The sun., 1891-07-13

the tactics employed in defence OF ROBERT
p. PORTER, apparently with his knowledge
and consent we shall once more point out
tho dlsnraceful trick resorted to In tho
passage quoted above.
The $4s, 1885,, ,694 is the gross municipal ex-
penditure styled ordinary" by the bulletin
makers. and reduced by certain deductions
to a net total OF administrative" or actual
running expenditures, $36, ,2O3, ,653. upon which
the per capita is based.
The Press takes the $4s, 1881, 694, and first
deducts the parks item Of $lo,O75,925. Next
it deducts the water works item Of So, s,172,5s9.
These two subtractions reduce the total OF
s4s,9s7, ,6s4 to S35, 5,6ss, ,7s6. which is somewhere
within million dollars Of PoRTER's reduced
total OF S36, ,2O3 65S. The Press tries to give
the impression that this is the process fol-
lowd by PORTER and that he did, In fact,
take out the huge item for parks. as 1t has
been insisting for about week.
He followed no such process. He does
not even pretend to have followed any sucn
process. The items which he did deduct
from the first total of S4s937,694 are dis
tinctly stated in the bulletin: There has
been deducted in each case from the ordinary
expenditures OF the city the amount ex-
pended for libraries schools, public build
ings, charitable objects, and water works or
the use Of water"
These five items, in the case OF New York,
amount by the census showing to $l2, 734,041,
as can DO seen from the table printed above
in the extract from the Press:
s2o'ooo
Schools foos.<to
Charitable objects. 2sso 4o'
Pubic building. so8ssos
Water WORKS ai72.os3
Total. 7a4,oh
Deducted from the total Of $4s937, ,694. this
leaves $36, ,2O36 653. which Is precisely the
administrative total stated by the bulle-
tin, and from which PORTER proceeded to
compute his fraudulent per capita.
The Press, on the other hand, pretending
that the slOO75 925 for parks was deducted.
gets an administrative total somewhere near
PoRTER's ss6 e5s only by omittins to de-
duct libraries, schools, public buildings, and
charitable objects. Water works is the only
item Of tho five which it subtracts from the
first total OF S4s, s,937,694. II PORTER, after
deducting the five items which he says he
deducted, and which he did deduct in the
case of New York as Of all the other cities,
had also deducted parks, as the Press in
sists that he did, the administrative" total
on which the per capita is based would have
been S26, 127, ,72s. instead Of $50, ,2o3,653.
There is no pretence at the Census Office,
or anywhere outside Of the Press Office, that
the ten millions for parks were not in
cluded. Expenditures on account OF the
purchase and opening OF new parks and pub
lie places" says DIR. JOHN w. PORTER. the
gentleman in charge of the division Of mu-
nicipal finances, "could not be separated
from the reports for works Of this descrip-
ton already In use. That was the case In
New York, where The SUN has made kick,
but we are not to blame"
From the amount OF total ordinary ex-
penditures," says ROBERT P. PORTER In his
last letter to Comptroller MYERS, "the
amount OF certain items Of the classification,
believed to be extraordinary, that is. not
necessarily connected with the current ex-
penses OF the city, WAS deducted, and the re-
mainder treated as approximate admins
trative expenditures, as Is fully explained in
the text OF the bulletin. Perhaps more, and
perhaps fewer of the items OF the classifca-
ton should have been deducted to arrive at
the object sought, but that is purely mat
ter of opinion. The bulletin states precisely
what was DONE"
And yet in the face OF these perfectly clear
admissions from the Census Office. PoRTER's
organ in this town continues to insist that
the ten millions for new parks rere deducted
by PORTER in making up his false and fraud
uent rating Of New York city as the most
extensively governed Of all American towns
Of more than 2OO. 900 population.
As we have already remarked, the course
OF the Press is worth attention only because
OF the relations existing between that news
paper and the Census Superintendent. A
more impudent, slippery, and conscienceless
journalistic scamp We have not stepped on
for many day.