop at around the age of 10 and with somewhat more girls than boys continuing at school into their mid-teens. While

21The currently available IPUMS 1 in 200 sample from the US 1900 census does not include enough French and Italian children in New England for us to use it. No sample of the is yet available. At least in rural areas, school attendance rates would have been little higher in 1911 than in 1901. Both samples provide us with 26973 (New England) and 24956 (Quebec) observations of individuals aged 5 to 21.

12 early employment or domestic duties brought formal schooling to an end for most young immigrants, attendance at parochial schools is also a factor behind the extremely rapid drop in French-speakers' attendance rates past the age of 13. The "next step" of attending a classical college, either in New England or in Quebec, was available to only a few individuals. Moving on to a public high school would have rarely been encouraged, and the educational preparation in most parochial schools may not have provided an adequate academic background. This evidence about the education of French-speakers in New England is consistent with the finding that when the American secondary education system started its considerable expansion (1910 to the late 1920s), New England lost its national lead in the fraction of adolescents graduating from high school [Goldin, 1998, Goldin and

Katz, 1999]. With most French-speaking children quitting school by age 14 or 15, and with a continuing flow of minimally educated immigrants from Quebec, the relative position of New England was likely to deteriorate.

As Figure 2b shows, Franco-American girls started school at the same age as English-speaking native born girls. French speaking boys, however, not only left school earlier than the English-speaking natives, they also started later, with near-universal attendance reached only about age 9. We do not see this contrast in Quebec – few young children of either sex were at school there.

School attendance rates for French-speaking children, especially boys, were clearly lower than the rates recorded for Italian-speaking children. We are not observing a common immigrant Roman Catholic pattern.

While the attendance rates for older Italian-speaking girls were almost as low as for French-speaking girls, they were higher for younger girls, and always higher for boys. The New England school attendance patterns in 1910 do not reflect the relative literacy rates of the two groups of immigrant adults, as Figures 2c and d show. In 1910, the literacy rate of French-speaking adults in New England was similar to that of adults in rural Quebec a decade earlier. On both sides of the border, French-speaking men were less likely to be able to read and write than their wives and sisters. In 1910, even among young males, close to 20 percent were illiterate, with the ability to read and write falling sharply for men born before about 1860. However, relative to Italian immigrants, French Canadians appear well educated, with a sharper contrast for women than men. Despite the limited or non-existent academic background of many Italian parents, their children spent more years in school than did French-speaking youngsters.

The 1910 census did not report the type of school children attended, but in December 1908 the Immigration Commission surveyed public and parochial schools in several New England cities with a substantial

French Canadian population. In each of the surveyed cities where there was a substantial French-Canadian presence, schoolchildren whose fathers were French Canadian were strikingly likely to attend a parochial school

13 [Immigration Commission, Vols. 30-32]. Perlmann (1988) stresses that Italians rarely sent their children to parochial school, and this is what we see throughout New England. Only Polish children (who are not found in large numbers in the cities where the French Canadians lived in 1908) were as likely as French Canadians to attend parochial schools.

Figures 3a and 3b compare school attendance rates in 1940/41 to show the progress made by second generation Franco-Americans and Italian-Americans relative to both English speaking and to urban and rural Quebecers. The last group is particularly relevant as many of those who migrated to the U.S. came from rural Quebec.22 By 1940 school attendance rates are virtually the same for all three groups of Americans until the age of 15, at which time the Franco attendance rate drops precipitously, and much more sharply than for Italian-Americans. This pattern suggests that compulsory school attendance was more of a constraint for Franco-

Americans. Progress had occurred between 1910 and 1940 in school participation rates of younger Franco- Americans relative to U.S. Anglos, but few Franco-Americans were graduating from high school at a time when roughly half of the Anglos were. Typical second generation Franco-Americans were spending several more years in school than their cousins in Quebec, especially those in rural areas. Children in Quebec both started school later and left younger. Comparing Figure 3A to Figure 2A it is worth noting that the attendance rate of Franco- American males in 1910 is remarkably similar to that of rural Quebecers thirty one years later. This is particularly true in the case of males, although the broad patterns for females are similar.

Clearly the combination of compulsory schooling laws and possibly also access to the public school system raised Franco-Americans’ educational participation rates. When French Canadians moved from rural to urban Quebec, they also raised their investment in formal education. However, the rising educational attainment of Franco-Americans was not simply assimilation to a common urban pattern. In 1940/41, school attendance rates of second generation Franco-Americans, most of whom lived in urban areas, were substantially higher than for youngsters in Trois-Rivières. Moving to 1970, we can see in Figures 4a and b that relative enrollment rates for Franco-Americans still drop after age 16, although not as much as in earlier years, particularly for boys with U.S. born parents. Despite radical changes in the schooling system of Quebec over the 1960s, attendance rates up to about age 18 still trailed

22Published data do not separate school attendance by language group, so we use school participation rates in Trois-Rivières as representative of attendance patterns among the urban francophone population. Rates for , which was also largely francophone, were almost identical to those in Trois Rivières. There were few Anglophones in rural Quebec. Sample size for New England is 20976 individuals (the number of Franco-Americans is obtained using our “expanded” sample, not just the sample line individuals).

14 that of Franco-Americans.23 By the year 2000, Figure 5a suggests Franco-American males' college enrollment rates were still lower than for non Francos, but the catch up is virtually complete for females (Figure 5b). Figure 5c shows the proportion of New England students attending private schools in 1970 and 2000. While few parochial schools in 1970 would still have been offering instruction in French, roughly half of the U.S. born French mother tongue children attended parochial elementary schools. By 2000, children of French Canadian ancestry were as likely to attend public schools as the general population.

By looking at school participation rates at thirty year intervals, we have implicitly been comparing across generations. Figures 6a-d show how average schooling levels evolved across generations for a wider variety of ethnic groups. We define “fathers” and “sons” as members of the same ethnic group separated by a minimum of 21 years and by a maximum of 39 years. Figures 6a and b show the pairs with the putative sons aged 25-34 and

“fathers” aged 55-64, while in 6c and d the “sons” are 35-44 and 45-54. To avoid crowding the graphs, some "ethnic groups" are rather loosely defined (e.g. "White Anglos" or "Central Europeans"). The idea is to check how

“unusual” Franco-Americans' educational convergence was across generations. For the United States as a whole (Figure 6a), the younger men averaged at least two more years of schooling than the older. Both generations of francophones were better educated only than blacks and Mexicans. Asians are the one broad ethnic group with exceptionally fast inter-generational improvement. For New England alone (Figure 6b), francophone fathers and sons are only slightly better educated than blacks, with Italians clearly ahead in both generations, but far behind the other white immigrant groups or native-born whites. However, looking at older groups, while Franco-American fathers on average were better educated than Italian fathers, and for the oldest men about as well educated as the Central and Eastern European fathers, intergenerational progress for the francophones was much more limited. The intergenerational patterns for the older francophones are closest to those of blacks, where even many of the “sons” would have been migrants from the southern States. What we infer from Figures 6b to 6d is that as we "age" the members of the immigrant groups, we see for Franco- Americans, but not Italians, the impact of maintaining the old tradition of low schooling. The oldest Italian and

Central / Eastern European “fathers” would almost all have been immigrants to the US: many of their “sons” were able to escape the constraints a European childhood had imposed on the previous generation. The French

Canadian fathers were initially as well, or better, educated than the new immigrants from , but until the 1950s, their sons experienced below average inter-generational improvement.

23The fact that attendance rates are actually higher in Quebec for those older than 18 results first from the fact that the 1971 Canadian Census asks about any type of post-secondary schooling, including trade and buisiness schools, while the U.S. Census definition is more restrictive. In addition, in the late 1960's, early 1970s, Quebec saw an increase in the fraction of older individuals attending secondary schools, likely as a consequence of the access constraints being eliminated.

15 Tables 4 to 7 show results for regression models which control as well as possible for other factors that could interact with ethnic origin in explaining educational attainment. These results largely confirm the impressions derived from Figures 2 to 6. In terms of educational attainment French Canadians assimilated towards U.S. Anglo standards fairly slowly. By the year 2000, educational attainment for young adults of French Canadian descent was roughly the same as for U.S. Anglos. The overall change for Franco-Americans, relative to Italian- Americans, was somewhat lower. Italian immigrants were typically exceptionally poorly educated, so that quite a lot of the jump between the first and second generation seen in Tables 4 and 6 is due to the disappearance of working-age adults with less than Grade 3 education.

Table 4, based on evidence from the 1940 US census, provides us with a useful “midterm” reference point. By 1940 migration flows from both and French Canada had nearly ceased. Controlling for age, state of residence, residence on a farm or in a metropolitan area, and labor force participation, the relative educational attainments of immigrant and second generation Italians and French Canadians observed in Figure 2 and Table 3 are confirmed.24 The U.S. born did substantially better than the immigrants, but the Italians experienced more catch-up. The fairly small group of native-born Italian-Americans with birth years around 1890 did particularly well. Among the second generation Franco-Americans (especially the men), the deficit relative to anglophones was roughly constant across age groups, even though many more of the youngest than oldest group would have had both parents born in the U.S. Second generation Franco-Americans seem to have been stalled in their educational progress. We view this as an effect of the parochial school environment and, more generally, the lack of emphasis put on education as a way to make economic progress.25

Tables 5 and 6 show the results of a similar exercise using 1970 census data.26 There is evidence of catch- up by younger members of the U.S. born French mother tongue groups, but even for younger members of the third generation (U.S. born offspring of two U.S. born parents), Franco-Americans still lag their fellow English mother- tongue New England residents by over a full year of schooling. For Italian-Americans of the third generation, the gap is close to zero, especially for younger males.27 While the reference group is highly educated by the standards

24 Restricting the comparison group to native-born Anglophones both born and living in New England, rather than to all U.S. born Anglophones living in New England has little impact. 25It was not unusual for the clergy to question the value of higher education, if not strongly discourage its pursuit, as in Vermette [1936]. 26When we restrict the 1970 sample to metropolitan areas, which cuts the sample size approximately in half, we can add further controls for place of residence in 1970. Coefficients on ethnic identifier variables are little affected. 27To compare the estimates in this table with Figures 6a-d, look for example at the educational attainment of first-generation immigrants aged 55-64 and the 25-34 second-generation individuals.

16 of the United States as a whole (see Figures 4a and b), and it is therefore asking quite a lot from second or third generation immigrants to completely close the gap, the Italians achieved parity by 1970.28

Figures 5 a and b showed that in 2000, educational participation rates for those of French Canadian ancestry were roughly at the New England average. Table 7 again compares those of French-Canadian origin to

English-speaking white native-born Americans of U.K. ancestry. Here we use three definitions of educational outcome (years of schooling, probability of some college attendance, and probability of having at least an undergraduate degree), given that variations in post-secondary attendance and graduation are by then driving the variations in educational levels. Those who reported French-Canadian as their second ancestry are clearly more like the “white Anglos”, whichever measure of educational attainment is used.29 A “first ancestry/speak French penalty” is clearly detectable in affecting educational attainement measured in years of completed schooling. It is less obvious in the case of having either some college or at least a B.A. degree, although such a penalty is still there for females.

There is a very large “ancestry gradient” in explaining years of schooling for those aged 65 and over, and even to a degree for the 55-64 age group. Among those aged 65+ who report their second ancestry to be French-

Canadian, the educational deficit is in general considerably smaller. As we would expect from school attendance rates in 1940, older adults of French Canadian first ancestry had substantially less formal education than their

Anglophone peers. VI) The Impact of Military Service on Franco-Americans

There are three main reasons why the society Franco-Americans constructed up to about 1930 crumbled over the next thirty years. The economic mainstays (textile mills and shoe factories) of most of the New England towns in which they were heavily concentrated went into decline in the 1920s and collapsed in the 1930s, with only a brief revival during and just after the war. Thus youngsters growing up in this period, and their parents, had reason to think that jobs in local manufacturing would no longer be readily obtainable. The flow of immigrants from Canada declined in the 1920s, and nearly stopped in the 1930s. There were few unilingual francophones arriving, and as a result French was more likely to be seen as the language only of the older generation. Finally, and we think of particular importance for Franco-Americans, the draft in World War II drew almost all healthy 28According to Figures 6a and b, in 1970 the average years of education of Italian-origin men were very similar in New England and throughout the U.S. It is thus unlikely that less educated Italian-origin adults had moved away from New England. 296.9% (6.7%) of all white males (females) aged 25 or more in New England report French Canadian first or second ancestry. Among those of French Canadian ancestry, 12.4% of males and 13.8% of females report speaking French at home; 12.6% of males and 14.4% of females report French-Canadian as their second ancestry. Among those aged below 35, the fraction of French speakers drops to about 5% for both sexes. Proportions reporting French Canadian as their second ancestry rise to 15.7% of males and 17.2% of females.

