New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-07-17
THE CITY,S EXPENSES.
WHY THE CENSUS OFFICE INCLUDED THEM
WITH THE CoUNTY'S.
NO SEPARATE CLASSIFICATION REPoRTED-coN-
TRoLLER MYERs's SUGGESTIONS COULD
NOT BE ADOPTED.
tBY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNE. +


tBY TELEGRAPH TO THE TBIbuSE.r
Washington, July 16.-The superintendent OF the
Census has at last received a long and bulky docu-
ment OF tabulations from Controller Myers IN which
the receipts and expenditures Of New-York are stated
and classified as he desires them to be pubnshed III
lieu of like figures published in Census Bulletin NO.
So. about which there has been so much contro-
versy. The first and most important change that he
desires in the statement is that the county expendi-
ures shall be reported separately from those of the
CITY. Concerning his suggestion the superintendent
Of the Census says
"The figures would have been classified so orgi-
nally but nowhere the county expenditures
kept and reported separately from those Of the city
In fact they could not be- for under the act OF April
80 1874, which Mr. Myers quotes. all charges ana
liabilities then existing which might thereafter
arise in the city or county of NewYork, and which
otherwise might be deemed charge or liability against
the county should thereafter be deemed and taken 10
be charges against the city, and to be defrayed or
assumed by the city and all comfy bonds STOCKS
contracts or obligations then or therealVer issueu
shoud he in the name of the city of New-Y York. OF
course to the extent of the charges which, but for TINS
law. would have been made against the county the
CITY expenditures are swelled. But Mr.. Myers. in his
printed report made no mention OF any Items therein
as being properly chargeabe to the county, and there
was no county report from which such Items couu DC
obtained. This office, however, had some uouoO
about the matter and INQUIRED of the Controller ABOUT
IT, His general boolkeeper Mr. Barrett. replied Inc
ctv and county of New-YOrk are one body, corporate
and potic. by the same name, and all statistics re-
latng To one or the other since May l. 1874 are lden
tical.'
@Of course the Census ONCE had option except 10
report as city expenses all items appearing IN the To
port Of the Controller such expenditures Dut ~
stated in footnoto to the bulletin, that the receipts
and expenditures Of the county were Included so te
atc1aa
tbe same condition of affairs exists in Boston, and no
compant has been received from that city Of the way
IN which the tabulation was made in the bulletin
This Office has no means OF knowing yet what portion
~ the amounts reported by Mr.. Myers are properly
chargeabe to county expenditures nor does IL Know Oh
any one who has any official authority to state what
yvor,d he countv charges did county exist ana there
eems n be 10 way TO make the change suggested as
This office does not care to enter into any proDaone
as to such classification
"He also objects 10 the classification OF the item Oh
so O7o GIL as expended account OF parks ulo
amount being for the construction OF new PARIS Va
bis IN. Census Office had no information, except what
was contained in the Controllers report 1t was classeo
under the general head of expenditures for parks Inc
corrertness Of the amount is not questioned, ana Is
mart Of the reported expended for parks
and publc grounds. This office, however, presume"
that large amount OF it was for parks and II so
stated in the text OF the bulletin. The Controhcr
rolnts ont also several minor items which ne lhnhs
bouId have been classified differently, but Wihch nc
admits would not affect the general reSl nd viii
ahe snch changes in the classification as the iaclS
now nresented for the first time, Will warrant pui
erI, az fine bulletin which has given precisely tne IN
formation that II purported TO do no more ana no less