The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1862-08-09

of"feu, thc popuidtion ihcluuCS slaNcS
and free.
The relative progress of Maryland has
been slow indeed. The total population
OF the Union, by the census of 1880, was
1920, 1927, of which Maryland, contain
ing then 3l0,72S, constituted a twelfth
part, O2.29.) In 1860, the Union
numbered 81, 445,0SO, and Maryland
GS7,03l, constitu ing then only forty
fifth part, (t5.7G.) In 1880, the free
States numbered 1865, 455, Maryland's
population then being equal to one-sixth
(G.12); but in 1860, the population OF
the free States was 1S,02U,U7S, Mary
lands number then being equal only to
one twenty-seventh part (27.52.) But,
if Maryland had increased as rapidly
from 1890 to 1860 as the whole Union,
her proportion, onc-twclfth part, would
have made her numbers, in 1860, D
2O,3l5, and if her proportional increase
had cqualed that of the free States, her
ratio, oncsiXth, would have made her
popula ion, in 1860, 3,l53,392. From
her small area, (seycn States being
smaller,) she would not have reached
either of these results; but, before
closing these letters, it Will be proved
tina, in the absence of slavery, her
population, in 1850, would have been at
least l,715, GGI, or the same per square
mile as Massachusetts, and Baltimore,
bearing the same ratio to this number as
to Maryland's present population, would
have contained, in 1860, 5i2 900 instead
of $4,000, her present number.
| take the areas from the able report
(Nov. 20, lSG0,j of the Hon. Joseph $.
Wilson, then Commissioner of the Gem
eral Land Office, where these areas are
for the first time accurately given BY
actual measurement excluding the
water surface" The population is taken
from the census. the ,abes of 1850 and
1850 being compiled with great ability,
by the present superintendent, Hon. j.
g. 6. Kennedy. compare first, Massa-
chusctts and Maryland, because they are
maritime and old States, and both, in
1890, had nearly the same population,
but, as will be shown hereafter, wi h
vas " superior natural advantages in
favor of Maryland.
Area OF Maryland, 11,l24 square
miles, shore line, by tables of United
States Coast Survey, viz main shore,
including bays, sounds, &c, 503 miles
islands, 29S rivers, to he head of tide
water, 535. 10 al, 1886 miles.
Area of Massachusetts, $500 square
miles, shore line, by tables of United
Sta cs Coast Survey, viz: main shore,
including bays, sounds, &c, 435 miles
Islands, 259; rivers, to the head of tide
water, 70. Total, 7G4 miles. When
We mark the Potomac and is tribu aries,
the lower Susquchanna, the deep and
numerous reams of thc Chesapeake, the
commercial advantages of Maryland over
Massachuset. are vast indeed. Look
ing at the ocean shore of Maryland, and
also at the Chesapeake bay, the largcs
and finest estuary in the world, indented
with numerous sounds and nayigablc
lnlcts, three fourths of is length for
both shores being within Maryland, and
compare this deep and tranquil and pro-
tccted basin, almost one CONTINUOUS har-
Dor, with the rock bound coast of Massa-
chusctts, dashed by the stormy Atlantic,
the superiority of Maryland Is striking
Mortality in Maryland, by the late
census, viz dca his from Isl June, 1850,
to 3lst May, 1860, 1910 persons. Same
time in Massachusetts,, 81, 304, making a
ratio of deaths to the number living in
Maryland, one TO every SO, (o3.20,) and
in massachusetts,, one TO every 81, o.
49, and the per ccntage of deaths in
Maryland l 06, and in Massachusetts
LIB. This rate of mortality for Massa-
chusctts is confirmed by the late official
report OF their Secretary Of State 10 the
Legislature.
As to area, then, Maryland exceeds
Massachusetts 43 per cent as to the
shore line, that Of Maryland is nearly
double that Of Massachusetts, having
So miles more of main shore, bays and
sounds, SO miles more for islands, and
nearly eight times the number of miles
for rivers to head of tide water. As to
climate, tina: OF Maryland, we have seen,
is far the most salubrious.
This is vast advantage, not only in
augmented wealth and numbers, from
fewer deaths, but also as attracting cap
ital and emigration. This mider and
more salubrlous climate gives to Mary
land longer periods for sowing, working,
and harvesting crops, more genial SUM-
larger products, and better and longer
crop seasons, great advantages for stock,
especially in winter, decreased consump-
ton of fuel, greater period for the use
of hydraulic power, and Of canals and
navigable Streams. The area of Mary
land, fit for profitable culture, is more
than double that of Massachusetts,, the
soil much more fertile, It's mines Of coal
and iron, with the fuxes all adjacent,
rich and inhaustible, whereas Massa-
chusetts has no coal, and no valuable
mines of iron or fuxes. When we reflect
that iron and coal are the great elements
of modern progress, and build up mighty
empires, this advantage of Mary land over
Massachusetts, is almost incalculable. -
The hydraulic power Of Maryland also
grca ly exceeds that of Massachusetts.
Such are the vast natural advantages of
Maryland over Massachusetts. Now, let
us observe the results. Population of
Maryland in 1890, DIPS in 1860,
| G87,034 increase, 3C7,300. Popula-
ton of Massachusetts in 1890, 37S,7l7;
! in 1Sn0 Dyl no., ;,o,o,no Qro OiS.