17 young unmarried men into the armed forces and took them away from their home communities, often for several years.30 By the time the war was over, these men were used to living in English and quite possibly had married a non-francophone woman. Even if they returned to New England, their ties to their home neighborhood were greatly weakened. While we cannot fully distinguish the effects of these three explanations (all of which could have had an impact on people born in the 1920s), we explore the role that serving in the U.S. Armed Forces may have played in speeding up the adoption of mainstream American values. Using data from the combined 1980-

2000 censuses (to increase the sample size of older francophones born in the early 20th Century) we look at the relationship between veteran status and the following four outcomes: educational attainment, marrying outside the ethnic group, living outside New England (for New England born males), and the use of French at home.31

During World War II, the U.S. selective service rules meant that extremely high proportions of very young men were drawn into the armed forces. From 1942, men were liable for the draft at 18 [Flynn, 1993, p. 62]. The youngest men were most likely to pass the physical fitness requirements and not be eligible for deferments on the basis of marriage and fatherhood or because of special occupational skills.32 As we can see from Figure 8, New England born men of French Canadian ancestry still alive in 1980, 1990 or 2000 were more likely than the average to have served in the US armed forces.33

Two features of the selective service system help to explain a higher rate of military service for men of

French Canadian background: occupational and student deferments. Few French Canadians worked in agriculture, where occupational deferments were extremely common [Flynn, 1993, pp. 64-68]. We know that French

Canadians were highly concentrated in the declining towns specialized in textile and footwear production. Few workers in these industries would have been considered vital for the war effort. Given their low participation rates in education past age 16, French Canadians (except those training for the priesthood) would rarely have been able to ask for deferment based on high school or college attendance. It appears from Figure 7 that these two factors outweighed any impact of an earlier age at marriage. The U.S. selective service system forced each state to provide roughly equal proportions of men of military age to the armed forces [Smith, 1947, p. 251]. This was very different from the situation in Canada, where there was much greater reliance on volunteer enlistments. Also, the U.S. armed forces were an English-

30Women were not subject to the draft, and few Franco-American women served in the US military in this period. We ignore the effects of military service on women. 31 Using all three censuses gives us a sample of 4920 French speakers born in New England between 1900 and 1915. Using only the 1990 and 2000 Censuses results in reducing that number to 3256 with the 2000 Census contributing only 680 observations. 32In July 1945, for the US as a whole, 70% of registered men aged 18-25 had served in the armed forces [Smith, 1946, p. 567].

33Note that all graphs are smoothed using a 5-year moving average.

18 only enterprise, and the impact of this immersion had clear long-term effects on living patterns of Franco- American veterans. French Canadians in the lower ranks of the Canadian army could function with little or no

English.

Military service with the U.S. armed forces during World War II likely was important in loosening the constraints on pursuing post-secondary education. Figures 8a-b show that men born in the mid and later 1920s were much more likely to graduate from college than were women, with the gender gap noticeably greater than for those just younger or older. The rise in the male/female graduation ratio was much sharper than for non- francophone New Englanders. These results are consistent with the findings of Bound and Turner [2002] and

Stanley [2003], as well as the Goldin and Margo [1992] finding of a positive impact of veteran status on college educated labor following both World War II and the . Lemieux and Card [2001] highlighted the fact that relatively few French Canadians in Canada were able to use veterans’ benefits to upgrade their educational status to the level of a bachelor’s degree. Figure 8 suggests that the G.I. Bill played a substantial role for New

England born men of French Canadian ancestry. This runs counter to the evidence that men from lower socioeconomic backgrounds derived fewer benefits from the G.I. Bill [Stanley, 2003]. However, the schooling institutions imported by Franco-Americans provided extremely limited opportunities for post-secondary education. It is plausible that even for Franco-Americans from reasonably prosperous backgrounds, access was more limited than for young men of similar socio-economic status from ethnic groups that had more readily embraced the public school system.34

Men born in the early 1920s likely served in the military for longer periods than men born near the end of the decade. As we expect that the longer a man served in the armed forces, the greater his improvement in

English-language skills and familiarity with U.S. society beyond the Little Canadas, it is not a surprise that as Figure 9 shows, the (surviving) men who were most likely to have been in the military by 1941 or 1942 were least likely to be in New England in the late 20th Century. For all other New England born veterans no such pattern is evident: simply being away from home for some period because of military service raises the probability of living away from New England by 1980, but year of birth appears unimportant. The fact that it matters for men of French Canadian ancestry and that the pattern roughly corresponds to the male-female relative college graduation

34 Restricting the definition of French Canadian ancestry to include only those who spoke French at home at Census time results in a similar graph, although the peaks in the male-female graduation ratios are more concentrated around the birth years of men most likely to have served in World War II, the Korean War, or the War.

19 rate suggests increased educational attainment induced by the G.I. Bill also facilitated moving away from New England.35

Over 1980 to 2000, the people physically and probably emotionally closest to the traditional Franco- American communities were the New England born who stayed in New England. Two measurable characteristics of their assimilation into mainstream society are marriage outside the ethnic group and the use of English at home. Figure 10 shows the relative rate of marrying outside the ethnic group for (currently married, spouse present) veterans and non veterans, where ethnic group is again defined by self-reported first or second ancestry and the sample is restricted to New England residents. French Canadian ancestry veterans are generally more likely than non-veterans to have married a woman of another ancestry, with the highest ratios for men born in the years when military service was most likely to have been in World War II or the Korean War.36 Again, the observed peaks are likely affected by the induced education effect as well as the direct experience of war service.

Figure 11 shows the fraction of New England born adults still resident in that region in 1980-2000 who reported speaking French at home. More women than men reported current French usage at home, but the trend for women was clearly downward. For birth years up to about 1920, there was no declining pattern of French usage reported by men, so that reported rates of French usage at home for the two sexes were almost equal for those born about 1920. From then on, the male rate also dropped, which again coincides with the birth cohorts most likely to have served during World War II.37

The virtual closing of the border in 1930 no doubt accelerated the assimilation process, as United States born individuals of French Canadian descent who left the Little Canadas could not be “replaced” by new entrants. In addition, the decline of the New England textile industry encouraged the break-up of the French-speaking enclaves by forcing many individuals to migrate. However, as Figure 12 shows, according to the 1940 Census, few young Franco-Americans lived outside New England at that date, although the impact of these two factors should have been substantial by then. If the Depression delayed departure, we would expect far more of the Franco-American young adults of 1940 to be living outside New England by 1970 (Figure 13). There was an increase over thirty years, but only from a maximum of roughly 10% to about 15%. The 1970 proportions of men living outside New England rise sharply for men born in the 1920s: the World War II draft generation.

35We only have one possible “instrument” for many inter-related outcomes (if one is willing to view being drafted for WW2 as an exogenous source of variation, which is arguable) and so cannot investigate these issues more formally. 36Recall that we are excluding from consideration the veterans who had left New England – these men were approximately 10% more likely to have married someone of another ethnic background than the men who remained in New England. 37The rate of French usage at home near the end of the century was markedly higher for non veterans born in the 1920s. However, men with extremely limited formal education and English language skills were less likely to have served in the military in the 1940s.

20 Military service in World War II (and also the Korean War) contributed significantly to speeding up assimilation. Franco-Americans born in New England were more likely to be living outside of New England, to have married outside their ethnic group, and to be speaking English at home. The same birth cohorts that were at highest risk of serving during World War II saw the male-female college completion ratio increase markedly.

Given that more educated individuals are more mobile geographically and more likely to marry people of other ethnicities, a portion of the effects of the war described above were probably driven by the increased educational attainment made possible by the G.I. Bill. VII) Franco-Americans and French Canadians in Quebec

Franco-Americans gradually assimilated towards U.S. norms, but over time the Quebec economy experienced income growth, and Quebec society became more open to U.S. influences. How different were outcomes for Franco-Americans from those of French Canadians in Quebec? In what ways were the descendents of those who did not leave worse off? Using 1970/71 data, Table 8 reports estimates of the adjusted gap in years of schooling for francophones south of the border, by generation in the U.S. While it is usually assumed that emigrants were negatively selected relative to stayers (or at least that emigrants were overwhelmingly drawn from rural areas), only the youngest emigrants generally had less schooling than French speaking Quebecers. The second generation, however, clearly gained relative to their cousins in Canada, with third (or higher) generations who were still identifiable because they reported French as their mother tongue doing even better.38

Table 9 focuses on the probability of making the important jump to post-secondary education. Here there is more evidence of negative selection among emigrants to the US although only for the youngest (and numerically smallest) cohorts. Educational opportunities for women in Quebec remained extremely limited until the late 1960s, with Table 9 showing that the granddaughters of migrants were about twice as likely to have entered higher education as women of the same age in Quebec. In terms of total added years of education (Table

8), men and women of each age group in the same migrant generation generally gained similar amounts. Only for those aged 65 or more in 1970/71 were the added years of education for francophones in New England greater for men than women.

Moving to New England kept some young French Canadians out of the army during . Their sons, however, were far more likely to serve in World War II than if the older group had stayed in Quebec.39 As

38Having at least one parent born in the U.S. was clearly important: the difference between “Other Franco-Americans” and “both parents born in the U.S”. was generally slight. 39 Unlike the draft during World War I, resident aliens were always subject to registration. During World War I, some aliens were illegally drafted and others volunteered. Canadians were probably included in the agreement with Britain permitting the US to draft British subjects living in the US [Flynn, 1993, p. 18, Chambers, 1987, p. 189, 228-231]. Less than 20 percent of Quebec francophone men born in the mid-1920s served in the Canadian forces during World War II [Lemieux and Card, 2001,

21 discussed above, military service pulled most young men away from the Franco-American community, and thus even further from the French Canadian community in Quebec which to a considerable extent insulated itself from the effects of the war.

A final set of contrasts between Quebec and New England can be seen in comparisons of family size. An important feature of Quebec society up to about 1960 was the extremely high rate of marital fertility. Table 10 compares child-bearing levels in Quebec and New England. Given possible differences in age at marriage across groups, we mainly focus on women in the three oldest categories, who would be reporting lifetime total births. Table 10 shows that Franco-American women had much smaller families than French Canadians in Quebec (Panel

B). Correspondingly, older Franco-American women had more children than white English speaking native-born Americans (Panel A). Given the shift from rural Quebec to urban areas in New England, this is what we expect in both cases. Numbers of births suggest the Franco-American women were “between” Quebec and New England societies. While we see differences in family size by age group, there is little evidence of changes in fertility by generation in the U.S. We expect numbers of births to interact with women’s labor force activity. Unfortunately, examining how women’s labor force participation varied with immigrant assimilation and interacted with fertility is beyond the scope of this paper. The 1970/71 data strongly suggest that social changes in Quebec in the 1960s had no impact on Franco-

Americans. While the older Franco-American women had fewer children than French speaking Quebecers, the younger ones had as many or more. Over the 1960s, Quebec became very secular. One of many social changes was that the fertility rate dropped from the highest to among the lowest for populations in developed countries [Linteau et al. 1991, p. 318].

VIII) Conclusions

p. 318, Pariseau and Bernier, 1988, Chapter 5 and p 324].

22 There was considerable clerical and political opposition to the emigration of French Canadians to New England and much more concern about the assimilation of those who moved to Protestant or totally secular patterns of living. Using census evidence, we have traced how people lived, not just what they or their social superiors thought and wrote about changing lifestyles. At the same time that editorialists inveighed against the un-assimilable French Canadians, individuals were changing many habits. Some changes may have been made reluctantly and with a sense of guilt. A fictional emigrant (who had only two children), upon confessing to his cousins in rural Quebec that he had changed his surname from Larivière to Rivers reflected [Ringuet, 1940, p. 141]:

But if you changed your family name, the one you inherited from a long line of ancestors, it was a bit like repudiating your descent and stripping the name of its honourable reputation for hard

work and persistence in the face of every obstacle, which generations of the family had built up. And if going off to the United States was a kind of desertion in any case … this final surrender

was in some ways a denial as bad as St. Peter’s, an act of treason like the treason of Judas.40

Despite the proximity of Quebec and the network of institutions designed to extend the reach of French Quebec into New England, even those Franco-Americans who stayed in New England and identified themselves as French mother tongue or of French Canadian origin did eventually assimilate. Changes came slowly but the “American Way” at length had a powerful influence, and the process appears to now be effectively complete.

World War II played a pivotal role in causing assimilation to enter its irreversible phase. Without the war, assimilation would likely have proceeded even more slowly.

The inferences that can be drawn from the Franco-American experience about the probable long-term impact of Mexican migration on the United States are clear. MacDonald [1898] was right. Even for an immigrant group as resistant to assimilation as the French Canadians, pressures to adapt eventually dominated.

40The 1920 census sample includes four households where parents were born in French Canada but report their last name as “Rivers”. There are many examples of such name adaptations in the 1900 to 1920 Census samples.

23 References:

Akerlof, George A. and Rachel E. Kranton, “Economics and Identity”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. CXIII (2000): 30-45.

Belanger, Albert A., Guide Officiel des Franco-Americains, 1935, Providence RI : Albert A. Belanger.

Betts, Julian and Magnus Lofstrom, “The Educational Attainment of Immigrants: Trends and Implications”, National Bureau of Economics Research Working Paper No. 6757, 1998, Cambridge MA.

Borjas, George, “The Demand Curve is Downward Sloping: Reexamining the Impact of Immigration on the Labor Market”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. CXVIII (2003): 1335-1376.

