The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
WM. J. HARRIS, DIRECTOR
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES
HAVING A POPULATION
OF OVER 30,000: 1912
PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF LE GRAND POWERS,
CHIEF STATISTICIAN FOR FINANCE AND MUNICIPAL STATISTICS
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1914
CONTENTS.
TEXT.
Page15-28
INTRODUCTION
Character and importance of municipal statistics
15-21
Scope of report
15
Increase in the number and population of cities having over 30,000 inhabitants
15
Increase in the number and population of places having over 8,000 inhabitants
16
Statistics of cities having over 30,000 inhabitants
17
Comparative statistics of 146 cities for 11 years
17
Governmental costs of cities and of the Nation
17
Comparative indebtedness of cities and of the Nation
19
Cities having a population of over 30,000 in 1912
20
Difficulties in compiling report
.
21-28
Difficulties arising from differences in governmental organization
21
Difficulties arising from differences relating to the custody and expenditure of money
21
Difficulties arising from differences in accounting for administrative funds
21
Difficulties arising from the use of antiquated and diverse methods of classifying revenues and governmental costs or receipts
and payments
;
22
Difficulties arising from the collection of state and county revenues by different governmental units
,...
22
Difficulties arising from the exclusive use of cash accounts by city comptrollers and treasurers
23
Difficulties arisingfromlack of proper accounts with materials and supplies
24
Difficulties arising from confounding expenses and outlays with contingent liabilities incurred
'24
Difficulties arising from the different methods of accounting for interdepartmental services
25
Difficulties due to lack of accounting for depreciation...
26
Difficulties arisingfromfaulty accounting for interest chargeable as outlay or expense
26
Difficulties arisingfromauditing claims after the close of the year to which they relate
27
State supervision of municipal accounts decreasing the difficulties of compilation
27
Introduction of improved accounts as a factor decreasing the difficulties of compilation
27
The value of uniform accounting terminology in lessening difficulties
28
ACCOUNTING TERMINOLOGY
Accounts and accounting
Accounts
Accounting
Municipal accounting
^
Classification offinancialdata
Municipalfinancialprograms and budgets
Municipalfinancialprograms
*
Municipal budgets
Municipal appropriation encumbrances, expenditures,*revenues, and borrowings
Municipal appropriation encumbrances
.
Municipal expenditures
Municipal governmental costs
Municipal expenses
-.
Classes of expenses referred to in text
.
Municipal expenses of governmental maintenance
Municipal expenses of property maintenance
Municipal commercial expenses
.•#.
Municipal noncommercial expenses
Municipal trust expenses
Municipal nontrust expenses
Classification of expenses for municipal statistics
Expenses of general departments
Expenses of public service enterprises
--Municipal interest
Municipal outlays
T
Municipal ledger adjustments
I
Municipal expense ledger adjustments
Municipal expenditures for amortization of debts
Municipal expenditures for accumulation of special funds
Municipal budget expenditures
——
^—,
Municipal revenue expenditures or charges..«
_.
—-
:
2&-02
28,29
28
28
28
29
29
' 29
29
29-40
29
30
30
t
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
32
33
,
;
-
^
;
,
.'
.'
,
(3)
CONTENTS.
4
ACCOUNTING TERMINOLOGY—Continued.
#
Municipal appropriation encumbrances, expenditures, revenues, and borrowings—Continued.
Paga.
^Municipal special assessment expenditures or charges
-33
Municipal bond expenditures or charges
*-*
*
••**
33
Municipal nonbudget expenditures
33
Resources for meeting municipal expenditures
33
Municipal revenues.
33
Classes of revenues referred to in text
33
Municipal commercialrevenues
33
Municipal noncommercial revenues
-*33
Municipal trust revenues
,*
33
Municipal nontrust revenues
-*
*
33
Municipal ordinary revenues
34
Municipal extraordinary revenues
.'
34
Classification of revenues for municipal statistics
34
Taxes and the sovereign power of taxation
•
34
Subjects, objects, and methods of taxation
34
Classification of taxes
•
35
Property taxes
36
The general property tax
.
36
Special property taxes
i
36
Poll or personal taxes
.
...J..........
36
Business taxes
36
License business taxes
„
.........*
37
Nonbusiness license taxes
*37
Special assessments
37
Fines and forfeits
38
Escheats
*
38
Subventions and grants...
