Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1908-04-30
SOME FIGURES.

The manipulators Of the so-call'd
American party. who are exceedingly
anxious to increase the debt Of the
city. in order that they may have
public funds for party campaign pur-
poaes, have, of course, not for mo-
ment considered the financial ability
of the community to carry the extra
burden. It Is a fact, however, that
very few cities of the United states
have as large per capita indebted
ness as Salt Lake City and still
smaller number has a larger load to
carry.
The special reports on Wealth. Debt
and Taxation, issued by the Census
Office. Of the Department of Commerce
and Labor, s. n. ID. North Director Of
Census, prove this. In Table sc, Tho
indebtedness, funded and floating. rs
reported for the year 1909. is given.
with comparative figures for 1890 and
1880. According to these figures,
Los Angeles, for instance. in 1909 had
a total Indebtedness of sS,sS7.OeS.
The population at that time was about
11.7TS, and the per capita indebted-
ness. $3.50. The total Indebtedness Of
Denver was $i,074,636; debt, less
sinking FUND assets, $3,763,6S2; the
population was 1904, and the per
capita Indebtedness, $27.46. Sacra-
mento reported a debt amounting
only t. $109,400 and population of
don't If 81 Il.
This had been reduced from slp2O
ner CAPITA in 1850. Omaha IS one of
the debt-rdden cities of the Union
hut Salt Lake is ahead. Omaha had
in 1902 "A total debt of s6,535.402; M
debtcdness less sinking fund assets
Ss,425.7S0; population OF 1Os,fb9'
and per capita debt of s5S.54. San
Francisco had a total debt of SIS
435 Ii a population of 351,5i0. The
Indebtedness less sinking fund assets
was S6O4,S51, and the per capita
debt. only SIZE. This had been re-
duced from S13.OS in 1880
Chicago st. Louis and Philadel-
phia are far below salt Lake in the
per capita Indebtedness. Chicago's
total debt was, for the year covered
by the census report, s59.41I211 and
the population 1,s15,445. The debt,
less the sinking fund assets, %jl,S22,-
500. and the per capita debt, 226.22.
The figures for st, Louis give "A per
capita Indebtedness of $SS.7G, reduced
from $65.1S. In 1880; and for PhiIa-
delphia, SSs.94 per capita, reduced
from s64.01 In 1850,
Compare these figures with those
given for Salt Lake. our total in
debtedness, 1902, was S3,54127o TO a
population of $3.50. The per capita
indebtedness is given as s64.o7!
Bu. the situation IS sim worse now.
the city is owing in the neighbor-
hood Of &400O,Oo0. rather more than
less. The proposition Is to add 5000, 900
to that debt and with the
reckless methods prevailing, the
probability is the indebtedness
VIII bee increased round all
lion. " the tax-payors consent to
a bono issue That means a debt Of
abou, S5,OO0ooo 10 "a population that
hardly exceeds 10000, or per capita
debt of S7l,43
Hut even n we consider only The
figures for 1909. very fcw cities ar'
worse off than salt Lake. Thero e
Galveston, Texas with per cup,t'
debt OF $685.. but the citizens mere
had 10 rebuild after the fearful dsstruc
ton by GOOD, salt Lake Is already
for enc reason OF other, so deep y
debt that should u calamity befal 1t
IN tho form OF Are or earthquake
romaurution would be well night i'm
possible.
New York IS one OF the few elite
that are worse on than salt Lake n
this respect. The total indebtedness
for 1902 was s464,as9.s7s, and tn
debt less sinking fund assets. 1896.
oss.se2' There was a large 'ncrsas
between lSso and 1909 owing TO IN
annexation of Brooklyn ana otbe
s'uez' The population was 5000