Borjas, George and Stephen J. Trejo, “National Origin and Immigrant Welfare Recipiency”, Journal of public Economics, 50(3), 1993: 325-344.

Bothwell, , Canada and the United States: The Politics of Partnership, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992.

Bound, John and Sarah Turner, “Going to War and Going to College: Did World War II and the G.I. Bill Increase Educational Attainment for Returning Veterans?”, Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 20, no. 4, 2002: 784-815.

Brault, Gerard J., The French-Canadian Heritage in New England, Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1986.

Chambers, John Whiteclay II, To Raise an Army: The Draft Comes to Modern America, Free Press, New York, 1987.

Chiswick, Barry R. and Paul W. Miller, “Do Enclaves Matter in Immigrant Adjustments?”, mimeo, May 2003.

Flynn, George Q., The Draft, 1940-1973, University Press of , Lawrence KS, 1993.

Goldin, Claudia, “America's Graduation from High School: The Evolution and Spread of Secondary Schooling in the Twentieth Century”, The Journal of Economic History, Vol.58, No. 2 (June 1998): 345-374.

Goldin, Claudia and Lawrence F. Katz, “Human Capital and Social Capital: The Rise of Secondary Schooling in America, 1910 to 1940”, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 29, 1999: 683-723.

Goldin, Claudia and Margo, Robert A. “The Great Compression: The Wage Structure in the United States at Mid- Century” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. CVII (1992): 1-34.

Green, Alan, Mary MacKinnon, and Chris Minns, “Conspicuous by their Absence: French-Canadians and the Settlement of the Canadian West”, 2005, Forthcoming in the Journal of Economic History.

Hamon, Father Edouard, Les Canadiens-français de la Nouvelle-Angleterre, Quebec City, Hardy, 1891.

Hareven, Tamara, Family Time and Industrial Time : The Relationship Between the Family and Work in a New England Industrial Community, New York, Cambridge U.P., 1982.

Huntington, Samuel P., “The Hispanic Challenge”, Foreign Policy, 2004: 30-45.

Lemieux, Thomas and David Card, “Education, Earnings, and the ‘Canadian G.I. Bill’”, Canadian Journal of Economics, vol. 34 #2, May 2001, pp. 313-344.

24 Linteau, Paul-André, René Durocher, Jean-Claude Robert, and François Ricard, Quebec Since 1930, (Robert Chodos and Ellen Garmaise, trans.), Toronto: James Lorimer & Company, 1991.

MacDonald, William, “The French Canadians in New England”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. XII, # 3, 1898 : 245-279.

Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor, Twelfth Annual Report, , 1881.

Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor, Thirteenth Annual Report, Boston, 1882.

Paquet, Gilles and Wayne Smith. “L’émigration des Canadiens-français vers les Etats-Unis, 1790-1940: Problématique et coups de sonde”, L’Actualité économique, Vol. 59, No. 3, sept. 1983: 423-453.

Pariseau, Jean and Serge Bernier, French Canadians and Bilingualism in the Canadian Armed Forces, Vol. 1, Department of National Defence, Directorate of History, , 1988.

Perlmann, Joel, Ethnic Differences: Schooling and Social Structure Among the Irish, Italians, Jews, and Blacks in an American City, 1880-1935, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Petrin, Ronald A., French Canadians in Massachusetts Politics, 1885-1915: Ethnicity and Political Pragmatism, : Balch Institute Press, 1990.

Ramirez, Bruno, Crossing the 49th parallel: Migration from Canada to the United States, 1900-1930, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 2001.

Ringuet, Trente Arpents (Thirty Acres), translated to English by Felix and Dorothea Walter, Toronto, McLelland and Stewart, 1940.

Roby, Yves, Les Franco-Américains de la Nouvelle-Angleterre (1776-1930), Septentrion, Montréal, 1990.

Roby, Yves, Les Franco-Américains de la Nouvelle-Angleterre : rêves et réalités, Septentrion, Sillery, QC, 2000.

Ruggles, Steven, Matthew Sobek, et al. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 3.0. Minneapolis, MN: Population Center, 2004: http://www.ipums.org.

Sager, Eric W. The National Sample of the 1901 Census of Canada: User’s Guide. Canadian Families Project, University of Victoria, mimeo, 2002. [and computer file]

Smith, Mapheus, “The Differential Impact of Selective Service Inductions on Occupations in the United States,” American Sociological Review, Vol ll, # 5 (Oct. 1946): 567-572.

Smith, Mapheus, “Populational Characteristics of American Servicemen in World War II” The Scientific Monthly Vol. 65, # 3, (Sept. 1947): 246-252.

Stanley, Marcus, “College Education and the Midcentury GI Bills” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. CXVIII, Issue 2 (2003): 671-708.

Theriault, George French, The Franco-Americans in a New England Community: An Experiment in Survival, Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard, 1951 (published under the same title by Arno Press, N.Y, 1980).

Trejo, Stephen J., “Intergenerational Progress of Mexican-Origin Workers in the U.S. Labor Market”, Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 38, No. 3 (Summer 2003): 467-489.

25 Truesdell, Leon, The Canadian Born in the United States: An Analysis of the Statistics of the Canadian Element in the Population of the United States 1850 to 1930, Toronto, Ryerson, 1943.

United States Immigration Commission, Immigrants in Industries, Vol. 20; The Children of Immigrants in Schools, Vols. 30-32, Government Printing Office, 1911.

Urquhart, M.C. and K.A.H. Buckley (eds) Historical Statistics of Canada, Macmillan, Toronto, 1965.

Vermette, Father Joseph S., “Par l’école”, in Les Franco-Américains peints par eux-mêmes. Éditions Albert Lévesque, , 1936.

Vicero, Ralph D. Immigration of French Canadians to New England, 1840-1900: A Geographical Analysis, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of , 1968.

Warner, W. Lloyd and Leo Srole, The Social Systems of American Ethnic Groups (Yankee City Series, Vol. III), New Haven CT: Yale UP, 1945.

26

Percentage Number in Thousands 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1

Figure 2a.SchoolAttendanceRatesinNewEnglandandQuebecbyAge:Males 0 5 10 15 20 5 1860 Figure 1.YearofArrivalinNewEngland:French−SpeakersBornCanada 6 7 Source: 1910U.S.and1901CanadianCensuses English−Speaking Amer. French−Speakers 1870 8 9 10 Source: Combined1900−1930U.S.Censuses 1880 11 12 1890 Age 13 Year 14 15 1900 Quebec FrenchSpeakers Italian−Speakers 16 ¢¡ 17 1910 18 19 20 1920 21 1930 Percentage Percentage

0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 Figure 2b.SchoolAttendanceRatesinNewEnglandandQuebecbyAge:Females 20 5 Figure 2c.LiteracyRatesinNewEnglandandQuebecbyAge:Males 6 7 English−Speaking Amer. French−Speakers Source: 1910U.S.and1901CanadianCensuses Source: 1910U.S.and1901CanadianCensuses English−Speaking Amer. French−Speakers 8 9 10 40 11 12 Age Age 13 14 Rural QuebecFrenchSpeakers Italian−Speakers 15 Quebec FrenchSpeakers Italian−Speakers 60 16 ¢£ 17 18 19 20 21 80 Percentage Percentage 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 Figure 2d.LiteracyRatesinNewEnglandandQuebecbyAge:Females 20 or FrenchCanada/ItalyforCanadians/Italians(withchildborninthe U.S.) 2nd generationdefinedas:headoffamilybornintheUSforAnglos 5 Figure 3a.SchoolAttendanceRatesinNewEnglandbyAge:Males 6 English−Speaking Amer. French−Speakers Source: 1940U.S.Censusand1941CDN Source: 1910U.S.and1901CanadianCensuses 7 Rural Quebec Trois Rivieres Eng.−Speak. WhiteAmer. 8 9 40 10 11 Age Age 12 Rural QuebecFrenchSpeakers Italian−Speakers 13 60 14 Italian 2nd Gen.Fr.Amer. ¤¦¥ 15 16 17 18 80 Percentage Percentage Figure 3a.SchoolAttendanceRatesinNewEnglandandQuebecbyAge:Males 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 Figure 4a.SchoolAttendanceRatesinNewEnglandandQuebecbyAge:Males or FrenchCanada/ItalyforCanadians/Italians(withchildbornintheU.S.) 2nd generationdefinedas:headoffamilybornintheUSforAnglos 5 5 6 6 7 Source: 1940U.S.Censusand1941CDN 7 Rural Quebec Trois Rivieres Eng.−Speak. WhiteAmer. Source: 1970U.S.and1971CanadianCensuses 8 Ital−Speak. withUSBornParents Eng−Speak. WhiteAmer. 8 9 9 10 11 10 12 11 Age Age 13 12 14 13 15 Quebec FrenchSpeakers Fr−Speak. withUSBornParents 16 14 Italian 2nd Gen.Fr.Amer. ¤¨§ 17 15 18 16 19 17 20 21 18 Percentage Percentage 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 Figure 4b.SchoolAttendanceRatesinNewEnglandandQuebecbyAge:Females 5 5 Figure 5a.SchoolAttendanceRatesinNewEnglandbyAge:Males 6 6 7 7 8 Source: 1970U.S.and1971CanadianCensuses 8 9 Ital−Speak. withUSBornParents Eng−Speak. WhiteAmer. 1st AncestryReported:Italian 1st AncestryReported:Fr.Canadian US BornNotofFrenchCanadianorItalianOrigin 10 9 11 10 Source: 2000U.S.Census 12 11 13 12 14 Age Age 13 15 16 14 17 15 18 Quebec FrenchSpeakers Fr−Speak. withUSBornParents 16 19 ¤© 17 20 21 18 22 19 23 20 24 21 25 Percentage Percentage 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 Figure 5b.SchoolAttendanceRatesinNewEnglandbyAge:Females 5 Source: 1970and2000U.S.Censuses−ConditionalonAttendingAnySchool 5 Figure 5c.PrivateSchoolAttendanceRatesinNewEnglandbyAge 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 1st AncestryReported:Italian 1st AncestryReported:Fr.Canadian US BornNotofFrenchCanadianorItalianOrigin 10 Franco−Americans withU.S.BornParents(1970) 1st AncestryReportedin2000:Italian 1st Ancestryin2000:Fr.Canadian US BornNotofFr.Can./Ital.Origin−2000 10 11 Source: 2000U.S.Census 11 12 13 12 14 13 Age 15 14 16 Age 15 17 16 18 17 19 ¤¦¤ 18 20 19 21 20 22 23 21 24 22 25 23 24 25 Figure 6a. Educational Attainment of Fathers and Sons−All of U.S. Source: 1970 U.S. Census 16

Asians Africans Middle East

14 Central/Eastern Eur. Western/Northern Eur.

White Anglos Other

12 Francos Italians

Blacks 10 Mexicans Sons’ Mean Years of Schooling 8 5 7 9 11 13 Fathers’ Mean Years of Schooling Sons: Sample members aged 25−34 Fathers: Sample members aged 55−64 Ethnic groups are defined by language/race/ birthplace/father’s birthplace

Figure 6b. Educational Attainment of Fathers and Sons−New England Source: 1970 U.S. Census 14

Central/Eastern Eur.

Western/Northern Eur. 13 White Anglos 12 Italians Sons’ Mean Years of Schooling Blacks Francos 11 8 9 10 11 12 Fathers’ Mean Years of Schooling Sons: Sample members aged 25−34 Fathers: Sample members aged 55−64

Ethnic groups are defined by language/race/ birthplace/father’s birthplace ¤¢ Figure 6c. Educational Attainment of Fathers and Sons−New England Source: 1970 U.S. Census

13 Western/Northern Eur. Central/Eastern Eur.

White Anglos 12

Italians 11

Blacks

Sons’ Mean Years of Schooling Francos 10 6 7 8 9 10 11 Fathers’ Mean Years of Schooling Sons: Sample members aged 35−44 Fathers: Sample members aged 65−74 Ethnic groups are defined by language/race/ birthplace/father’s birthplace

Figure 6d. Educational Attainment of Fathers and Sons−New England Source: 1970 U.S. Census 12.5

Western/Northern Eur. 12 White Anglos Central/Eastern Eur. 11.5 11

Italians 10.5 10

Sons’ Mean Years of Schooling Francos Blacks 9.5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Fathers’ Mean Years of Schooling Sons: Sample members aged 45−54 Fathers: Sample members aged 75−84

Ethnic groups are defined by language/race/ birthplace/father’s birthplace ¤© Male−Female Ratio Figure 8a.Male−FemaleRelativeCollegeGraduationRate Fraction .5 1 1.5 2 2.5

1915 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1915 Figure 7.VeteranRateforNewEnglandBornMen 1920 New EnglandBornIndividuals−Combined1980−2000U.S.Censuses 1920 1925 % Veteransof1stor2ndFrenchCanadianAncestry Other NewEnglandBornIndividuals 1st or2ndFrench−CanadianAncestry 1930 1925 Source: Combined1980−2000U.S.Censuses Other NewEnglandBornMen Men of1stor2ndFrenchCanadianAncestry 1935 1940 Birth year... 1930 1945 Birth year 1950 1935 1955 1960 1940 ¤¦ 1965 1970 1945 1975

