The Russellville Democrat., 1877-05-31
DOVER. May 2S. 1877.

|
 EDITOR DEMOCRAT: As much general interest is felt in the matter of increased population, and being myself something of statistical fiend," I have gathered from the Compendium of the Ninth Census few facts which are worth remember ing in such connection. The press of this State, with an energy highly commendable, is directing attention to the salubrity of the climate, the productiveness of the soil, the wealth of timber and the mineral resources of Arkansas. This is well; endorse all that can be said in that behalf, and I will say, without boasting, that have seen enough of the world to afford me opportunities to judge 1 with some degree of accuracy be- tween Arkansas and other States and Territories over which l have | travelled.
 Everybody desires an increase of population and every effort is direct ed to that end. Then, 1st, What is the population of the State, and how many people to the square mile are there in the State? 2d, What densi- ty of population could the State sup port, and what ought the population to be now? 3d, What will likely be the population in 1880, and also in 1885? Now, Mir. Editor, or indul- gent reader either, just get your slate and pencil and follow ne while I endeavor to answer the questions l have propounded. lst; According to the census of 1870 Arkansas was the 14th State in the matter of area, having 52,l9S square miles; she is now the 18th, Colorado having been admitted since 1870. For density of population Arkansas IS the 29th State, having 9.30 to the square mile. Then the density of population does not tally with the area, comparing this State with the other States, nor will one adjust to the other until Arkansas has more than doubled its population-reachipg total of about 97l, ,O00. 2d; The State surely can support a density of population equal to the average of the States by which it is bounded on the north, east and and south. exclude Texas, on the west, from the reckon ing, the population of that State being exceptional in it's nature.
 Missouri has 26.34, Mississippi IT, 56 and Louisiana 17.5S. Throwing all these together and the average density is about 20A. This would allow Arkansas a population of l. O50, ,l59; but I cannot consent to any
 such sparse population as that for
 Arkansas. She can surely support
 as many people to the square mile as ' Missouri; and that would give her
 1,374,S95, but I cannot estimate
 even upon the Missouri basis, the probabilities of the future. l must claim for Arkansas a density equal to Ohio, 66.69 to the square mile, and then 3,4S1, ,0S4 would stand op-
 posite the word "Arkansas' in the
 census report. To ''guess" at the
 population now IS something diff , cult, for never could guess to much advantage. Still l will try. l fine
 that the density il 1860 was S.34 , and in 1870 was 9.30--showing al l average of .96 in ten years. The same increase for the 2 years of tho :, present decade would show popu ? lation at this time of exactly seven tenths over what it was in 1870, ol
 s25,15 people. Estimating an in 3 crease from 1870 to 1880 equal tt 5 the preceding ten years, the nex enumeration ought to show popu 3 lation in this State of 95l, ,464, ane g in 1885 no less than l,lSl,475.