.•
.....*
38
Donations and gifts
38
Pension assessments
38
Fees and charges
38
Tolls
,.;
39
Rates
39
Highway privilege dues
39
Major highway privilege dues
„
39
Minor highway privilege dues.
39
Other revenues
40
Municipal borrowings
40
Funded borrowings
.
40
Revenue borrowings
*
.... v
40
Special assessment borrowings
40
Municipal fund accumulations*
'.
40
Municipal revenue ledger adjustments
.
40
Municipal receipts and payments
40-44
Receipts and payments in census statistics
!
..
40
Receipts
„
40
Payments
.
..„
41
Municipal receipts and payments
....
41
Municipal revenue receipts
."
41
Municipal nonrevenue receipts
;
41
Municipal governmental cost payments
41
Municipal nongovernmental cost payments
42
Significance of primary classification of municipal receipts and payments
42
Secondary classification of municipal receipts and payments
.*;
,_ #
42
Municipal receipts from the public
*,'.". .*.
42
Municipal payments to the public
;
;
42
Municipal transfer receipts
,
42
%
Municipal transfer payments
„
\m
43
Significance of the secondary classification of municipal receipts and payments
„
43
Subordinate classes of municipal receipts and payments
43
#
General transfer receipts and payments
,
43
Service transfer receipts and payments
.
43
#
Interest transfer receipts and payments
43
4
Investment transfer receipts and payments
44
u
Major transfer receipts and payments
,.
„
_
44
Minor transfer receipts and payments
44
Municipal assets, properties, public improvements, liabilities, and proprietary interests
um 44*49
Assets in private accounts
.
^
44
\ in governmental accounts
44
#
CONTENTS.
5
ACCOUNTING TERMINOLOGY—Continued.
Municipal assets, properties, public improvements, liabilities, and proprietary interests—Continued.
Municipal assets
!
Classification of municipal assets
Current assets of a municipality
Invested assets, or investments
General account assets
_.
Special assessment account assets
Capital account assets
.
:
Trust fund assets
Municipal properties
.V
Municipal public improvements
Accounts with assets, properties, and public improvements
»
Liabilities in private and governmental accounts
*
Debts or debt liabilities
Trusts
Private trusts
Public or charitable trusts
Municipal debts or debt liabilities
Actual debts or debt liabilities of municipalities
,
Nominal debts or debt liabilities of municipalities
Current debts or current debt liabilities of municipalities
Fixed or funded debts of municipalities
Floating debts orfloatingdebt liabilities of municipalities
Gross and net debts
*.
Proprietary interests in private accounts
Municipal proprietary interests
Municipal reserves
Municipal free or unreserved proprietary interests
Offsets to municipal assets
Municipal accounting summaries
Use of summaries in accounting.-.*-.
General income statements of private enterprises
-.
Summaries of increases and decreases of assets, liabilities, and proprietary interests of private enterprises
Summaries of the outcome of municipal business
•.
.*
Municipal budget summaries
:
Summaries of municipal revenuet, expenses, and interest
Summaries of net municipal receipts and expenditures on capital account
Commercial summaries of the outcome of municipal business
Summaries of municipal receipts and payments
:
Summaries of municipal budget receipts and payments
Summaries of municipal budget payments, by funds and objects
Income statements of municipally conducted public service enterprises
1
Comptrollers' auditing summaries
Balance sheets in private business
Municipal balance sheets
Municipal current, fund, or budget balance sheets
Municipal general balance sheets
.
Municipal consolidated account balance sheets
*
. . . *.
f
Summaries of debUincurring power
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL T A B L E S . . . . . . . . .
-„...
Number and character of general tables
Groups of cities
Table 1—
,
#
Date of incorporation as a city
Population
Area
Table 2—
Data included in table
Defcriptive terms used
Cities governed by mayor and council
Cities governed by commission
Cities governed by the manager plan
Mayor
City clerk
Comptroller and auditor
Treasurer or chamberlain, and collector of revenue
Assessors
City attorney or solicitor
-
Page.
44
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
46
46
47
47
47
47
47
47
48
48
48
48
48
48
49
49
49
49
49-62
49
49
50
50
:...
50
53
53
53
54
56
56
57
57
58
58
58
60
61
61
:
63
63
63
-
-*--
63
63
63
*
*-
-
--*
i.
-
•-•
•
-
:
-s
64
64
64
64
65
66
66
66
C6
66
66
6
CONTENTS.