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1950 % of Veteran Francos Veteran/Non Veteran Ratio Percentage 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 1915 1915 Figure 9.VeteranStatusandLivingOutsideofNewEngland 1920 Figure 8b.CollegeGraduationRatebyGender New EnglandBornMen−Combined1980−2000U.S.Censuses 1920 New EnglandBornIndividuals−Combined1980−2000U.S.Censuses 1925 1930 Females of1stor2ndFrenchCanadianAncestry Males of1stor2ndFrenchCanadianAncestry 1925 1935 Other NewEnglandBornMen Men ofFrenchCanadianAncestry 1940 1930 Birth year Birth year 1945 1935 1950 1955 1940 ¤ 1960 1965 1945 1970 1975 1950 Fraction Veteran/Non Veteran Ratio 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 Figure 11.FrenchasHomeLanguageforRespondentsofCanadianAncestry .95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 Men ofFr.−CanadianAncestryBornandLivinginNewEngland−Combined1980−2000U.S.Censuses 1900 1915 Figure 10.VeteranStatusandMarryingOutsidetheEthnicGroup 1905 1920 Combined 1980−2000U.S.Censuses−BornandLivinginNewEngland 1910 1915 1925 1920 1925 1930 Birth year Birth year 1930 Females Males 1935 1935 1940 1940 ¤¦¡ 1945 1950 1945 1955 1950 1960 Fraction Fraction

.1 .15 .2 .25 Figure 13.ProportionoftheNewEnglandBornLivingOutside 0 .05 .1 Figure 12.ProportionoftheNewEnglandBornLivingOutside 1900 1900 1905 1910 1905 1915 1920 1940 U.S.Census 1970 U.S.Census Birth year Birth year Franco Females Franco Males Franco Females Franco Males 1925 1910 1930 1935 ¤¦£ 1915 1940 1945 1920 1950

 ¢ "!$#%&'!'()'"*+',$- .&$#/,0-  1+32546'( '.&7'98&:;= @+>3A?',),

BC- ,D#%- )$#- !E!3F¢'9 GH!9#''#/!(&)"/',$- .&$#/,IKJ9-  #%L' '3E'."L$$#/D9-  #%L $"M%!32ONP,)&GQ#/!$;&;'R

SC(E(/!&)L A?'.'- "$!&% Ne!3F©#/!'#% @¨>[$![f&7'!#%L9[[9# , <+> @¨>[$!\%[7!'#=L$\/\$#/, <+> @¨>[$!\%[79!\'L&%&$#¦!\%

L!L&)& $#f- !\ $!\%- EAC['.& @+>!\% - EA+\'.

T'U&V%W&X Y T W U T T U

> Z  > 8¢> 8 Z[> >

WU&V%X&X Y X&U Y T T

9;\> ; 8\> ;  > ; > :\>

XU&V%U&X W X U T'X W&X T Y

9;\>  > >  > : Z\>

UU&V X U T W&T T&T T'U T

Z 9;\> ;\> : >  > ; >

U\] W&W W&T U U Y Y

Z 9;\>  > 8 >  > 9:\>

Y Y T'W W W&X T'W Y

!$#/ 8\>  > ; > > 8 >

V

1+!$# [*+,9- .9# ,?2^- # ¦/'"G0!$#%'#/!'()'_')$#[-  #&L $E!)9# ,9- .E!3F¢A?'.E!'#' @C>3!2^- #% ¢ ,L$&`D- '("L$/&$#/,I$!&%E!)9#/,$- .

X Y

!3F\A?&.'I!&'#' @+>$/_-  )'.._- 0#'E.'!GI- $#/!a>$@6GEL E,9- b3&'98  Z\>

T

  'c #/ -  "!$#%'d!'() *+,9- .9#/,0-  1+32546'( '.&7'98&:;= @+>3A?',),

BC- ,D#%- )9#/- !E!$Fc # & -  GH!9#''#/!(&)"/',$- .&$#/,IKJ9-  #%L' '3E'."L$$#/D9-  #%L $"M%!32ONP,)&GQ#/!$;&;'R

SC(E(/!&)L c #/ - "$!&% Ne!3F©#/!'#% @¨>[$![f&7'!#%L9[[9# , <+> @¨>[$!\%[7!'#=L$\/\$#/, <+> @¨>[$!\%[79!\'L&%&$#¦!\%

L!L&)& $#f- !\ '!g_- =c #% J @+>!\% - c #%\ J

T'U&V%W&X U X T W T T'U

> Z[> Z $8¢> 8\> > ;

WU&V%X&X UX W T'U

:[> Z &'> Z >  8\> > ;

XU&V%U&X T T

9;\>  9;\>  :Z\> ; > ;  > ;

UU&V X X T&T W W U

Z 8\> > Z'8¢> ;\> 8 :\>

U\] T TT W W U U

Z :[> :¢'> 8 > ;\> >

TX Y U&T U Y W X X

!$#/ :[> 8 > > >  >

X Y

@6!)&/$&'98&:;= @+>3A?',),'>$@¨GEL I,9- bD['$8  Z[> ©¥

h+i¦j©k lnm¨o$p^l\i¦qfr"s[tduCv\w\s¦s6k x y¢z{s\t¨|dqfl¦y\v\w[}~u?\l\i¦€&x y\z‚ƒl¢r'x „©l¦y& fr0†r&o\‡ƒi& ax †'l‰ˆCy\zdk x r'w\}Šu?¢l\i¦€x y¢zŒ‹ew©x %lEŽl¦qgx v&i¦y¢r[o

uCs¦qfv&lo¢‘’“¦”‰•_o uHo–Il¦y¢r¢r&—\‡ƒl&˜eˆCy\z6k i¦y¢„‚ƒl¢r'x „¦l¦y[ fr

™ši¦y\l©k›"—\œ=l¦yžŸ‡¡ ‰¢©“d£ “\¤+‘'¥

0z©l¦=qfsd¦ _k k9|dqfl¦y\v\w{u?\l\i¦€'l¦qar –Ii¦y¢i\„x i¦y‰§šsdqay •_o uHo\§šsqgyn˜ x aw •_o uHo\§šsqgy=˜x aw ˆCy¢z6o }~u?\l\i¦€&x y\z

–0i¦ydo }¨§šsqgy‰™ši¦qfl¦y& fr •Eo uHo\§šsdqgy‰™ši¦qfl¦y& fr©‹ew©x %lEŽl¦qgx v&i¦y¢r

ª©« ª©ª ª « ª «¦«

}gm¦¤ ‘©‘¢o ¢6o ’¢¤ ‘¦‘¦o ‘ ‘¦‘¦o ” ‘ o

« « ª ª

m }g¤¦¤ ‘[”do m©¤ ¢6o ¬¦” ‘&”6o‘&“ ‘&”6o ‘ ‘ o‘

« « ª ª «

¤ } ¤ ’6o “ ¢6o ¤¦m ’¨o m©¢ ‘&”6o‘ ‘¦‘¦o ”

«©« « « ª

}Š¬\¤ ¢6o “ “do ’©” ¢¨o “ ’¨o‘'¤ ‘&”6o ¬

«©­ « «

¬ “do ¤d“ ¬do ¬ “6o ¬6‘ “6o ¢ ’¨o‘'m

™ši¦y\l©k9§?—9‹®sŽl¦y{Š‡¡ ‰’©“£ ¬©¬\m©¥

0z©l¦=qfsd¦ _k k9|dqfl¦y\v\w{u?\l\i¦€'l¦qar –Ii¦y¢i\„x i¦y‰§šsdqay •_o uHo\§šsqgyn˜ x aw •_o uHo\§šsqgy=˜x aw ˆCy¢z6o }~u?\l\i¦€&x y\z

–0i¦ydo }¨§šsqgy‰™ši¦qfl¦y& fr •Eo uHo\§šsdqgy‰™ši¦qfl¦y& fr©‹ew©x %lEŽl¦qgx v&i¦y¢r

ª©« ª

}gm¦¤ ‘©‘¢o‘¤ ’6o “¢¢ ‘&”6o ¢¦’ ‘¦‘¦o m©¢ ‘ o m¦m

« ª ª

m }g¤¦¤ ‘[”do m’ ’6o ”¦¬ ‘&”6o m ‘&”6o “¦” ‘¦‘¦o ¢

« « « ª

¤ } ¤ ’6o ¢¦m ’6o ”\¤ ’¨o “ ‘&”6o ” ‘¦‘¦o m©¢

«©« ª¦«

}Š¬\¤ ¢6o ¢” ¢6o ”¢¢ ¢¨o “¦” ’¨o ‘&”6o ¬¢’

«©­ ª

¬ “do ¬ “do ”\m “6o ¢©¬ ¢¨o ”¢’ ’¨o mš‘ š§

È

Ý ×

·

à à à à

Æ

Þ

Ù Ù Ù

Ä Ä Ä

Þ

Ç

Ù × Ù Ø ×á

½

¼

²

Ý × ×

Ô Ô Ô

Æ

Æ ³ ³ ³

Ë

½

µ µ µ µ µ

È È

× Ù

°

µ µ µ µ

È È È È

¾

²

Ù

Ø

ß ß ß ß

Ë

½

½

à à à Ã

Â

Í

Ú

¼

Ì

³

´

Ø

´

È È

Ù ×

½

à à à à

´

Ø

Ã

´ Þ

Ù

Â

Ä Ä Ä

Þ ´ ´

È

Ù Ù

Ø

¼

²

Ý × ×

Ø

Ô Ô Ô

Æ

´

³ ³ ³

½Ë

µ µ µ µ µ

È

× Ù

Ú

¼

Æ

µ µ µ µ

È È È È

¾

Ù

Ø

ß ß ß ß

µ

à à à Ã

Õ

µ

Ü

Þ Þ

È

× Ý

·

à à à à

È

×

Ä Ä Ä

´

Ç

× × Ø

½

¼

²

Ù ×

á á

Ô Ô Ô

Æ Æ

Ý

á Ø

³ ³ ³

Ë

½

µ µ µ µ µ

´

È

Ù

Æ Æ

°

µ µ µ µ

È È È È

¾

²

Ù

ß ß ß ß

Ë

½

½

à à à Ã

Â

Í

Ú

¼

Ì

³

µ

·

´

½

´

´ ´

È °

½

à à à à

Æ

²

Ç

×

Æ

Â

Ä Ä Ä

´ ´

× Ø ÝØ

¼

Ù Ø

Ã

Æ Æ

²

Ë

½

Ù ×

á

Ô Ô Ô

Æ Æ

Æ ³ ³ ³

Ë

½

µ µ µ µ µ ¶

´

È

× Ù

Ú

¼

Æ

µ µ µ µ

È È È È

¾

´

Í

ß ß ß ß

µ

à à à Ã

Õ

Ì

µ

Ü

³

½

»

½Ë

»

» Ê

È É

´

Ç

´ ´

× Ù

·

à à à à

´ Þ Þ

Æ

Ä Ä Ä

Þ Þ Þ

á Ø ½

¼

Æ Æ Æ

²

× Ø × ×

Ô Ô Ô

Æ

½

×

³ ³ ³

½Ë

µ µ µ µ µ

È

× × Ù

Æ

°

»

µ µ µ µ

È È È È

¾

²

´

ß ß ß ß

½Ë

½

Ä

½

à à à Ã

Â

°

¹

Í

Ú

»

¼

Â

½Ë

Ì

»

³

³

²

¾

¿

¼

Ö

¼

½

¹

Ã

°

»

´

À Õ

²

Ù

º

°

¼

Þ

× Ý

½

à à à à

· Å

Þ Þ

Ý

Â

Â

Ä Ä Ä Ä

Ý × Ý ×

á á Ø

¼

× Ø

Ã

Æ

²

½

Ø × ×

Ô Ô Ô

Æ Æ

á

³ ³ ³

½Ë

°

µ µ µ µ µ

È

× × Ù

Ú

¼

Æ

Ø

µ µ µ µ

È È È È

¾

°

Ô

´

³

ß ß ß ß

µ

½Ä

à à à Ã

Â

Ï

Õ

µ

Ü

°

¹

Ó

°

»

Â

º

½

³

¾

¿

·

³

½

¹

¼ Ã

Ò

³

½

Ñ

³

Â

°

À Á

¼

º

Ä

½

»

³

³

¿

½¿

¿

»

Ñ

¸

º °

·

º

½

¾

½

Ä

Â

½ ½

Ä Ä

³

º

»

¼

¸

» ¼

²

º

½ ½

Ä Ä

º

½ ½

°

°

½

º °

° °

¹ ¹

Â

°

Â

ä ¸

°

Ä

° °

¹ ¹

» ¼ » ¼

» »

º º

 Â

»

Ä

» » » ¼

³

½

 Â

½ º

Õ

³ Ò

³

»

 Â

° °

³

Õ

¹

³ ³

¿

°

³ ¹

Û

Â

Û ½

³ ³

Ã

³

³

¸

½ ½

¿ ¾ ¾

¿ ¿

³ ³

· ã ¿

¾ ¾

Â

¿ ¿

¼

· ¸

¼

Ñ · ·

¸

Ð

¿ Û

³

Û Û

³ ³

º

½ ½

Ã

Ñ

¸

½ ½

Á

Â

³ ¹ ¹

à Ã

¼ ¼

à Ã

½ ½

º º

Ä

¾ Ï

º

´6µ

¹ ¹

±

¼ ¼

° °

¼

³ » »

