Daily globe., 1882-01-30
HE TE4CHTNGS OF TUE CENSUS

Il
1t IS always more agreeable duty for
newspaper to exult over the favorable
conditions of the state, and to boast of
its growth and greatness, than to point
out its drawbacks and shortcomings; and
in Minnesota the journals of the State
have aided in creating the belief that we
are the most prosperous people on the
face of the earth, and that our growth in
population and wealth far exceed that of
any other State in the Union. And GER
tainiy there are reasons why we should
so increase, for more than half of our
territory is yet to be occupied, and during
the past few years some of our richest
lands, notably those in the Red River
Valley, have been settled, and railroads
have been built in all directions through
the State. And yet, despite these eXcep-
tional circumstances, it is remarkable
fact that the United States census of 1880
shows that our actual growth has been
much less than that of other States. For
instance, we have been taught to look
with pity on the State of Arkansas as a
marshy, malarial region, given over to
alligators, agues, rebels and Democrats,
and yet the growth of Arkansas was
ne early as great, between 1870 and 1880,
as the growth of Minnesota, and in 1880
Arkansas contained greater population
tn an Minnesota. Here are the figures:
1870. 1880. Increase.
Arkansas. ....., 4s4, All SO2,525 3ls,O54
But comparison between a State in
tn e zone of progress and one in the semi
tropical region is hardly a fair one.
Turn to Colorado: In 1870 the popula-
ton was 80, 1854, in 1880 it was 1914, 327
In other words, Minnesota fell far short
of doubling its population, but Colorado
increased its population nearly six-fold
Or compare our actual growth with
that of the neighboring State of Iowa. 1t
m ust be remembered that Iowa during
the past decade had but little public land
left for settlement, and that in the north
western part of the State, and yet between
1870 and 1880 Iowa increased from ], 1884,
020 to 1924, ,615, representing an'addition
to its population of 43o,595, as against
Minnesota's increase of 341, 1857
In the State of Kansas we have fair
er basis of comparison. Kansas like Min
nesota is frontier state; population, as
here, is moving on to it's vacant lands; it
is a purely agricultural State, while Min
nesota has immense lumber resources, ,and
yet while Minnesota fell nearly 100000
short of doubling its population, Kansas
in the same time nearly trebled its popu-
lation. Here are the figures:
i0rssot, as7Si 7sS ass9 s2s l9sTsass sa1 as7
K Kansas -. 80. .364,3 ,399 996.O96 631, ,697
This is certainly startling contrast,
and one that must humble our pride as
Minnesotians. Despite the great and fa-
NOUS wheat lands of the Red River valley,
despite all our railroad enterprises, despite
all our prodigious and unlimited brag-
ging, the increase of grasshopper- afflicted
Kansas, far inferior in natural resources
to our own State, has been nearly double
that of Minnesota. Speaking in round
numbers, Kansas, starting with third of
million, has in ten years reached mill
ion, while Minnesota, with nearly half a
million in 1870, in ten years reached about
three-quarters of million.
In actual increase of numbers we have
fallen far behind many States that had
not foot of public land with which to
tempt immigration.
The following table of increase between