DBscBirnoN OF GENERAL TABLES—Continued.
P
Tables.
.
"%
v
Summary of all receipts and payments
Summary of cash balances
*
.---*
Table 4—
~
Summary of revenue receipts and governmental cost payments
Summary of net and transfer revenue receipts and governmental cost payments
Divisions of the governments of cities
"*
Revenue receipts of the divisions of the city governments
^
Differences in revenue systems of the different states
'~
Comparison between revenue receipts and all governmental cost payments
70
Comparison between revenue receipts and payments for expenses and interest
-.
71
Comparative summary of the revenue receipts and governmental cost payments of 146 cities: 1903-1912
72
Table 5—
Per capita revenue receipts and governmental cost payments
73
Per capita net revenue receipts and governmental cost payments
73
Revenues and governmental costs increasing with the size of cities
•
75
Comparative summary of per capita net revenue receipts and net governmental cost payments: 1902-1912
76
Changes in per capita net revenue receipts: 1902-1912
76
Changes in per capita net governmental cost payments:-1902-1912...
*
76
Comparative summary of per capita net receipts from principal revenues of 146 cities: 1902-1912
77
Table 6—
Character of table
77
Per cent distribution of revenue receipts, by cities
77
Proportional distribution of revenue receipts, by divisions of the government of cities
78
Proportional distribution of revenue receipts, by states
78
Comparative summary of per cent distribution of net revenue receipts: 1902-1912
78
Per cent distribution of governmental cost payments in 1912, by cities
78
Comparative summary of the per cent distribution of net governmental cost payments: 1902-1912
79
Per cent relation of revenue receipts to governmental cost payments
79
Table 7—
Character of table
.
. *.
79
Receipts from the general property tax
79
Receipts from special property taxes
80
Connecticut
80
Delaware
80
Maryland
.
80
Massachusetts
\
80
Michigan...
..
80
Minnesota
80
New Hampshire;
.
80
New Jersey
„
.
80
New York
80
Ohio
80
Virginia
....
*.
80
. Wisconsin
80
Receipts from poll taxes
.*
.
80
Receipts from taxes on the liquor traffic
*
*.
80
Receipts from business taxes other than on the liquor traffic...
81
Receipts from license taxes on dogs
.
81
Receipts from general license taxes
*.
81
mm
Receipts from permit taxes
*.
^
81
m
Receipts from special assessments
..
.
_^
82
v.
Receipts from special assessments for expenses
;
* 82
#
Receipts from special assessments for outlays
82
Receipts from special charges for outlays
,
82
Receipts from fines and forfeits
^
82
#w
Receipts from escheats
g2
#
TableS—
Receipts from subventions and grants
.
g2
t
mm
Receipts from donations, gifts, and pension assessments
82
TablesClassification of general departmental receipts
.
^
g3
mm
Character of receipts tabulated as from general departmental earnings
83
#
Receipts from fees and charges.;
^
!•!*!""]"!*!***
83
mm
Receipts from rents and sales
.
llll]"!"*!]!!*"
84
m
Receipts from other sources
\
].!!!!..!!*!!
*•**•*
^
Table 10—
Receipts from major highway privileges
^
gl
m
Receipts from minor highway privileges
^
**'*
g^
m
mm
Receipts from rents of municipal investment properties
....
.]***"
""
85
Receipts from interest
^
*
"**"
g*
CONTENTS.
7
DESCRIPTION OP GENERAL TABLES—Continued.
Table 1 1 Public service enterprises
Receipts of public service enterprises.
Table 12—
Payments for general departmental expenses
;
.
Imperfect statements of expenses
Comparability of statistics of expenses of 1912 with, those of previous years
-.
Payments for expenses of miscellaneous general executive offices
Payments for expenses of inspection for protection to person and property
Payments for expenses of miscellaneous protection to person and property
Payments for expenses of educational recreation
Payments for miscellaneous expenses
Payments for city pensions and gratuities.
Payments of judgments and claims for personal injuries
Payments for undistributed expenses
Exceptional payments for expenses by Massachusetts cities
v
Comparative summary of payments for general departmental expenses of 146 cities: 1902-1912
Table 13—
Payments for the principal general departmental expenses, total and per capita
Expenses increasing with population of cities
Comparative summary of the per capita payments for general departmental expenses: 1902-1912
Table 14rPer cent distribution of payments for the principal general departmental expenses, by object of payment
Comparative summary of per cent distribution of general departmental expenses of 146 cities: 1902-1912
Table 15—
Payments for expenses of public service enterprises
Table 16—
Municipal service enterprises
i
Table 17—
Payments for interest on city debts.