³

¸

à Ã

 Â

·â Ä

Ä Ä

² ²

 Â

³ ³

º ° ° °

» »

²

¾ ¾ ¾

Ì °

Ú

Ë Ë

º º

° °

°

³ ³

½

±² ³

³

Õ Õ Õ Á Á Á Á

É

Å Å



°

Î

¯ °

ë

¨ ¨

ú ò ò ò ò

 

î ë ë ë

¨

  

é

£

þ þ þ



¥ ¥



ý ý ý



ç 

¥



ê ê ê

ñ ñ ñ ñ ñ

¨ ¥





ï

¨

ñ ñ ñ ñ

¤

é

£

§ § §  § 

s

å  å  å  å  ï t

r  e

o

ï

ü

ï u

p

î ô g e s r l

n

ê o s o r t u

t r s

n ë e n o h e c

t

§ ¦

 

¨

ò ò ò ò

C  r

o ¥



î

ë ë

¦ ¦ ¨

e



é

£

þ þ þ



ü

¥  ¥

ý ý ý

0



ï



¦

¦ m

ê ê ê 

h

ñ ñ ñ ñ ñ

¨ ¥

î

ô

  4

t

¨ ¦

ñ ñ ñ ñ

¤



§ § § §  e

9

å  å  å  å  ï

O ñ 1

m

ð ñ

a

ñ

. s

S

ï ú

. ê g n U i

ùî ï v n i a

h þ e

ê ü c

s

ë ë



ú

ò ò ò

a

  a l

î ë

¥ ¥ ¥

 

ê



é £

l

þ þ þ



¥ ¦

ý ý ý

p  





ç



ê ê ê



ñ ñ ñ ñ ñ ñ

a

é¢

¥ ¥ ¥ ï

h ï ë

ñ ñ ñ

¤

é

£

§ § §  § å  ¦ u

t

å  å  å 

r

ï

ùê é d i

i

 ÷ b

v ï

ü

i

ç

ï

d

î ô d n

n

þ a

i ê

þ ¢

n ê

a

ê

i

é¢ §

£ ï l

a ñ

t

ùê

é é ç ë

I

ð

îï

÷ ë

/

ú

§

ç ü

h

¨ ¨ ¥

ò ò ò ò

 ¡

c



¢

î

¨ ¥ ¦ ¥

 

¨ ¦

ê

é

£

þ þ þ

ü ¥ ¥

 

ð

ý ý ý

ú   

n

ï ë

¦

þ

ê ê ê

 ¢ 

ñ ñ ñ ñ ñ

¥ ¥ ¥

î ô

e

ð ë

î

ñ ñ ñ ñ

î

¤

÷

§ § §  § ¦

r

ú

å  å  å  å 

ï ¢

F

ñ ï

¡

ð ê

e

ê

ñ

ç

u

é

¢

ï

þ

é

é

¢ £

g

ê

é ùê

n

ü



o ÷ ï

t

þ

¡

ç

ü

ð

îï

¡

ê

¢

ð

üþ

£

þ

ù

ê

î

é ç

÷

¢

é

ï

é

ç

è

ú ú

¥

ú

ò ò ò ò

ê 

ë ë

¨



î

¨  

     

£

 é ú

£

þ þ þ

¥ ¥

ý ý ý

¢

 

ç 

ê ê ê

ê

ñ ñ ñ ñ ñ

ë

¨ ¥ ¥

ù

ú é¢

ï ë



ñ ñ ñ ñ

¢

¤

ç

é

£

§ § §  §

÷

å  å  å  å 

¢

ï

ï

ï

ÿ

ì

ç



¢

¢

ú ï ï

¢

ï

ú

ü

ê

ï

è 

£

ð

î

ô

ê

çü

ê

ç

ú

è 

é

ê

é¢

ç

ï

ú

ê

ê

ü

î

ð

ï

ÿ

î

¡

ð ¢

ï

é

¢

ê

ê

í

ü

ú

ùî

ê

¡

ê

ï

÷

ê ë

î

ÿ

ç

ð

ü

¨

£

ï

î

§

ú

÷ ¥

é

ò ¢ ç ò ò ò

ê

þ

ë ë

ç

¥

î

ð 

¥ ¥ ¨ 

¥ ¦

 

é

é

£

ç

üþ þ þ þ

ü ¥ ¥ ¦



ý ý ý

 

ï

ç 



ê ê ê

î

¡

ñ ñ ñ ñ ñ

ë

¨ ¥ ¥

î

ô ¡ 

ë

ñ ñ ñ ñ

¤

ý

§ § §  §

ùê

é

í

ê

å  å  å  å 

ï

÷

ê

ñ

¢

ï

õ

þ

ì

÷

ç

çü

ï

ñ

ê

ü



î

û

¡

ç

ü

ð

ÿ

ñ

ç

¢

î

£ï ï

ð

ç

é

þ

ú ï

¢

ç

ê



ú

ü

¢

ï

îï

£

ù

ï



ê

ê

é¢

¢

ú

ï

©

ø

¢



ê

ê

þ

¢

ï

§

î

ï ú

é

¢

¢

ï

ü

üþ

ê

ÿ

î

ù

ê

î

íï

é¢ §

ï

þ

ê

÷

þ

¢

ê

ùê

é

ê

ü

÷

ï

¢

÷

è î

÷

÷

ñ

ç

ñ

ø

ú ú

ñ



þ

ü

ó

ÿ

þ

î ê

ú

ç

ü î

ï

ð

îï

ê

þ þ

ð

ð

ç



ç ç

ç

¢

¢ ç

þ þ

ç

þ

ç ç

ð

íï íï





ñ

é

ú

é í

íï íï

îï îï

ü

ü þ

ð ð

¢ ¢

ê

ç ¢ ç ¢

÷

ü ü

þ

ñ

¢

ù ê

ê

î

§ ¢ ¢

ï

ò

ü ü

ê

ê ÷

ï ÷ ÷



÷

í

¢

ê ê

ü ü ¢

ê

÷

ï

ê

ð¦ñ

÷ ÷

ï

ÿ

©

ï

©

ê ê

ê

ê

¢

ê ¤ ¤

÷

ï

ü

ê ê

ë

 ú

þ

£

¤ ¤

§

î

î

ú

ö

î

§ §



ø

ú ú

ê ü



©

íîï

ï ï

îï

© © § §

ê ê

ð

ø

¢ 

î î

í ê í

§ §

ü

ð

î

ï

ç ç

î

ë6ì

ð ð

þ

ô õ

é

£

ð

î î

íï íï

è î

þ

ï ï

õ

ê

ç ç ç

ê

þ

ü

ç

£ ú £

é¢ ç é¢ ç

ç

ê

í

ê ð ê

ï ï

ü

£

þ

üþ üþ

¤ ê

é

¤ ¤ ¤

¡

ô

ð ð

  ü   ü



èé ê

ê

ê ê

¢ ¢

ï

 

ü

ð

ê

ç

ç

ê

ü

î

÷

ï î

ó

å æ

©¤

¢ ï

M P

J >

K

T T T T

M

@ @

=

5 5 5

-

P M

? $

K

B $ N

=

J J J

K

I I I

?

M

= # # #

@S% % JS% JS% %

K

=

$

@S% @S% @S% @S%

R R R R

4 4 4 4

P M

$

K T T T T

= =

P

@

=

5 5 5

-

M M M

@ J J

L

B

=

J J J

L

I I I

=

# # #

@S% JS% JS% JS% %

K

$

$?

@S% @S% @S% @S%

4

$

R R R R

4 4 4 4

M

J @

T T T T

= =

M P

K

5 5 5

-

P

> > $ $

L L

B

=

? J

I I I

= = =

$ ?

# # #

@S% % % JS% %

K

$

= =

@S% @S% @S% @S%

4

?

R R R R

L

4 4 4 4

M M

@ J >

T T T T

=

P

J

5 5 5

-

M P

> >

L

B

=

J

L K L

I I I

= =

?

L

# # #

=

@S% % % % %

K

$

= = =

P

@S% @S% @S% @S%

4

K

(

R R R R

.

4 4 4 4

"

.7

'

C

B

#

.

,

.7

$ J @

T T T T

=

,

K

= =

5 5 5 6

-

M P

@ @ ?

K L K L

B

=

J J ?

K

I I I

,

=

= # # #

@S% % % % %

K

$

= = =

>

@S% @S% @S% @S%

4

J

@ A

R R R R

4 4 4 4

> ?

=

.

,

.5

*

,

3

#

/

0

P M M

> $

K

T T T T

"

M /

"

5 5 5 =

-

$ J $

B

=

L L

I I I

= = = =

+

?

L

# # #

=

#

,

@S% % % JS% %

K

= =

8

M

@S% @S% @S% @S%

<

R R R R

=

4 4 4 4

.7

,

;

#

9 :

.7

,

8

"

4

-

,

5

"

8 -

*

.7

M

J J J $

T T T T

"

/

> >

9

'

"

=

5 5 5

-

J ? $

B

=

@ @ ? @

I I I

=

P

? ?

L

1

# # #

@S% % % JS% %

K

= =

$

@S% @S% @S% @S%

6

5

-

K

R R R R

4 4 4 4

3

5

.5

*

I

#

,

3

E

3

%

#

/

0

H

%

- 4

*

:

.

G

#

3

1 2

-

5

+

.

,

#

0

#

5

.

.0

5

0

+

5

,

,

.

G )

#

*

(

+

,

+

3

0

3

/

#

5

3

0

#

+ D

5

+ #

)

.

"

.

G )

/

0

+ .

.

)

5

9

8 8

3

3

, -

#

+

9 \

,

+ +

5

#

, -

:

, ,

+

C C

*- 4

D

, -

V

3

)

#

*

.

0

#

*

3

-

+

5

3

4 . . . .

.

0

.

.

O

#

0

( [

3 3 3

3

4

( )

-

G

)

0

F

,

3

#

O

'

- - -

(

V V V

#

+

G )

+ Y

2

3

# 2

3

.

,

7

5

+

/ E

+ .

$&%

-

!

9S% 9S% 9S%

# 8

)

#

4

)

3

(Z

5

0

+

#

+

,

X

"

-

W W

% % %

/ /

B U U U

9

7

0

Q

.

!" #

#

2

A

D

¦

k c k k k

†

ˆ c

g ‚

‰

 ‘ €  }  ˆ c

v v v

‡

u u u

ˆ

b b b

j j j j j

‰

} } } €

c~

j j j j

‰ ‰ ‰ ‰

‚

c

] ] ] ]

~ ~ ~ ~

ˆ c

k k k k

}

€ }

g

†

 ˆ c ˆ c

‘

v v v

‡



u u u

‡

}

b b b

j j j j

j

} }

‰

c~

j j j j

‰ ‰ ‰ ‰

] ] ] ]

~ ~ ~ ~

‡



‚

}

k k k k

ˆ

g

‰‡

c  c

‘

v v v

}

 

u u u

‡ ‡

c 

r

b b b

j j j j j

‰

}

c~

j j j j

‰ ‰ ‰ ‰

€

] ] ] ]



~ ~ ~ ~

‡

g

t

{

i ’

h





g

j

k

v

a r

b

p

‰ ‰

ˆ }

k k k k

‰

ˆ

g

‰ †

‘ c €   ˆ }

_

v v v

} } 

u u u

b b b

j j j j j

‰

}

c~

 j j j j

‰ ‰ ‰ ‰

†

}

v

] ] ] ]

~ ~ ~ ~

g

i

t

b

j

Ž ˜

’

a

h

h

_

g

i

i

b

h

v _

i

Ž

b

x

z d

p

†

} k k c k k

a

† ‰

}

|

v

a

g

† †‡

‘ ˆ c c

v v v

b ‰

u u u

t t

c

b b b

Ž

j j j j j

‰

} }

w

g

j j j j

‰ ‰ ‰ ‰

h

—

] ] ] ]

~ ~ ~ ~

_

‡

c

a

h{

]

œ

v



Œ

h

‘

v

b

h{



b

az

v

Ž

j

g

b

g

y

x

j

‹



f

a f

‰

c k € k ˆ € k k

a

‚

ˆ ˆ

|

a

h

g ‚

‡ †

‘ ˆ c

‰

v v v

‰ ‰ ‰ ‰‡

u u u

€

ˆ

w x

b b b

j j j j j

‰

€ }

z

j j j j

‰ ‰ ‰ ‰

†

g

] ] ] ]

