The sun., 1891-07-05

| merution was about 100000 short of the
actual population. Evidence OF this was
supplied to Mr.. PORTER by our municipal
authorities; but at every stage OF tho long
struggle between truth and falsehood he
and his precious bureau insolently refused
to accept the evidence, to ascertain the
truth, or to take any stop whatever toward
the correction Of tho mlscount In June OF
last year. That original lie about New
York affects and vitiates every computation
undertaken by Mr.. PORTER In which the
size OF New York's population Is factor.
For example. In this case It yields per
capita expenditure OF $685. Oh Is cents
moro than Boston's per capita; but the per
capita on the actual population OF I, 1,710,715.
as ascertained by our police census, would
be S2ll6, or sass less than Boston's per
capita, assuming oil the time that the other
figures that ontor into Mr.. PoRTER's calcu-
lations nre honest
But the other figures arc not honost. The
dividend Is too large by Millions Just ns tho
divisor is too small by hundreds OF thou-
sGnds. Tho alleged per capita expenditure
Is q auotlent twice exaggerated, first by the
undcrstatomcnt Of population, and secondly
| by the overstatement OF administrative OK
| pcndit,irc.
An examination Of tortuous statistics and
IN analysis OF erroneous or fraudulent arlth-
metical processes may not make the liveliest
literature, but wo ask our readers to follow
us patiently, for tho sake OF tho result
to be reached
To got at tho curront expenses Of munlci-
pa! government Mr.. PORTER adds together
In the first place the items OF what lie calls
the " ordinary expenditures" He classes as
ordinary expenditures those for schools, pub
lie libraries, fire department, health light
Ing, police charitable objects, streets and
bridges, sewers public buildings and i'm
provements, parks and public grounds, SAL
aries Of judicial. legislative. and general OK.
ccutive officers. water supply, miscellaneous,
and interest on dobt. Tie toL.l Of these
ltcms he calls the total OF ordinary expen-
diturcs." In tho cnsc OF New York he makes
1t s4s 937 GOA, or $3o.3 per capita; In tho case
of Boston. S16ll7,043. or $500 per capita |;
in the case OF Philadelphia, $l9.s45,12l, or
$18.95 per capita In the case OF Cleveland.
the most cheaply governed city OF the first
class, S2,s91 ,257, or Sll.06 per capita.
But 1t Is obvious that the total OF what
PORTER calls the ordinary expenditures
does not represent the actual cost Of rum
ming the city Government or afford a basis
for comparison rs to economy or extrav-
agance. 1t includes under the misleading
head OF Ordinary expenditures fixed
charges like that for interest on public debt,
and vast variety Of what are really ex-
traordinary or occasional expenses. Of the
nature of investments. In the way of public
buildings, new parks and other municipal
improvements.
To get over this difficulty, Mr.. PORTER, in
the second place, constructs another and
more restricted table Of totals, which he
styles an exhibit Of approximate adminis7
trative expenditures" including that part
Of the ordinary expenditures presumed to
be necessary for the conduct OF ordinary
city AFFAIRS" and upon this second table he
bases his figures per capita, purporting to
show the comparative cost Of actual gov
ernment In the case Of each city he gets
his total Of administrative expenditures"
by deducting from his total of so-caIled
"ordinary expenditures the items for
schools, libraries, public buildings. charita-
BILE objects, and water works. That
this is not scientific or even an
intelligent way of arriving at the result
which Mr.. PORTER pretends to have In
view. is apparent at glance. 1t still leaves
In the aggregate Of alleged administrative
expenditures the permanent item OF in
terest; and while removing extraordinary
expenditures for public buildings, it retains
such equally extraordinary items OF ex-
penditure as. for example. the purchase Of
land for the construction OF new parks or
public grounds. But 1t Is PoRTER's way.
and by no other road could he reach the de-
sired conclusion, namely. that the PORTER
hated and injured Democratic city of New
York Is the most expensively governed large
city In the land.
Tho five items spacifled above when SUBJ
tracted from PoRTER's S4s.ss7.6s4 of New
York's Ordinary expenditures" give him
his total Of $50. 2O3, ,65s OF New York's zap
proximate administrative expenditures;
and this. divided by his understated popula-
tlon OF 1,5l5,S0l, yields the per capita ex-
penditure Of $3.50, the maximum for any
city OF more than 400. 900 Inhabitants.
Now, it happened that In the year 1889 New
York made an extraordinary outlay, OF the
nature Of permanent Investment for tho
new systea OF parks and parkways above
the Harlem River. This item alone amount
ed to nearly ten million dollars. 1t should
no more enter into the total Of admlnlstra-
tive expenditures, showing the cost Of gov
erning tho town, than tho sum paid by On
individual for tho purchase OF u farm adj
joining his own should figure along with
grocer and butcher bills In his current ac-
count of household expenses. Yet Mr.
PORTER saddles Nsp York ,oith this tremea-
douo and extraordinary outlay in comparing
our administrative expenditures Uith hoae of
other cities.
This stupondous piece OF Justification is
not the result Of ignorance; Mr.. PoRTER or
his "cxperts" could not suppose for q mo-
ment that oIr administrative expenditure
for tho maintenance OF parks and public
grounds was anything liko ten millions an
nually. Tho figures Of tho othor cities
show that suoh a supposltlon Is proposter-
ous. Ths corresponding Item In the case OF
no other city reaches even ono million
~