Increase in actual and relative payments for interest
Exceptional payments for interest by Massachusetts cities
Table 18—
Payments for outlays
Table 19—
Summary of nonrevenue receipts
.'
Summary of nongovernmental cost payments.
.,
-.
Secondary classification of nonrevenue receipts and nongovernmental cost payments
Table 20—
Receipts from the sale and payments for the purchase of investments
Receipts from the sale and payments for the purchase of supplies
Transfers of investments and supplies
Table 21—
Receipts which increased and payments which decreased indebtedness
Transfer receipts and payments on debt account
Receipts from and payments to the public on debt account
:.
—
Transactions which increased the debts of Massachusetts cities to the Btate
Transactions which decreased the debts of Massachusetts cities to the state
Table 22—
Counterbalancing receipts and payments
1
General transfer receipts and payments
,
^
Table 2 3 Summary of all receipts, payments, and cash balances, by divisions and funds of city government
Bate of close of fiscal year
Table 24—
Sinking funds of two distinct types
*
Transactions of sinking funds
Table 25—
Public trust funds for municipal and nonmunicipal uses
.
Transactions of public trust funds for municipal uses
Table 26—
Amount of specified assets and value of public properties at close of year
•Assets of sinking funds
Assets of public trust funds for municipal uses.
Assets of investment funds, and value of miscellaneous investments
-*. *
Assets of public trust funds for nonmunicipal uses
Assets of private trust funds
•
-*
Page .
85*
85
86
86
87
87
- 88
88
88
89
90
91
91
91
91
1
92
92
93
93
94
94
95
96
97
97
..
97
98
98
98
98
98
98
'.
99
99
99
99
100
100
100
v
100
101
101
101
102
103
104
I04
104
104
105
i05
CONTENTS.
8
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES—Continued.
Table 27—
Value of properties employed or held for specified purposes
Valuation of municipal properties.
-*•
Comparison of increase in value of municipal properties with municipal outlays
Value of properties of general departments
Value of properties of municipal service enterprises.
:
Value of properties of public service enterprises.
Table 28—
Replacement value of public improvements
Table 29—
Gross and net indebtedness of cities
.
•
**
Indebtedness classified by the governmental unit by which incurred
Indebtedness classified by character of outstanding debt obligations
;
Indebtedness classified as funded
Indebtedness classified as
floating
•
•••••
Special debt obligations to public trust funds
•
Indebtedness of Massachusetts cities to the state.....---.
-Indebtedness classified as current.. 1
*
Indebtedness classified by creditor...
............
....................
Indebtedness classified by purpose for which incurred
Increase during year in debts and sinking fund assets
Per capita indebtedness........
*
Increase of indebtedness with size of cities
Table 30—
Funded and special assessment indebtedness, classified by purpose for which incurred
Comparison of funded and special assessment indebtedness with the value of municipal properties
Table 31—
Funded and special assessment indebtedness, classified by year of maturity
-*•*
Table 32—
Interest-bearing debt, classified by rate of interest
Nominal and actual rates of interest
Table 33—
Par value of debt obligations issued and redeemed during the year
Table 34—
Assessed valuation of property
v
Reported basis of assessment in practice
Tax rates
Cities with two or more tax rates
Per capita property taxes
Table 35—
.Summary of appropriations, receipts, payments, and balances for schools
Revenue appropriations of city and receipts from the general property tax
Liquor taxes as school revenues
Miscellaneous taxes as school revenues
*....
Subventions from other civil divisions
School fees and charges, including tuition fees
.
.
....
Rents and interest as school revenues
...
Other general fund revenues of schools. .*.
m
Nonrevenue receipts of schools
.
m
School receipts from issue of debt obligations
„
School receipts from sales of property, investments, and supplies
..
School receiptsfrom\)ther sources
mm0
School payments
.
^
u
School payments for governmental costs
.
4
Nongovernmental cost payments of Bchools
"
Table 30—
Payments for school expenses
,..,.
Payments for expenses of general administration of schools
. 1... 1 1 . . . . 11
Payments for expenses of instruction
.. .