~ ~ ~ a r ~

b

p



_tv

n

_

f

b

u

b

t

x



j

n

j

g

_t

a rb

s

_

v

p

i

_

_

j

r

q

›

v

q

b

j

g

i

v

t

z

v

y

b

b

i

š

h

˜

v

h

b

p

z

b

_t

z

p

r h

’

a

v

h

i

_

v

h

v

h

q 

b

p

f

z

g

Ž

z

p

z

b

t

_t

`a

b

tv

v p

l

b

i

_

t

i

b



_

h

v

q 

_ h

g

|

t

h

i

a

t



–

y y

_

r

z

g

v

h

b i

i i

~

t

_t

b

z

Ž

_

b

p

x

v

z fg

_ ™

g

m

l

k

z z



b

x

p

~ f

p

h

z

_t

p t

b

b

i&j

g

i

h h Œ h Œ

~

h _ h

t Ž

„

h

p v

h

t

b

Ž •

_

b

h _

_

t

o g

g

ƒ

t t t

ƒ t

q 

fg

_

„

Ž

g g g

m m m

i

b

q 

t

z

i ’

i

b

_

h

t

t {

ced

i

m n v

t

p

~

i

h

z

j j j

` g

v

y

b

_



x

b



_

w

Ž”

b

_

i p

j

b

i

z

tv

a



x x x

j j j

 

g

| |

‘ ‹ ‹ ‹

i

{

ƒ

“

`a b

z

z

h

Š

v

h

i

b

_

x

b

_

Ž

g

‘

l

b

] ^

 z

¢

² ² Ç ²

Ï Ï Ï Ï

º º

Ç »

ª

Ç Ç ¼ Ç ¼ »

É

¿

» È Ç ¼

Æ Æ Æ

º

Ê

¢

È Ë

¡ ¡ ¡ º

£ £ £ £ £

½ ½ Ç

É

È

£ £ £ £

½ ½ ½

º

° ° ° °

Ê

Î Î Î Î

È&Ù

² ² ² ¢

½ Ç Ç

Ï Ï Ï Ï

Ç Ç

É

ª

Ò ¢ Ò

Ç ¼

Ê Ê

¿

º º

Ç

Ê

Æ Æ Æ

º º

°

È

¡ ¡ ¡

£ £ £ £ £

½ ½ ½

Ê

º

¼

£ £ £ £

½ ½ ½

º

° ° °

Ê

È

Î Î Î Î

È&Ù

È

Ò

² ² » ² » » Ç

Ï Ï Ï Ï

¢

½ ½

ª

½ ½ È

Ê

¿

º º

¢

Ç Ç

Ê

Æ Æ Æ

º

Ò °

È È È

¡ ¡ ¡

£ £ £ £ £

½ ½

É

º º

£ £ £ £

½ ½ ½ ½

° ° ° °

È

Î Î Î Î

¼&Ù

Ê

² ² Ò ² Ò

Ï Ï Ï Ï

º

½ Ç ½

ª

¢

½ Ç È ½

Ê Ê Ê

¿

º

Ç È

É É

Æ Æ Æ

º

°

» ¼

Ê

¡ ¡ ¡

£ £ £ £ £

½ ½ ½

º

£ £ £ £

½ ½ ½ ½

° ° ° °

È

È

É

Î Î Î Î

¼&Ù

¥

ž

«

´

¤

«

À

¿

¡

©

´

«

¢ ¢

² ² ² ½ »

Ï Ï Ï Ï

Ò ¢ ¢

ª

½ Ç ½

Ê É Ê Ê

¿

º

©

Ç Ç Ç

Ê

Æ Æ Æ

º

Ò °

È

Ê

¡ ¡ ¡

£ £ £ £ £

½ ½ ½ ½

«

©

£ £ £ £

½ ½ ½ ½

³

Ò ° ° ° °

Ê

Ç È

Î Î Î Î

Ù

½ ¾

» ¼

º

©

²

«

ž

§«

©

­

¡±

² ² ²

½ Ç

É

Ï Ï Ï Ï

º

½

É

º

ª

Ò ¢

Ç ½ ¼ ¼

É

¿

¼ Ç

Æ Æ Æ

º º º

¼

É

¡ ¡ ¡ ¬

£ £ £ £ £

½ ½ ½

¬

º

¨

£ £ £ £

½ ½ ½ ½

¡

©

¢ ° ° ° °

Ê

µ

Î Î Î Î

Ù

¹

º

´

©

¸

«

ž

´

¡

¶ ·

©

°

«

µ

ª

²

µ ª

©

§

´

² ² Ò ² ¢

Ï Ï É Ï Ï

º

Ç »

ª

Ò

½ ¼ È

¿

º º

È ½ ¼ ½

¤

Æ Æ Æ

º º

È È

®

¡ ¡ ¡

£ £ £ £ £

½ ½ ½

«

¬

º

È

£ £ £ £

½ ½ ½ ½

²

° ° ° °

Ê

ª

Î Î Î Î

²

È&Ù

É

² ³

ž

±

Æ

¡

ž

§«

©

Â

£

­

¡±

ž

Å

±

°

£

¬

·

Ä

ž

©

«

¡

ž

¨

® ¯

²

ª

¨

©

¡

­

«

­

­ ¡

²

²

©

©

Ä ¦

¡

­

«

¥

ž

¨

ž

§«

²

¨

²

­

©

¨

²

¡

¨

¨

¦

¬

Ä ¦ ­

ž

¡±

²

«

±

ž

ž

¨

¡

¦

µ µ

²

«

© ª«

ž

¡

Á

¨

¶ Ø

©

¨ ¨

±

°

¡

© ª«

­ ·

© ©

¨

À À

ž

Á

©

°

¬

±

ž

¦

¡

­

²

§

­

¡

ž

§

ª

¨

ž

© «

Í

­

¡±

«

¥ ×

ª

Ñ

¥ ¦

ª

Ì

±

±

Ä ž

¦ ¨

±

« « « «

Ã

ž

«

«

¡

Í

¤

ª ª ª

°

Ñ Ñ Ñ

¡

¨

Ä ¦

± ± ± ´

¨ Õ

¡ ¯

²

°

©

Â

±

¨

­

¨

¢S£

ª

Ÿ £ £ £

¶ ¶ ¶

²

¡ µ

ž

©

«

±

¦

¡±

« ¦

´ ¥Ö

¨

­

ž ¡

¨

©

Ó

¬

ª

Ô £ £ £

¿ Ð Ð Ð

ž Ì

ž

¨

Ÿ ¡

±

¡

¯ ¯

¾

¬ ¬

ž

«

Á

 ž ©

à

¥ © ú

þ

è è è è

þ

ó ó ó

¤ ¤

ã

à

û ú

þ þ

¤

ú

ò ò ò

¤ ¤

£

à

û

ß ß ß

æ æ æ æ æ

à

ú ú ¥

þ

ÿ

æ æ æ æ

¥ ¥ ¥ ú

á

©

Ú Ú Ú Ú

ü ü ü ü

ú ©

è è è è

¤ ¤

¥ ¥

ó ó ó

¤

ã

à

¥ ©û

ÿ þ ÿ

¤

ú

þ ÿ

ò ò ò

¤ ¤

à

ÿ

ß ß ß

æ æ æ æ æ

ú ¥ ú ¥

æ æ æ æ

¥ ¥ ¥

¤

àSá

û

ûýü

Ú Ú Ú Ú

û

ü ü ü ü

¥

þ

è è è è

¤ ¤

à

ú ¥

ó ó ó

ã

à

ú û ú

ÿ ÿ

¤

£

ú ¥ ú

ò ò ò

û û ú

ÿ

ß ß ß

æ æ æ æ æ

¥

ÿ

¤ ¤ ¤

æ æ æ æ

¥ ¥ ¥ ¥

á

ÿ

ûýü

Ú Ú Ú Ú

£

ÿ

ü ü ü ü

à

©

þ

è è è è

¤

à

ó ó ó

¤

ã

£

¥

ÿ ÿ þ

¤ ¤

ú ú

ÿ

ò ò ò

¤ ¤

£

û

ÿ þ

ß ß ß

æ æ æ æ æ

¥ ¥ ¥

¤

ï

æ æ æ æ

¥ ¥ ¥ ¥

á

û

ûýü

þ

Ú Ú Ú Ú

£

ü ü ü ü

ñ

ã

ø

å 

ä

 ã

æ

è

ó

Þ ïß

à

ú © ©

è è è è

í

ó ó ó

¤

ã

à à £

ú û ¥

þ ÿ þ

£

ú ú û

ÿ

ò ò ò

¤ ¤

¥ û

ß ß ß

æ æ æ æ æ

¥ ¥ ¥ ¥

æ æ æ æ

¥ ¥ ¥ ¥

á

û

ú ûýü

ó

Ü

Ú Ú Ú Ú

ü ü ü ü

ñ

ã

å



ß



æ



Þ

ä

Ü

ãä

å

ß

ó

å

å

Ü

ä



õ

ß

¥ ú

á

è è è è

í

Þ

ù

¥

Þ

ó ó ó

¤

ã

࣠£ £ ÷

ú

þ ÿ

ó

ñ

£

¥ ú

ÿ

ò ò ò

¤ ¤

£

û

ß ß ß

æ æ æ æ æ

ñ

¥ ¥

¤ ¤

ß

û

æ æ æ æ

ô

¥ ¥ ¥ ¥

ã

á

û



Ú Ú Ú Ú



£

¤

ü ü ü ü

ä

û

Þ

ø

¤

Ü

Ú



ó

ä

¨

ó

ø

ß

 ä

ß

Þ÷

ä

ó

ã

æ



ö ã

ß

õ

æ

â

§

à

ú ú

è è è è

¤

Þ

ù

¥

Þ

ó ó ó

â

Þ

ã

à

©û ú ¥

þ ÿ

¥

£

¥

ÿ ÿ

ò ò ò

¤ ¤ ¤

ú

ÿ

ô õ

ß ß ß

æ æ æ æ æ

©

¥ ¥

¤ ¤

æ æ æ æ

¥ ¥ ¥ ¥

÷

á

û ¥

ä

ã

Ú Ú Ú Ú

¤

Þ ïß

ñó ü ü ü ü

ÿ

ë

í

â

ò

ß

Ü

ß

ñ

ë

Ü

õ

ñ

æ

æ

ã

ó

ð

Þ ïß

Ü

í

å

æ

ï

Ü

î

Ü

î

ó

ß

Ü



æ

ó

ñ

ã

÷

å

ó

ö

ß



ß

å

ó



ß

í

÷

ñ

ä

ß

í

÷

ä

ï

ó



ó

Þ

Ü

î

ß

í

÷



âä ãä

÷

ä

í

ó

å

Ü

ñ ñó

ó

ñ

÷

ÝÞ ß

ß

ó

å

å

ñ

ã

í î

ß

ñ ñ

ä

å

ß



Þ

ó

Ü

ù

ö ö

ñ

ä

ï

ãä

Ü

Ü

÷

ß

é

å

ó

å å

ß



÷



ß

í

õ

÷

¨ Ü ¨

é

ñ

÷ ÷

è Ü

ñ

ß õ

í



ä

â

í

÷

ü

í Ü

ß

ß

ñ

åçæ

ñ ã

ó

å

Ü

ñ

ü

ä



¢

í

Ü

ß

ä



ñ ñ Þ÷ ñ ñ

Ü

Ü

ß

ã

ã ã

¡

ì

î

å

ä ä ä

âãä

ñ

ä

ä

¢

¦

ã ã ã

ß

å

î

ø Ü

å 

ñ

å

ä

ß

ñ

Ü

ê

Ü

ñó

ë

àSá

ó

ü

Ü

å

í

å

÷

ê ê ê

æ æ æ

ã

Ý

ß ö

ä

õ

ß

ü

ä

ñó

ø 

ô

Þ÷ å æ

í

ß

ß

å

Ü

÷

õ õ õ

æ æ æ

Þ ê

ã



ù ù

§ § §

¡ ó

å

å 

ÝÞ ß

÷

Ü

÷

¦ ¦

å

ß

Ü

Ü

õ ß

ä

ã 

ä

é

ß

Ú Û Ü

Ü

d ÷

[ [ [

; \

;

d d d d d d d d d

^

Z Z

[

; ;

< Y _ X< X ;_ Y _ X Y < < _ X

[

;

X ;_ ; ; _ Y

W

^

Z Z Z

[ [ [

Y

Y ; ;

; Y Y _ ;<

;< Y Y

W W W

[<

^ ^

[<

; ;

^

Y ; ; ; ; ; < ; ; ; ;

X`! ;`! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

< < < < <

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

< < < < < < <

c < c < c < c < c < c < c < c < c <

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Z Z

;

[ [ [

d d d d d d d d d

Z Z

X X

^

[

< X_ Y ; X < _

W

[< < Y < Y < Y

X X X

^

[

X< ;< < X

W

^ ^ ^

Z

X< ; ;<

W

[ [ [

W W W W W W

^ ^

; Y

W

^

< < <

X X< ; X< X ; X< X ;

W W W

;`! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Z

0

< < < < < < <

W

^

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

< < < < < < <

c c c c c c c c c

< < < < < < < < <

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Z

[ [

d d d d d d d d d

^ ^ ^ ^

X

X X X

^ ^

Z Z Z Z

[ [

Y Y _ < _ Y ; _

< ; X ; X

^ ^

[ [ [

< ; Y X < <

W W W W W W

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

_

W

^ ^

Y X ; X < ; X < ;

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

0

< < < < < < <

W

^ ^

Y Y Y

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

< < < < < < <

W

c < c < c < c < c < c < c < c < c <

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$

*

Z Z

; ;

;

;

d d d d d d d d d

^

Z

 ; X X

^



Y _ Y X

Y Y X

; Y

W

; < ; Y < ; ; _ ;

^ ^

< < [ < < < < <

W ; W X W X W W X

*3

^ ^ ^ ^

<

W

^ ^

X Y X Y < X Y <

# W W W

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

0

< < < < < < <

W

; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

< < < < < < < < <

? Y

c c c c c c c c c

< < < < < < < < <

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

>

*

(

*

3

(

2

(

=

Z Z

; ;

X

; ; X

; ; X

d d d d d d d d d

^

Z

[

;

Y ; ; ; _ ; X

W

<

^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Z

X Y < _ X< ;<

W

^ ^

Y < < < < Y Y <

W

<

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Y _ <

^

Y X< X X< Y < X X< Y < X

;<

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

0

< < < < < < < <

X W

; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

W W W

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

< < < < < < < < <

*

c < c < c < c < c < c < c < c < c <

(

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

/ :

'

1

&

*

+

9

!

