The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-01-08
TENNESSEE'S GROWTH.
A GAIN OF 1880 SINCE THE VOTE
= IN 1884.
She Stands Now Twelfth Among the
Great States in Point Of Population,
Whereas In 1880 She Was Only Seven
teenth. ~

j. w. Eaton, one OF the editors OF the
the Kalamazoo DAILY Telegraph, has been
digging into theeection returns and shows
in a well and carefully prepared paper that
elections which bring out full vote give
fair indication OF the rate Of increase in
population. They are volunteer census
OF class which bears practically fixed
relation to the whole number OF inhabi-
ants, and hence form means OF determine
ing the changes for shorter periods than
the long interval from census to census.
Some modifying facis.may interfere with a
correct deduction, but any circumstance
that is an unexpected departure from the
general course produces also a sufficient
dslur bance TO attract attention and cause
suitable allowance. Thus Kentucky
sho ws an unexpected gain from 1891 to
1883, attributable perhaps 10 the big Re-
publican gain two years ago, and in conso-
quencc an uncommonly full vote this time.
II the comparison in that instance is made
with eight years ago instead, the apparent
error is not so great.
THE mo FIVE.
The table OF comparative votes and
gains between 1884 and 1883 is remarkably
creditable 20 Michigan. Only four other
states show rs great gain in the popular
vote, aud they are all iirsl-rank States.
The five making the greatest increase in
their total return since the preceding Pres.
idoniial election are rs follows:
States Increase IN Vote
Michigan. ........., GaT5
iillnols 1851
h,snnri ~ 40
Ithhs{ as,2lb
s'NW inFhasss's.s.s. loi,olh
Ohio, Indiana. Massachusetts and Ken.
lucky, all Of them larger than Michigan at
the last census aud Ohio nearly twice as
large. showed a smaller gain. None oil the
Young States that have been having phe-
nomenal boom the past four or five years
show an equal gain.
THE PROBLEM AND THE METHOD.
The presidential election Of 1850 and the
census Of the same year give the latest
bass for obtaining the ratio Of the total
vote to the total population OF the rcspec-
tive states. That ratio varies. In Massa-
chuseits that year, there were 6.32 ~.
habiiants 20 each voter; in Texas $50, in
Michigan 4.G5, in Kansas l0j, in Illinois
5.0i, and ~ on. OF the IL States having
greatest growth only three have so large a
ratio OF vote TO population as Michigan,
namely, New York, which had one voter
10 40 inhabitants; Ohio, one 10 AL, and
Indiana one 60 40. Most Of the south.
en States arc omitted from the accom-.
panying esiimatrs the election returns in
that section futnshing an obviously irreg-
uar basis OF comparison. OF the South.
ern States polling relatively full vote
7cnpncssce - brought into he iis By its hoa,y
gains, while Texas Is an object Of special
attention here, because il has probably
sci Michigan aside in the scramble for
sixth place IN the Union. Multiplying
the election ioolings In the several States
by the respective population ratios. We
arrive ut fairly Trustworthy data on their
present number OF inhabitants In the
group OF the nine greatest States in the
national census, Michigan stood last,
with Massachusetts seventh and Ken
lucky eighth. Important changes have
taken place zAce then, Michigan having
Ouigrown both those States and made a
gain ON both Indiana and Missouri.
The list Of nine now stands as follows