Payments for expenses of operation of school plant
11.111111111111111
Payments for expenses of maintenance of school plant
. . . . . . 1..11111111111 * 11111
Payments for miscellaneous school expanses.
. _ /^
111111*1111
Ill**
Summary of payments for school expenses, by object of expense
.....111111111111111111
Average of school expenses for specified objects
1.1111111111" 1111
Distribution of school expenses, by object
1.....1111
1* *
Average expenses for specified kinds of schools....
.....-1..1-.111111111111
"
Distribution of school expenses, by kind of school
\
...111.1*11*
Payments for expenses of schools for colored pupils
..1.11.11111**1"
"
School expenses and interest on the value of school properties
111111111" 1
*
¥t
|*j
j™
JjP
°
10
™
108
108
*°8
109
109
1°9
100
110
110
110
1*0
110
HI
118
113
114
114
114
115
116
115
115
118
118
118
118
118
118
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
n$
119
119
119
120
120
120
120
120
121
121
121
121
122
122
125
CONTENTS.
9
DESCRIPTION OP GENERAL TABLES—Continued.
Table 37— '
Payments for expenses of general administration of schools
Payments for expenses of business administration of schools
Payments for expenses of educational administration of schools
Payments for expenses of general administration of schools for colored pupils
Table 38—
Payments for school outlays
Payments for Bchool outlays, classified by object
Payments for outlays, classified by kind of educational activity
Payments for outlays for miscellaneous schools and educational activities
Payments for outlays for schools for colored pupils
Table 39—
Average attendance at schools
School attendance and population
Cities with highest and lowest average attendance
Per cent distribution of school attendance, by kind of school
Average attendance at elementary day schools
Average attendance at secondary day schools
Average attendance at normal schools
Average attendance at other day schools
Average attendance at night schools
Number of school sittings
Number of school buildings
Number of schoolrooms
Table 40—
Average payments for school expenses
Average payments per 100 inhabitants
Inaccurate averages per 100 inhabitants
Average payments for schools for colored pupils
Table 41—
S chool employees
*
School administrative officers
Supervisors, teachers, and other school employees
i
".
Table 42—
Teachers* pensions
v
Cities without permanent teachers* pension funds
Cities with permanent teachers* pension funds
School pensions in cities classified according to population
.
Page.
125
125
125
126
126
126
126
126
127
127
127
129
129
129
129
130
130
130
130
130
131
131
131
131
131
132
132
132
132
132
133
133
GENERAL TABLES.
Table 1. Bate of incorporation, population, and area of cities having an estimated population of over 30,000 on July 1,1912
Table 2." Specified city officials, number, terms of office (in years), method of elections (by wards or at large), and annual salaries of:
1912
Table 3. Summary of receipts, payments, and cash balances: 1912
Table 4. Summary of revenue receipts and governmental cost payments, by divisions of city government: 1912
Table 5. Per capita revenue receipts and governmental cost payments: 1912
Table 6. Per cent distribution, by principal classes, of revenue receipts and governmental cost payments: 1912
Table 7. Revenue receipts from taxes, special assessments, fines, forfeits, and escheats: 1912
Table 8. Revenue receipts from subventions, grants, donations, gifts, and pension assessments: 1912
Table 9. Revenue receipts from earnings of general departments, by principal divisions of the general departmental service: 1912..
Table 10. Revenue receipts from highway privileges, rent of investment properties, and interest: 1912
Table 11. Revenue receipts from earnings of public service enterprises: 1912
Table 12. Governmental cost payments for expenses of general departments, by principal divisions and subdivisions of the general
departmental service: 1912
Table 13. Governmental cost payments for expenses of general departments, by principal divisions of the general departmental
service, total and per capita: 1912
*
Table 14. Per cent distribution, by principal divisions, of the expenses of general departments: 1912
Table 15. Governmental cost payments for expenses of public service enterprises: 1912
Table 16. Municipal service enterprises—Payments for outlays and expenses, offsets to payments for expenses, and undistributed
expenses or gains: 1912
Table 17. Governmental cost payments for interest:,1912
Table 18. Payments for outlays, by principal divisions of governmental service: 1912
Table 19* Summary of nonrevenue receipts and nongovernmental cost payments: 1912
.*
Table 20. Nonrevenue receipts from the sale of investments and supplies and nongovernmental cost payments for their purchase:
. 1912
-
137
140
146
150
168
171
174
180
184
190
193
196
214
220
224
226
228
232
238
241
10
CONTENTS.