!

- 8

Z

[ [

d d d d d d d d d

^

; ; X

^ ^

Z

X_ X Y X Y Y < Y < X Y Y < X Y

^ ^ ^ ^ ^

)

_ < ; X_ ;

W

^ ^

Z Z Z

X < _ < < _ < _

W

^ ^ ^ ^

_ < Y

W

*1

^ ^

Z Z Z Z Z Z

< < < <

< < <

< <

W

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

0

< < < < < < <

; W

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

< < < < < < < < <

&

c < c < c < c < c < c < c < c < c <

(

/

0 0 0 0 0 0

+

,

!

*

3

1

(

7

%

*1



5 6

a

Z Z

;

;

;

d d d d d d d d d

!

5



4

Z

;

+



^ ^ ^

; ; Y X Y < X Y ; < X Y ; X_ <

W W W

^ ^ ^

0

Z

; _ < Y

W

!

^ ^ ^ ^

Z Z Z

Y Y Y <

X W X W W X

^ ^ ^ ^ ^

(

1

< <

W

[ [ [

Y

_ Y Y

< Y

<



! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

8

< < < < < < < < <

^

[ [ [ [ [ [

_ _ _

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

*3

< < < < < < < <

<

_ _ _

c c c c c c c c c

< < < < < < < < <

#

<

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

;<

2

1

A

&

*1

/

& %

( 5 )

m

/

m

D

V

'

D !

(



+

,

J

D

S

q

S

N

/

)

l

&) 0

N

6

7 7 7

*

J



N

4

  

D

k

/



D

'

(

V

?

D

5 6 5 6 5 6

- .

V

N

J

' ' ' $

)

ST U

P

'

i

D

C

) * ) )

> > >

M

'

A A A

7 7 7

1 1 1

N

/ : / : / :

p

F



R ' ' '

I

N

1 1 1

  

Q

A A A A A A

D

j

(

,

1 1 1

*,

noF

'

/ : / : / : / : / : / :

& & &

' ' ' ' ' '

(

i

) ) )

5 6 5 6 5 6

1

* * *

O P

'



1 1 1 1 1 1

'

+ + +

I I

b b f b b f b b f

+

& & & & & &

V V

'

1

* * * * * *

MN

&

$ $ $

*

* * * * * * * *

+ + + + + +



h h

T U T U

 -

*

' ' '

( 

(  (  (  (  (  (  (  ( 

/ / / -

$

$ $ $ IJ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

, , I , , I , ,

D

L

g g

( )

) ) )

'

' ' * ' ' ' '

* * ) ) * ) * ) * * ) * ) *

e e e e e e



/ / / / / /

6 6 6

K K K

&



*

] ] ]

*

' ' ' ' ' '



       

F F F

) ) ) ) ) )

(

6 $ % 6 6 6 6 6

     

$ $ $

B

/

a

H IJ H IJ H IJ

3

4 a 4 a 4 4 4 4 a 4 4 a 4 4 a 4 a 4 4 a 4 4 a

] ] ] ] ] ]

#

* * *

0

& & & & & & & & & & & & & & &

B 

* * ' * * ' * ' * * ' * * * ' * * ' * * *

+ A

EGF EGF EGF

"!

&) &) &)

r

/ / / / / /

1 1 1 1 1 1

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

( ( ( ( ( (

C D C D C D



> > > > > > > > >

5 5 5

!

 *

'

......

)

>

@ 

  ©¡

¡

š š x š š x x x š x

€ € € € € € € € €

¡ ¡

x

¬ ¬

¡ ¡ ¡ ¡

Ÿ š Ÿ x x x š x ž š x

› › › › ›

¡ ­ ¡

¢ ž x š

›

¬ ¬ ¬

š š Ÿ Ÿ

› ›

¡¢ £

¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬

¬ ¬

Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ ¢ Ÿ ¢

› › › ›

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

ž š

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

›

› › › › › › › › ›

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

­

ž š ž x

­ ­ ­

€ € € € € € € € €

¬ ¬ ¬

­

ž ž x x

¬ ¬

­ ­ ­

ž š Ÿ

›

¡¢ ¡ Ÿ ¡ Ÿ ¡ Ÿ

x š x š x š

¬ ¬

­

ž Ÿ š

¬ ¬ ¬

x š ¢

¡ ¡ ¡

¬ ¬ ¬

¬ ¬ ¬

¢

¬

Ÿ ¢ ¢ ¢

Ÿ x Ÿ x Ÿ x

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

›œ

¬ ¬

› › ›

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

y y y y y y y y y

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

¡ ­ ¡ ¡

š š š š ž x š

€ € € € € € € € €

¬ ¬

x ž x

¡ ¡ ¡

š¢ Ÿ ž ž Ÿ ž ž Ÿ ž ž Ÿ ž

›

Ÿ š Ÿ ž¢ ¢ š

›

¬ ¬ ¬ ¬

­

š ž¢ š ž š ¢ ž š ž š

› › › ›

¬ ¬ ¬ ¬

Ÿ

¬ ¬

¢

› › ›

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

›œ

¬

Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ

› › ›

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

›

y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

­ ¡ ­ ­ ­

x š š š ž

€ € € € € € € € €

¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬

¡ ­ ­

x ž

¬

­

Ÿ ž ž ž x ž Ÿ ž

­

š ¢ š¢ š š

›

¬ ¬

¡ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ ¢ Ÿ Ÿ

› x › ž š › ž ž › ›

¬ ¬ ¬

Ÿ ¢

¬

ž ž ¢ ž ¢ ž ¢ ž ž

› › ›

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

›œ

š š š š š š š š š

› › ›

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

Ÿ

y y y y y y y y y

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

­

ž ž ž x ž š ž

€ € € € € € € € €

¬

¡ ­ ­ ¡ ­ ­ ¡

¬

¡ ­ ­ ¡ ¡

ž Ÿ š ¢ š ž ¢ š š Ÿ š

¬

ž x š š

›

¬ ¬

Ÿ ž ¢ ¢ ž ¢ ž ¢

›

¬ ¬

Ÿ ¢ ¢

¬

x ¢ ¢ ¢ x ¢ ¢ x

› › › › ›

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

ž ›œ

š š š š š š š š š

› › › › › ›

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

­ ¡

x š

€ € € € € € € € €

¬ ¬ ¬

­ ¡

ž x š

¬

­

š Ÿ ž Ÿ x ž Ÿ Ÿ x Ÿ ¢ x

› › ›

¬ ¬ ¬ ¬

­

ž ž š

›

¬ ¬

¡ ­ ¡ ­ ¡ ­

x ž¢ ¢ š¢

›

Ÿ ¢

¬

­ ­ ­

x x ¢ ¢ x ¢ ¢ x x ¢ ¢ x

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

š ›œ

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢ y ¢

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

~

§

Å

§

|

w

¯

¡ ­ ­ ¡ ­ ­ ¡ ~

š š x ž š ž š š

€ € € € € € € € €

v

¡ ­

ž

™

v

¬

¡

x ž ¢ x x ž¢ ž Ÿ x

¬

¢ š ¢ Ÿ ¢

›

±

~

Æ

¬ ¬ ¬

Ÿ ¡ Ÿ Ÿ ¢ Ÿ

ž š ž š ž š

¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬

Ÿ ¢ ¢ ¢

›

Ÿ ž š ž ¢ š ¢ ž š

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

¬

¢ ¢ ¢

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¬ ¬ ¬

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

¢

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

y y y y y y y y y

¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬

¢

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

š¢

ƒ

w

z

¦

{ Å

¼

¼

±

‡

˜

}~

‡

¥

u

Œ

‡

• {

¿

•



©

¦

»



² ² ²

Œ

t



®

t t t

‡

º

‡

}

© © ©

w w w

¥

˜

‡

˜



Œ

± } ± } ± } ª Ä

{ { {

•– —

’

¸

‡

†

´ ´ ´



}

ƒ ƒ ƒ

w

² ² ²



‰

§ § §

¾

t

” } } }

¦ « ¦ « ¦ «

‹



t t t

“

ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

‡

¹ ‰

¥

§ § §

½

{ { { }

© © ©

§ § §

w w w

w w w

} } } } } }

¦ « ¦ « ¦ « ¦ « ¦ « ¦ «

¸

w w w

z z z

‘ ’

