New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-04-07
MORE FRAUD POINTED OUT
BADLY PADDED CENSUS RETURNS.
OUTRAGEOUS WORK DONE IN TIE TENTH WARD.
BROOKTYN

BEOOkLIN.
The State census In the Tenth Ward OF Brooklyn has
been padded oLtraeeously. over 10000 more inlab'
itans have been returned from the ward than be
found there In the general grab for political power,
each petty district leader the Democratic party has
schemed TO keep his special district lines intact The
Tenth Ward Is glaring Instance OF crooked enumerd-
lion. James McCary, the ward "boss," is well
known figure In Brooklyn. The ward returned IN
February having o331 Inhabitants. or 5000 more
than Mr.. Porcrs count. McGarry had heard that the
ratio II Assembly Districts would be about 10000. II
wOuld be great for the Tenth Ward TO have it,
own Assemblyman instead Of dividing honors with the
Third Ward in the lid Assembly District Of Brook
Ign.
The absurdity Of the reported increase In the Tenth
Ward is seen in the fact that 1t is OF the Oldest
settled parts OF Brooklyn. 1t is bounded by Bergen
Fourth and First ss. second ave. Fifth ST., Fourth
Place and COurst. The native population com
prscs nearly twO-thrds Of the whole number OF inhab
uants IN 1875 the state census gave 24.566 inhab
itont, The United states Of 1850 returned
27I4O, an increase in five years Of about . per cent
The census OF 1870 returned 3i03l inhabitants, an In
crease of Gs0l for the decade. or about 20 per cent
Now Mc(iarrys appointed cnumcratOrs apparently show
an increase Of 5000 the short period Of sixteen
months or ~ per cent whereas. the increase during
the whole decade previous TO 1900 was only 20 per
cent or 6e0l The population Of the ward is so
strongly OF native birth. that II Mr. Porters enumer-
aor, had returned than the average ratio OF III
crease the census Of the ward in lo00 would have been
rightly termed untrustworthy. The following table
shows the returns Of population since 1910
Total. Native. For born. Males. Female ,s n,.;
1899 1889 I s seod Ao' rgG G&S by 1896 %ais'
1892 5O38 Not reported.
That the census OF 1890 for the ward was correctly
taken. is proved by the vote cast In 1876 the ward
cast 4oG5 vote, out OF the population Of 2470o. or
one ont Of every So inhabitants. In 1eso. with
population Of 27l40 the number of votes cast WAS
1881, or one out OF every 5.05 inhabitants. Ihe
cen,i, Of l.go showed "a 03l. In the election Oh
lsss the total vote cast was CAST one out OF every
| 524 In 1901 with all OF the excitement OF INC
Mavoralty contest the total vote cast fell 100 VO'S
behind that of 1855 The difference was 80 slight as
not materially 20 affect the ratio upon the oasis o
the census Of 1890. Thus is proved concllsiVely th
the censu, OF the ward IN 1890 absolutely correct
based upon the vote OF 1876 10 the state census oi
1873 the vote and Census OF 1850 and the votes OF
1888 and 1901 under the census Of loOo More thah
this the census Of 1890 gives a larger Popuatloh At
codne to the total vote cast In loeS ana III leol 'ha
either the census OF 1873 or that OF 1scO upon ue
| vote, cast then No fault can be found WIN tle
| census Of 1900 In the ward, unless both inc stab
census Of 1873 and the United States census OIL iooo
ar,. di,cr,sited The charges Of Mc'arry ana ouers
that Mr. Porter returned less than the true population
Of this ward falls 20 the ground.
Now II We assume the state census OF l-'- 10 DC
correct II would show that In le0l only one out Of
ovcr. 20 Inhabitants voted. This would utterly up
20, all prcc.dcnts established III CohscrN awe ""u
-, ,h ceu.l, of 1870 ls-O and 1880. The following
ahl bov, the vote II the Tenth Ward ana the tO"hs
In I-9i a. compared 10 the ccnsu, OF lpoo ana l7'-