The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1891-07-31
Tho Refusal from the Census once

Tho Refusal from the Census Once.
Probably Comptroller MYERS will not al
low Mr.. ROBERT P. PORTER to crawl away
without an exposure Of the latest trick to
which that slippery person has resorted.
PORTER now coolly informs the Comptrol-
Ter that he will not correct his lying bulle-
tins statement Of Now York's per capita ex-
psnditure for administrative purposes, to
which public attention was first directed In
these columns. He Offers to print in foot
note the Comptroller's protest, but the old
figures will stand as the official exhibit. The
dishonest rating Of New York as the most
expensively governed city Of the first class
will remain In PoRrKR's comparative table.
exactly as he has intended that It should
from the first.
The greatest living fabricator OF fraudu.
lent statistics has the assurance to tell the
Comptroller that the present bulletin deals
with New York much more generously and
equltably than did the Tenth Census. He re-
minds Mr.. MYERS that ten years ago New
York's per capita expenditure was reported
by the census as $55.20 on total Of $685.
945. Although published nearly ten years
ago." says PORTER, this amount and this
classification has not been questioned" He
goes on to intimate that his desire to mako
as fine as possible showing for the metrop-
oils induced him In this census to adopt tho
present method Of computing the per capita.
Il trust you will see." he remarks. that
instead OF disappearing New York, this
Office has, by deducting certain obviously
extraordinary expenditures. reduced the per
capita to $3.50 from $5s.57. which 1t would
have been had the plan Of statement follow
ed by the last census beon adopted in pre-
pairing the Bulletin"
This Is the climax OF impotence. The
municipal expenditure figures Of the census
OF 1880 were prepared by no other person
than ROBERT P. PORTER himself. then
special census agent under Gen. WALKER.
In that census no attempt was made to
afford any basis for a comparative showing,
and the per capitas exhibited were meaning.
less. For example. New York city appeared
as spending $500 for every inhabitant. and
Amsterdam as spending SLIT. Shenandoah.
Pa, was set down as spending sl.3l, and
Brookline, Mass. as spending $72.Al for each
inhabitant. Boston was S50.5l and Chicago
Sl2. and so on. The figures were simply
dumped. without separation or analysis, and
the result was a series Of tables as discred-
table to PoRTERs intelligence as the pres
ent census Is to his moral character.
To point to his tables Of 1889 as proof that
he might have made this year much more
unfavorable showing for New York. II he
had been so disposed. Is o dodge worthy Of
PORTER. II the change OF system reduces
New York's per capita from $500 In
1880 to $3.50 in 1890. 1t also reduces the
apparent per capita expenditure OF other
cities In the same or greater degree. Bos-
ton comes down from s5o.5l to $23.H Provi-
dence comes down from $3.50 to S1722;
Hartford, from $44.83 to $l424, and SO on.
In calling attention to his statistical achieve
ments ten years ago. PORTER simply re-
minds the country that twice. instead OF
| only once, he has demonstrated his utter In
competency, intellectual and moral. to deal
| with this important subject.
Tho Census Superintendent knows per-
fectly we'll what the charge against him
is. 1t makes little difference what method
of classification and comparison is adopted
as long as the same formula Is equitably
and invariably applied in rating the several
cities. Tho question is not whether New
York Is set down at S5s.57 or at $3.50. but
whether tho figures assigned to her mean
the same thing and include the same items
as the figures In the case OF other cities
with which she Is contrasted, in q table
purportng to show tho comparative
economy or extravaganza OF munich
pal government In the different cities
OF the United States. Everybody knows
now that by including not only the county
expenditures but also the extraordinary ex-
penditure Of about 100000 for new parks,
PORTER has outrageously msrepresented
the facts about municipal administration in
New York, and put on record false rating
as compared with the ratings OF other towns.
He knows 1t himself. as well as the next
man; but emboldened by tho previous sup
port OF his ofiicial superiors. he insolently
refuses to correct a record proved to be false
and fraudulent