Table II serves to show the distribution by geographical divisions of the 154 cities covered by the Report and their absolute and relative increase in population in the period 1900-05. The 50 States and Territories included in the several divisions, with the number of cities in each given in parenthesis, are as follows: I. North Atlantic, Maine (1), New Hampshire (1), Vermont (0), Massachusetts (19), Rhode Island (3), Connecticut (5), New York (12), New Jersey (10), Pennsylvania (16), 9 States in all; II. South Atlantic, Delaware (1), Maryland (1), District of Columbia (1), Virginia (2), West Virginia (1), North Carolina (0), South Carolina (1), Georgia (4), and Florida (1), 9 States in all; III. North Central, Ohio (9), Indiana (5), Illinois (7), Michigan (5), Wisconsin (5), Minnesota (3), Iowa (4), Missouri (4), North Dakota (0), South Dakota (0), Nebraska (3), and Kansas (3), 12 States in all; IV. South Central, Kentucky (2), Tennessee (4), Alabama (3), Mississippi (0), Louisiana (1), Texas (4), Indian Territory (0), Oklahoma (0), and Arkansas (1), 9 States in all; and V. Western, Montana (1), Wyoming (0), Colorado (2), New Mexico (0), Arizona (0), Utah (1), Nevada (0), Idaho (0), Washington (3), Oregon (1), and California (4), 11 States in all. The most salient facts brought out by Table II (see D) are: (1) the greater per cent. of increase in population of the cities of the North Central division in comparison with those of other divisions; (2) the greater per cent. of increase for the cities of Groups 1, 2, and 3 in that division; (3) the fact that the per cent. of increase in the cities of Group 4 in the Western division considerably exceeded that of cities of the same group in any other division; and (4) that Groups 2 and 3, with the same per cent. of increase (14.34), surpassed Groups 1 and 4 in per cent. of increase in the period 1900-05. It must be admitted, however, that strict comparisons between the several groups, whether as to population or expenses of government, cannot be made, for the reason that the groups are incommensurate. Tables III-VI, inclusive, are introduced for the purpose of showing some of the more significant costs of government: (1) in the ten largest cities of the country; and (2) in two characteristic groups,-namely, the cities of Massachusetts and Ohio. These tables serve also to indicate the variety and character of the financial tables set forth in the report under consideration. Thus the figures in Table III for Population are derived from Table I; those for Assessed Valuation, from "Table 28. Assessed Valuation of Property, etc., Basis of Assessment and General Property Taxes levied, 1905"; for Net Debt, from "Table 23. Total and Per Capita Debt Obligations at Close of Year, together with Changes during the Year in Par Value of Debt Obligations and of Sinking Fund Assets, 1905; Comparative Summary 1902-05"; and for Assets, from "Table 27. Value at Close of Year of Principal Permanent Properties, etc., 1905." In Tables III and IV, Cincinnati, eleventh city as to population in 1900, is given tenth place, instead of San Francisco, because the Bureau of the Census refrained from publishing per capita averages of the decimated population of San Francisco for 1905. Inspection of the per capita averages, and the figures showing the rank based upon them, in III B and IV B, leads to the conclusion that the taxable basis, corporate pay ments, and selected expenses of the several cities are not proportional to their populations. Again, the range between New York and Cincinnati in most particulars is so great as to render averages for the ten cities of little practical value, particularly if one seeks to determine the rank of the several cities as regards the economy and efficiency of their housekeeping. These facts should be taken account of by those who undertake to institute strict comparisons of any kind between the groups of cities, or between cities of the same group, as set forth in the series of tables contained in the Report. Those who would charge any city or group of cities with extravagance or inefficiency, on the basis of the variations found in the tables of the Report, should give careful heed to the warning set forth on page 79, under description of general tables: "The most important features of this table [Table 30] and the other tables with per capita averages consist in the great differences shown by different cities in the amounts of total and per capita payments and receipts of the several classes. . . . In the case of most of the cities the variations in per capita payments and receipts reflect differences in municipal organizations or administration; for a few they unquestionably result from imperfections of the census report. . . . To refer all variations found in the tables to any one single factor or cause would inevitably be unjust to many cities. The figures of the table can be correctly used only in connection with some knowledge of the local condition or circumstances affecting any class of data to be compared by per capita averages." On the strength of per capita averages for general property tax, debt, corporate payments for expenses, etc., published in the series of reports on Statistics of Cities by the Bureau of the Census, Boston's city government has been pronounced guilty of great extravagance and inefficiency by credulous politicians, publicists, and newspaper writers, who have disregarded the warnings of the Bureau of the Census and even the plain showing of the tables whence their arguments were derived. |