Table 21. Nonrevenue receipts which increased and nongovernmental cost payments which decreased municipal indehredness: 1912.
Table 22. Miscellaneous nonrevenue receipts and nongovernmental cost payments: 1912
Table 23. Receipts, payments, and cash balances, by divisions and funds of city government: 1912
Table 24. Sinking funds—Receipts and payments: 1912
•
•••
Table 25. Public trust funds for municipal uses—Net revenue receipts and net governmental cost payments, and excess of transfer
receipts over transfer payments: 1912
*
Table 26. Amount of specified assets and value of public properties at close of year: 1912
Table 27. Value at close of fiscal year of properties employed or held for specified purposes: 1912
Table 28. Replacement value of public improvements: 1912
••
Table 29. Total and per capita of all debts, and of the principal classes thereof, at close of year,Together with changes during the year
in funded andfloatingdebt, net debt, and sinking fund assets: 1912
Table 30. Funded and special assessment debts at close of year, classified by purpose for which incurred: 1912
Table 31. Funded and special assessment debts at close of year, classified by year of maturity: 1912
Table 32. Interest-bearing debt, classified by rate of interest: 1912
Table 33. Par value of debt obligations issued and redeemed during the year: 1912
Table 34. Assessed valuation of property, basis of assessment, and taxes levied: 1912
;
Table 35. Summary of appropriations, receipts, payments, and balances for schools: 1912
.
Tfcble 36. Payments for expenses of schools, classified by kind of school or other educational activity and by object: 1912
Table 37. Payments for expenses of general administration of schools: 1912
.
Table 38. Payments for school outlays: 1912
.
Table 39. Average daily school attendance and number of school sittings, buildings, and rooms: 1912
Table 40. Average payments for expenses of elementary day, secondary day, normal, and night schools per 100 inhabitants and per
100 pupils in regular attendance: 1912
Table 4i. School employees: 1912
Table 42. Receipts and payments on account of teachers1 pensions, and assets of pension funds: 1912
244
250
253
^
«»*
290
296
302
306
312
318
324
327
330
848
354
388
391
394
400
403
406
DIAGRAMS.
Diagram 1. Population of continental United States in municipalities having over 30,000 inhabitants, in those having from 8,000
to 30,000 inhabitants, and outside such municipalities: 1790-1912
.
Diagram 2. Per cent of total population in municipalities having over 30,00Q inhabitants, in those having from 8,000 to 30,000
inhabitants, and outside such municipalities: 1790-1912
Diagram 3. Net governmental cost payments of the United States and 146 cities: 1902-1912
.Diagram 4. Net payments for outlays for the United States and New York City: 1002-1912
.....
Diagram 5. Net indebtedness of 146 cities, the United States, and New York City: 1902-1912
Diagram 6. Per capita net indebtedness of New York City, 146 cities, and the United States: 1902-1912
Diagram 7. Per capita revenue receipts, and per capita payments for expenses and interest, and for outlays, in groups of cities with
specified excess of revenue receipts over payments for expenses and interest
.
Diagram 8. Net revenue receipts and net governmental cost payments of 146 cities: 1902-1912
Diagram 9. Per capita net revenue receipts and governmental cost payments for groups of cities with specified population: 1912..
Diagram 10. Per capita net revenue receipts and governmental cost payments for cities with highest and lowest per capita govern*
mental cost payments in groups of cities with specified population: 1912
Diagram 11. Per capita net payments for the principal governmental costs of 146 cities: 1902-1912
«,
Diagram 12. Per capita net receipts from the principal revenues: 1902-1912
;
m
m
Diagram 13. Per capita net payments for specified general departmental expenses by groups of cities with specified population in
1912
Diagram 14. Increase in the per capita payment for the principal general departmental expenses: 1902-1912
Diagram 15. Per cent distribution of principal general departmental expense: 1902-1912
Diagram 16. Revenue receipts and payments for expenses of the water-supply systems of 146 cities: 1902-1912
Diagram 17. Increases in net indebtedness and net payments for interest by 146 cities: 1902-1912
Diagram 18. Increase of per capita indebtedness with increase in size of cities: 1912
,
Diagram 19. Per capita net indebtedness of cities with highest and lowest per capita in groups of cities with specified population:
1912
Diagram20. Increase of property tax levies with increase in size of cities: 1912
.
m
Diagram 21. Averages per 100inhabitants of the expenses for stated objects of theschoolsin groups of cities with specified iwpulaUon:
1912.
