Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1891-10-01

crime increase IN proportion 70 the IN
crease in population, or at less ratio,
never in excess of it,
The absolute truth of these PROPOSE
tions is demonstrated by the statistics
of all governments at all periods of his
tory.
Let us consider the wealth represent
ed by real estate, agricultural and city,
for the past thirty years in the light of
these facts.
We will first apply the analysis in
Franklin county, as it will serve as a
fair example for the whole state, and
afterward aualyze the figures for the
entire state of Ohio.
Franklin county is centrally located
in the finest agricultural district in the
state, and is well situated as to mar.
kets and has fifteen competing lines of
transportation. Here agriculture should
flourish if anywhere.
Columbus is manufacturing center,
where tariff can get in its protecting
work, if anywhere.
With that view let us analyze the
figures to be found in the official rec
ords in the offices of secretary and aud
itor of state.
Here they are, and, assuming that
the robber tariff had something to do
with producing the increased wealth,
they show how it distributes it and
how it affects the social conditions:
1. In 1860 the farm lands of Franklin
county were valued at S12 712, 663; in
1870, Sl2, 2,627, 2S3; in 1880, SIG, $50, $50; in
1890, $40, 525, $40; increase in thirty years,
So, 813, JS7; increase per cent 80, or an
increase of one cent per annum.
2. In 1860 the city property in the
county was valued at So, SIS, 1872; in 1870,
50, 651, 315; in 1880, S22, 654, $50; in 1890,
S32, s36, 100; increase in thirty years $685.
961, 4SS; increase per cent. 500, or nine
and six-tenths psr cent. per annum.
3. The number of paupers supported
in the county at public expense, in the
infirmary or by out door relief, in 1860,
1888; in 1870, 2,3O4 in 1880, 5,S04; in
1890, 9,SS9; increase in thirty years,
1906; increase per cent 600, or 20 per
cent. per annum.
4 The number of persons confined in
the county jail in 1860 was 1856; in 1870,
2l6; in 1880, 52S; in $780, 6S2; increase in
thirty years, 500; increase per cent. 337,
or ten and three-tenths per cent per
annum.
5. The population Of the county in
1860 was so, 36l, in 1870 63,O19; in 1880,
SO, 1917; in 1890, 1874 OS7; increase in thirty
years, 1926; increase per cent 156 or
| five and six-tenths per cent per an
NUN.
The following facts are made indis-
puta bly, clear;
1. Farm values increased per cent
per annum.,
2. City values increased 9.6 per cent.
per annum.
3. Pauperism 20 per cent, per an.
mum.
T. Crime increased 1913 per cent. pei
annum.
5. Population increased Sc per cent
per annum.
Are not these figures somewhat star
tling to contemplate?
The increase of $29, S74, 1876 in real es'
tated values in thirty years has been
distributed in the proportion of 81 tC
the farming district to &c. to the pro
tected district.
The S12, 712, 663 valuation of property
in the farming district in 1860 had only
increased to $16, 525 80 in 1890.
At the same time the Sc, S7S 122 valua
tion of city property in the protected
district in 1860 had increased to $32, $50,
610 in 1890.
Can not the farmer see the inevita bl'
result of the robber tariff system?
Taking the comparative values in th'
farming and protected districts in 1850
the values would have stood thus upoI
an equal division: Farm values, $32,
695, 1893; city values, $16, S64, 4S7.
But the robber tariff exactly reverse
this, as will be seen by the figures Civ
ing the farmer but 81 increase whil
the man in the protected district get
&c. CO.
Can even the republican farmer long
er afford to uphold such an outrageous
ly one sided system?
AS we have already said, an unjus
and inequitable distribution of increas
ed wealth, shows "a proportionate in
crease in pauperism and crime
Is not this borne out by the figures
The increase of the population in thu
country for thirty years was 5.6 pc
cent. annually.
Had there been as just and equitable
Nf fha in OK
there was in 1860, the increase in pau
perism and crime would have been il
proportion to the increase in popula
tion, standing hus:
Paupers 8, 1874 and not $3.50.
Criminals 800 and not 6S2.
Now let us apply the analysis to tn
entire state:
l. In 1860 the value of farm lands i
the state was 1886, 06S, 529; in 1870, 1854
33s, ,O5s; in 1880 S64s, S26, 518; in 1S9t
$725, ,642, 254; increase in thirty years
$239, 573, 1876; increase per cent for thil
ty years, 4S per cent, or l.. per cen
per annum.
2. City real estate in 1850, $147, 147
1873; in 1870, $329, 1O6 AS; in 1880, $412
6s3, 314; in 1890, $506, 663, 0sR increase
thirty years. 1859, 521, $40; increase pc
cent for thirty years, 243 per cent, {
S.5 per cent per annum.
8. Value OF personal property in farm
hg districts 1860, $134, 2O4 145; in 1871
$1S9, 765, 456; in 1880, $l6s, 915, 321; in 1s9
$191, ,2O6, sos; increase in thirty year,
$57, OOs, 800; increase per cent. in thirt
years, S5 per cent, or 1.2 per cent. pc
annum
4. Value of personal property in pr
tected city districts in 1860, $114, 2O4