§

™ | ™ | ™ |

‹ ‹

°± ° µ ° µ °± °± ° µ

w

§ § § § § §

˜ ˜

w w w w w w

}

z z z z z z



ª ª ª

§

™ | ™ | ™ | ™ | ™ | ™ |

z

|

| | | | | | | |

– — – —

Ã

} } }

¥ t

¥ t ¥ t ¥ t ¥ t ¥ t ¥ t ¥ t ¥ t

w

w w w

Ã

w w w w w w

ª

ª ª ª ‹Œ ª ª ª ª ª ª ª ª ª ª ª

{ { {

¦ ¦ ¦

{ { { { { {

‹ · ‹ ·

‡

Ž

¶ ¶

© © ©

|

w

} } t } } } }

t t t t t t t t

³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³

v

w w w w w w

€

|

| | | | | | | |

{ {  w  { {  { {

¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦

t

¨ ¨ ¨

‰ ‰ ‰

}~

} } } } } }

t w w w

t t t t t t t t

© © © © © ©

{

|

¥

{|

„

t t t t t t

ª ª ª

¯

Š ‹Œ Š ‹Œ Š ‹Œ

® ¯ ® ® ¯ ® ® ® ¯ ® ¯ ® ® ® ¯ ® ¯ ® ¯ ® ® ® ¯

¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨

w w w w w w ¦Â

œ

y z

{| {| {|

t

‰ ‰ ‰

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

} } } } } }

‚ ƒ

x

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

ÀÁ

z z z

¥ ¦§ ¥ ¦§ ¥ ¦§ ¥ ¦§ ¥ ¦§ ¥ ¦§

w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w

† ‡ˆ † ‡ˆ † ‡ˆ

v

´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ´

¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤

¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦

~

w w w

uv w

}

w

± ± ±

w

{

|

´

 t

s t ©£

á û Ì û á û û û ß û û ö á û

÷ ò ÷

Ì Ì

ò ô ô

á Ì á Ì á Ì

ô à à ó à ô ó

Þ

ò õ ò à à

Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ

õ à à ß

ö ö

ó ó

Í Í Í Í Í Í Í Í Í Í

á á á á á á á

Þ Þ Þ

à

Í Í Í Í ¢ Í Í Í Í ¢

á á á á á á á á

ò ô

ú ú ú ú ú ú ú ú

û û û Ì û û ö û Ì û ß û

ò ò ô

Þ

á ß ö ö

Þ

ö ß ö ö á Ì á

õ ó à õ à ô à ô

ò à ò õ à

Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ

õ õ õ à õ

Þ

Í Í Í Í Í Í Í Í Í Í

á á á á á á

Þ Þ Þ Þ

ó

Í Í Í ¢ Í Í Í Í Í ¢

á á á á á á á á

ô ô

Ü Ü

ó ó

ú ú ú ú ú ú ú ú

ó ó

Ò

É

Ë

á û ö û û ß û û ö û Ì û á û

ô

Þ

á ö ö

ò ô

á Ì ß Ì á ß

õ Ë ô à õ ò à à ô ó

Þ Þ Þ

ò õ à õ

é

Ñ

Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ

ó ó ö

ò

Í Í Í Í Í Í Í Í Í Í

á á á á

ò

Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ

áÎÍ áÎÍ áÎÍ ¢ áÎÍ áÎÍ áÎÍ áÎÍ áÎÍ ¢

Ü Ü

Ö

ó ó

ú ú ú ú ú ú ú ú

Ô

õ õ

õ õ

Ö

ä

Ô

Í

Ð

Ô

ã

Ð

â

Ë

Þ

Ñ

ß

à

Ò

Ê

Ö

Þ

Ô

Ö

Ô

Û

Ë

ÖÝ

È

ö ö Ì ß Ì Ì ö

û û û û û ò û û û ô

Þ

ö Ì ö

ò ô

Þ Þ

õ à á õ õ ö á Ì ö

ò

Ý

Þ

ò ó ò

Ô È

Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ

ö

õ õ õ õ õ õ ó

Ð

Ó

Ñ

áÎÍ Í Í Í áÎÍ áÎÍ Í Í áÎÍ Í

Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ

ó

Í Í Í ¢ Í Í Í Í ¢ Í

á á á á á á á á

Ü Ü

Ó

ô ó ô ó

È

È

ú ú ú ú ú ú ú ú

Ö

õ õ

Ü

Ý

È

è

Ò

Ë

Û

ç

Ù

Ü

Ò

Õ

Û

Ö

Õ

É

Û

Ë

È

Ú

Ê

Ð

Ý

Ö

ã

Ð

Ö

È

ß ö á Ì ß

û û û û û û û ö û

ò

ß á

ò

Þ Þ

Ì á Ì Ì

ò à ô à à ó

ô õ õ ô ô õ

È

Ë

Þ Þ

Þ Þ

Ê

ò ò õ à ò ó

Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ

ä

õ

á

Þ

Í Í Í áÎÍ áÎÍ Í Í Í áÎÍ

Í

Ö

ä

Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ

Þ È

Í Í Í ¢ Í Í Í Í ¢ Í

á á á á á á á á

Û

Ü Ü

Ï

ò ó ò ó

ú ú ú ú ú ú ú ú

ó ó

Ù

Õ

Ü

æ

Ý

å

Ô

Ë

Ë

Ö

Ø

Ô

Ø

í

Ñ

Öä

Ô

Öä Öä

Ô Ô

Ô ã

Í

Ê Ê

Ý

Õ Õ

á â

Ñ

Õ Õ

ç ç

Ý

Ö

ö Ì ß Ì á

û ô û û ò û û ò û ô û û

Ò Ò

Þ

ß à

Ê Ê

ß Ì Ì ö ö

× ×

Ê Ê

á á ó ó ß

ò ô ò

è

Þ Þ

Ë

Þ

á á á à á à á á à á á

Ì

ó à à ó

Ù ñ Ù ñ

Í áÎÍ Í Í áÎÍ áÎÍ Í Í Í áÎÍ

Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ

Ö

Ö

à

¢ ¢

áÎÍ áÎÍ áÎÍ áÎÍ áÎÍ áÎÍ áÎÍ áÎÍ

Ô

Þ

ú ú ú ú ú ú ú ú

Õ Õ

à ò

Þ

Ô È

Ð

Û Û

ÖÝ Ý Ý

È È

È

Ö

È

Ò

ð ð

Ô

Ë Ë

Û

È

è

ë ë

Û Û

Í Í

Ë

Þ

×

Ø

ï ï

È È

ß

à

Í Í

î î

Þ

Õ Ü

Ò

Ö

Ð

í í

Ö

Ë Ë

Û

È

È

Ù Ú

Ý

Ñ

Õ

Ó

Ý

Ö

Ö

è

Ë

Ë

ÖÝ ÖÝ

ÖØ

Í

Ó Ó

Ý Ý

Ô

Ö Ö

È È

Ò Ò

ñ

Í

ü

Ó Ð Ð

È

Ô Ô

Ó

Û Û

Û Û

×

Ë Ë

á

Û Û

Ë Ë

È È

ê ê

Ó Ó

Ë Ë

Ý Ý

Ê

Ö Ö

Ö È Ö È

× ×

ß à

Ø Ø

È

Ö

Ö Ö

¡ Ñ ¡ Ñ

ç ç ç ç

Û Û

Û Û

Þ

Ô Õ Ô Õ

Ë Ë

Ö

Ó Ó Ó Ó

Ó Ó

Ô Õ

Ô Ô Ô Ô

Ó

æ æ æ æ

Õ Ü Õ Ü

Ò Ò

È È

ê ê

ë

Õ Õ

ý ý

ñ ñ

Û Û

È È

Ö Ö

Ý

Ë

È

Ò

Ó Ó

Ü Ü

Ö Ý Ý

Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö

Ö Ö Ò

Ö Ö Ö Ö

Ë

Ø

Ë Ë

Ð Ð

Û Û Û Û Û Û

Û Û Û

È È

Ü Ü

Ð Ñ Õ

£

ì

Ô È Ô È

Ë Û Û

È È

ø ø

Ï Ð Ð

Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ Õ

ý ý ý ý ý ý

Ó Ó

Ë Ë

Ñ

Ë Ë

Ú Ú

Û Û

Õ

Ô Ô

ä ä

Ý Ý

Ó Ó

× ë ë

ý

È È

Ö Ö

ÌÎÍ

Í Í Í Í Í Í

ç ç

Ñ Ñ

Ë Ë

ñ

Ü Ü

Ðÿ Ðÿ

Û Û

Ý Ó Ý Ó

Ø Ø

Í

Ô Ô

ñ ñ ñ ñ ñ ñ

þ þ

Ê È Ê È

Í Í è Í Í è Í Í

× ×

ü ü ü å ü ü ü å

Ý

ù ù

Ø Ø

Ö Ö

ÉÊ Ë

Ó

Ë Ë

Ú Ú

Ë

Õ

È È å

ê ê

Ç È ¢¥

) ; ; ; ; 1 ; ) 1 ; ) ; ;

2 2

' ' '

6

© )

2 2 4

) ) ) ©

4 8 8 2 4

'

) (

3

' ' ' ' ' ' '

6 ( 6

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

6 6 5

3 3

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) ) ) ) > ) ) ) >

2

4

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

: : : : : : : :

) © )

; ; ; ; ; ; 4 2 ; ;

'

6 6

2 2 2

6 ( 6 6

)8 8

5 5 2 4 5

'

' ' ' '

(

3 3

' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

! !

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) (

3

'

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

(

©

3

> >

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

4 4

3 3

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

'

! !

3 3

: : : : : : : :





¦

¨

¨

+ ,

6 6

© ©

; ; ; ; ; ; ; 4 ; 4

 

'

6 6

4 2 4

( ( 6

) 3

2 5 2 5 4

' ' '

(

5 5

' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

! !

6

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

3 2 3

5 5



) ) ) ) ) ) ) )



¥ ) ) ) ) > ) ) ) ) >

3 3



&

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

!

5 5

5 5

: : : : : : : :

¥

&@



¥



&

! ¨

*

,

§



 

¨

¨

¥



6 6

; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

4

'

)

) ) )

4



' '

6

( ) (

3 2 48 3

5 5 5



,

'

2 2 8 2

5

' ' ' ' '

! !

6

) ) 3 ) ) ) ) ) 3 ) 3

5 5 5 5



© (

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ¥ )

3

) ) ) > ) ) ) ) ) >



4 3 4 3

'

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

! !

5 5



: : : : : : : :

¨

 

&







¥

§



¦



%



¥

§

&

$



#

¥

¨

6 6

© ) ©

; ; ; ; 2 ; 4 ; ; ;

'



© ©

2

¨

'

6 6

© ) ) 3

4 5 4 4 5 4 2 5

'

 

6

2 3 4 3 2

5 5

' ' ' '

! !

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

5

¥

' '

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

> >

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

2 3 2 3



) ) ) ) ) ) ) )





!

3 3

¥



: : : : : : : :





 ¨





¨

" 

!

,

.





1 1

¥



,

 

¨ ¨





© ) © ) ©

; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;



§ §

6 6

©

" "

§ § 

(

) ) 8 8

2 5 5

§ ¨ § ¨

' ' ¨

§ §

( (

) ) )8 ) )8 ) ) 3 )



6 6

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

3

5 5 5 5



 

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )



 

) ) ) © > ) ) ) ) ) >

'

 



) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

!

2

¥

'



: : : : : : : :

&

 



¨ ¨

¨

¥

 

§ ¨

§

 



¥





 



'

0 ¥ 0 ¥



¨

© (

'

/ /





&

. .

¨ ¨





¥

¥



¨



,



¥ 







¨

 



 

 

 

 

¥ ¥

¥ 

 

 



¨ ¨

 

)

¥ ¥

 

¨ ¨

 

 



" " © (

 

 

* * * *

! !

'

  

 

¨ ¨

 

§

 

¦



 

$ $ $ $

   

   

¥ ¥

< <



¥ ¥

 

 



! ! ¨

¥

¦



 

¨

 

 

¨ ¨

¥ ¥



     

 

?

 

 

-

¥ ¥



¨

¥ ¥

7 7



 

& &

< < < < < <

,

¨ ¨

 

     

! !



 

"

 < 

 



¥ ¥

©

     

* *

 

¨ ¨

 

 

§ §

= =

¥ ¥

 

# #

 

 

 

9 9

¦§ ¨

     



¨ ¨

¨



 

¥ ¥

#

¤ ¥

 6§

n

q f

j j

t t t t t t t t

F F

n n

G G G

F

G f G q

l k k l g

F

m k

j j

F F F F F F

n

g m m

n n

k o k o

G G

H H H H jIH jIH H jIH

F F F

q

m l

G G G G G G G G

H H H H H H H H

_ _ _ _

s s s s s s s s

n

G

j

t t t t t t t t

F F

n n

l j

F

n n n n

m q m k q G m m g f g

j l l

F

m m g

F F F F F F F F

_ _

j

GIH GIH GIH GIH H H H H

F F F F

n

g

l

GIH GIH GIH GIH GIH GIH GIH GIH

_ _ _ _

k k

s s s s s s s s

k k

n

f q G f G

t t t t t t t t

n

f G

j l

F

G q G

m l m g j m m j m j

F F

m G m

F F F F F F F

k _ k _ m

j l

G G G G

H H H H H H H H

F F F F

q

G G G G G G G G

H H H H H H H H

_ _ _ _

k k

m

s s s s s s s s

m m

H

S

E

S

K

D

^

T

R

M

E

B

[

n

f q

j j

t t t t t t t t

F F

f f f

l

F F

n

G G G G

j m j l m k g j m

F

K

m G g G

F F F F F F

m _ m _

l

a

G G G G G G G G

H H H H H H H H

G

B

q

k

G G G G G G G

H H H H H H H

[

_ _ _ _

l k l k

a

m

s s GIH s s s s s

s

E

M

^

[xH

O

N

F

M

E

R

L

G

f

g

C

L

N

F

f g

B

T

D

F

K

R

T

T

S

[

S

^

R

C

B

K

E

T

n

G q G

j a j

t t t t t t t t

S

F F

B

n

G G q

j

E

F

l m j g j j g l m

[

E

F

Y

a

G G G

m k

B

F F F y F F

K

_ _

m k k k k g

D

B

GIH GIH GIH GIH GIH GIH GIH GIH

M

f m k

G G G G G G G G

H H H H H H H H

TY

_

j k j k

T

E

m

E E

s s s s s s s s

U

M

^

O

V V

R R

N

R

X X

D D

[

[

e

O

N

T

M

T T

E

R

M M

L

J

E

B

C

N

R

L

W W

T

N N

S

B

B

D

T

R

T T

[

h

K

T

T

S

B

M M

E E

_

[xH

B

B

P

Q

S S

D D

^

R R

Q Q

M

R

[

K

[

^

T

Exw

T

a

L

n n

B G q

E j

t t t t t t t t

F

D D

O O

P P

E

D

[

n n n

M

X X

D D

n n

f G q

j g k a g m j

X

E

Z

E

B

G G G G G G G G

k m k g k

L

m m l m j

M GIH GIH GIH GIH M GIH H GIH GIH

N N

P

F

T

[ G

G G G G G G G G

H H H H H H H H

F

_ _ _ _

Exw

TY

j

Z

s s s s s s s s

C C

E Y

E E

B

V

m

d

L L

G R

R

B

S

TY

B

B

f T

g

E

J K J K

c

S

E

F

L

K

N

B

D

T

] ]

X

T^

M M

H H

Q b

P

R

F

R

[

T

i i

B B

[

T

M

f g

S

R

D

D

F

c c

H M H

W

Y

T

B

N

N

D

U

T

a

M

TY

h h

T

E E

S

U

N

E

B

E

U V

e

[

R a

Q

P

[

H

`

T

[

K

J

E

[

T

K

M

[

E

T

T

E

V

R

DS

[ [

QR

E

[ [

P

T T

H

P

T T

H

a a

O P

B B

H

b u

M M

^ ^

H

b u

M M

R E R E

[ [

[ [

MN

G

B B

T T

\ \

G

L L

E T E T

T T

C

a a

f

g

E

T T

X X

B B

L

f

g

Q Q Q Q

M M

F

M M

^ ^

E E

_ _

N M N M

R R

R R

F

e e e e

a a

a a a a

R R R R

B B

\ \

W W ]

[

J K

M M

B B

[ [

N N

L L

N N

]

E E

_ _

T^ T^

T T T T T T

T T T T

T T

X X

a a

E E

E E

GIH

M M M M M M

M M

^ ^

M M

B B

_ _

M M

B B B B

F

Z Z

p p

W R W W W R W W

E E

K K

N N N N N N

M M

_ _

N N

Y Y

S S

T^ T^

R N R N

X ] L ] L

W

B B

T T

CD E

[ [

H H H H H H

Q Q

a a

E E

b b

M M

L L

[ [

H H

M M

B B

v v

D B D B

H H H H H H

b u b u b u J b u b u b u J

A B

Z Z Z Z

R R

a a

r r

T T

E E

P E P E

a a

B B J J

\ \

N N ¦