The examiner. [volume] (Louisville, Ky.) 1847-1849, 1848-04-29
s.row,h OF CII,s--I,..,.,II,.

We made a comparison, recently, between the
cities Of New Orleans and New York, Charles
ton and Cincinnati, as to the causes Of their
growth, and present population.
The first pTiHeiDle then stated, was, that, IN
less there be some extraordinary circumstances
attending the location Of a city, in connection
with foreign trade-its growth must depend
on the density Of The surrounding population.
Il is the mutual trade-the relative demand
and supply Of merchandise and manufactured
articles between the country population and the
city, which creates cities and causes their
growth.
The next principle, to which We adverted,
was, that a slave population must be more thin
than free population. This is obvious. Slaves
to be profitable have TO be employed on large
plantations. There are fewer villages, towns,
cities; fewer workshops Thus it is, that New
Orleans, with its immense commercial advsnta-
ges, has thin population around il, and that
the city itself, is, at this moment, less poPulOus
than Cincinnati. But unless the plain facts We
have noticed, can be made TO have different
influence, from what they have heretofore had
New Orleans will never again reach the popu-
lation Of Cincinnati-eontrary as that result
may be to all previous antciPatiOns.
In this respect LOUISVILLE is better situated
than New Orleans; for Louisville has a far less
proportion Of slaves, in the interior country and
il she uses her influence properly, even that
proportion may be diminished. The encourage
ment Of white labor in all POsitiOns-the estab-
lishment Of small farms and gardens--the libe-
raj support Of manufactures, in every branch Of
industry, and especially Of the smaller class
the erection Of water works, furnishing Our
homes with an abundant supply, and thus ena-
bling the wives and daughters of our citizens to
do more home wOrk-this policy would rapidly
thin out the slaves. and make ours fine city
even before an emancipation act by the State
could be carried out.
But let us-acknOwledging-as all must &C
knowledge, the great natural advantages Of
Louisville-institute parallel, in this respect
between her and Cincinnati. This will be &
home test-a sure one. Take, then, one kHn.
dred miles round Cincinnati, on the North sid,
of the Ohio, and one hzEdred miles round Louis.
vile, on the SCUM Sue ne FORMER etnOfdCe'
the best portion Of the country round Cincin
matt, the latter the best lands Of Kentucky. lie
us see the result:
Population
100 miles back Of Cincinnati. IA ,0Oe
Cincinnati and lis suburbs, lO0,OO'
100 miles back of Louisville, 462, 81
Louisville and its Suburbs, $1,000
The population Of the cities are very nearly
as that Of the surrounding country. But THU
parallel is not quite fair in this particular -
Kentucky is an older State than 0hiO-LOuis
vile an older city than Cincinnati Let us GO
little further.
Compare Lexington and Cincinnati. Tn,
following is the ratio:
Lexington. Cincinnati.
1910 4,226 1850
Is4O 6,IO4 46,5OO
In thirty years, Lexington increased fifty pei
cent. In thirty years, Cincinnati increased 10,
thousand three Hundred per cent!
Bat this Is not all. Look at CONVICTION. Thil
town Is a sort Of suburb Of Cincinnati. But il
is not thzt alone which makes its growth. Tn,
counties Of Kenton and Campbell, Grant, Pen.
dleion, &c, have very few slaves. Those loh'
90 70 IBe an them Ceei their influence out Iittle
Compare in this particular, Louisville and Gov