...i
-**-••*-••-•**-•**••----...*..............♦♦..*.......
Diagram 22. Per cent distribution of the expenses of schools for stated objects in groups of cities with specified population:" 1912* ] *.
Diagram 23. Averages per 100 inhabitants of the expenses of stated kinds of schools in groups of cities with specified population: 1912..
Diagram 24. Per cent distribution of the expenses of three kinds of schools for the maintenance of each of those kinds in groups of
cities with specified population....
^
^
16
16
18
18
19
19
72
73
76
75
77
77
92
93
94
95
97
Ill
Ill
H8
121
121
122
222
MAR
Location of cities in the United States having a population in 1912 of over 30,000
facing..
20
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
B U R E A U OF T H E C E N S U S ,
Washington, D. C, June 1, 1914.
SIR:
I have the honor to transmit herewith the eleventh annual report of the Bureau of the Census on financial
statistics of cities having a population of over 30,000, showing in detail the financial transactions of 195 cities
for the fiscal year 1912, the assessed valuation of taxable property on which their levies were made during that
year, and their indebtedness and assets at the close of that year. The financial transactions of these cities
have been analyzed and are so presented as to show, both for the whole city and for its important departments,
the net revenue collected, the net costs of conducting municipal business, and the indebtedness incurred for
meeting these costs*
The introduction presents a discussion of accounting terminology and of the statements showing the
municipal program and the outcome of municipal business, with the hope that the continued discussion of
these important subjects may lead to a greater uniformity in the use of technical accounting terms and to a
clearer understanding of the administrative problems that confront those charged with the business administra
tion of our large cities.
The present volume presents the complete analysis of the data contained in Bulletin 118, which was
transmitted under date of December 15, 1913, at the same time introducing the correction of certain errors
therein contained.
This report was prepared by Le Grand Powers, chief statistician for finance and municipal statistics,
assisted by Starke M. Grogan and Morris J. Hole, whose efficient work it is desired to acknowledge.
Very respectfully,
(/
Director of the Census.
Hon. WILLIAM C. REDFIELD,
Secretary of Commerce.
(11)
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES
1912
(13)
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES HAVING A POPULATION
OF OVER 30,000: 1912.
INTRODUCTION.
and four-tenths times its population in 1790, while the
number domiciled in the cities, each containing over
Scope of report.—The present report of the Bureau 30,000 inhabitants, was eight hundred and twenty-four
of the Census is practically limited to a presentation of and five-tenths times as great as the number of those
statistics of the financial transactions during the fiscal dwelling in the one city of that size 120 years before.
year 1912 of the 195 cities each of which had a popu The population of the cities of the size here considered
lation of over 30,000 on July 1, 1912, and of the finan increased from 1790 to 1910 more than thirty-five
cial condition of those cities at the close of the fiscal times as fast as did the population of the Nation,
year mentioned. The report presents statistics as accu exclusive of its outlying possessions. Table I, which
rate and as comparable as it has been feasible to com follows, exhibits the population of the Nation, exclu
pile from the records of the cities, relating to a number sive of outlying possessions, and the number and popu
of subjects, the principal of which are (1) the total and lation of cities, each having over 30,000 inhabitants,
per capita receipts from revenues, and from the prin as the same is reflected in the enumeration of the Fed
cipal classes thereof; (2) the total and per capita pay eral census at each census year beginning with 1790
ments for expenses, interest, and outlays, and for and ending with 1910. There is included in the same
each of the principal classes of expenses and outlays; table the number of cities, each of which in 1911 and
(3) the total and per capita value of municipal proper 1912 had an estimated population of 30,000, and the
ties and public improvements; (4) the total and per total estimated population of such cities.
capita municipal indebtedness; (5) the total and per
capita assessed valuation of property subject to taxa Table I
CITIES 'WITH OVEB 30,000
UNITED STATES.
INHABITANTS.
tion; and (6) the average daily school attendance
and number of school buildings, rooms, sittings, and
Population.
TEAR.
employees.
Population. Number.
Increase in ike number and population of cities TiavPercent
Total.'
of
ing over 30,000 inhabitants.—The growing importance
national.
of a report such as that described above is shown by
95,545,336
29,320,579
195
30.7
one of the most striking social facts of the last cen 1912
1911
93,927,342
30.4
193
28,559,140
91,972,266
29.7
184
27,316,407
1910
tury—the greater increase in the population of cities 1900
25.1
75,994,575
135
19,050,921
62,947,714
103
12,612,389
1890
20.0
than of smaller places or of farming communities. In 1880
15.3
63
50,155,783
7,677,766
38,558,371
13.5
1870
5,210,397
44
1790, when its first census of population was taken, 1860
31,443,321
10.3
3,246,736
26
7.3
23,191,876
1,703,302
19
the United States had but one city with a population 1850
17,069,453
4.6
784,323
1840
86
3.9
12,866,020 i
501,434
of over 30,000. That was New York, N. Y.} which 1830
9,638,453
3.0
293,544
1820..
4
3.2
7,239,881
230,437
;..
at that time had 33,131 inhabitants. The two cities 1810
1.9
5,308,483
101,735
1800
1
3,929,214
0.8
33,131
which ranked next to New York in number of inhabit 1790
ants were Philadelphia, Pa., with 28,522, and Boston,
The number of cities given for each census year is the
Mass., with 18,320.. In 1790 the national population
number
of those with separate organizations at the
numbered 3,929,214, and the population of New York
City constituted only 0.8 per cent of that of the Nation. time of enumeration. Of those cities it should be
Sixty years later, in 1850, when the population of the mentioned that Brooklyn, N. Y., which was a sepa
country numbered 23,191,876, there were 19 cities each rate municipality of over 30,000 inhabitants for each
having a population of over 30,000. The largest of census year from 1840 to 1890, was consolidated with
these was New York, with a population of 515,547. New York, N. Y., prior to 1900; and Allegheny, Pa.,
The 19 cities had an aggregate population of 1,703,302, which is included in the table as a separate city from
which constituted 7.3 per cent of the national popu 1860 to 1900, was consolidated with Pittsburgh, Pa.,
lation. At the end of a second 60 years, in 1910, the prior to 1910.
cities of the United States, each having a population of
The estimated population of cities, each of which
over 30,000, numbered 184 and had an aggregate popu had over 30,000 inhabitants July 1, 1912, is given in
lation of 27,316,407. This was 29.7 per cent of the Table I, and the number and population of such cities
91,972,266 inhabitants of continental United States. in each of the nine geographic divisions are shown in
In 1910 the population of the Nation was twenty-three Table II, which follows.
OHABAOTEB AND IMPORTANCE OP MUNICIPAL STATISTICS.
(15)
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
16
cating the relative growth of the total population
residing in places having over 8,000 inhabitants.
In 1790 about one-thirtieth (3.3 per cent) of the
29,320,579
195
population of the country was living in places of 8,000
32~
3,118,758
inhabitants or more, in 1820 about one-twentieth (4.9
47
11,060,593
39
6,444,195
per
cent), in 1850 about one-eighth (12.5 per cent), in
19
2,420,274
IS
1,928,173
1900
about one-third (33.1 per cent), and in 1910 a
11
930,474
12
1,040,075
little
less
than two-fifths (38.8 per cent).
5
450,434
12
1,927,603
In Diagram 1 are presented for each census year the
relative population of continental United States, that
Increase in the number and population of places hiv of places each of which had over 8,000 inhabitants,
ing wer 8,000 inhalitants.—The Tenth Census report, and that of cities each of which had over 30,000 inhab
that for 1880, contained a list of places, including the itants. In Diagram 2 are shown the percentages of
New England towns, each of which had a population the national population at each of the census years
of 8,000 and over June 1, 1880. Similar lists have residing in the places and cities here referred to, and
been compiled for each of the subsequent census years. 'the percentage of national population residing outside
The increase in the number of inhabitants in places of
these places. Diagram 1 shows the steady increase
the population stated can therefore be traced since
in the total population and that of the two classes of
1880 with approximately the same accuracy as that
places, while Diagram 2 exhibits graphically the
in cities having a population of 30,000 and over. The
greater relative increase in the population of cities
census report for 1880 also contained a comparative
having over 30,000 and of places having over 8,000.
statement, compiled from the imperfect data at the
command of the office, of the population living in DIAOBAK 1.—POPULATION OP CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES IN
MUNICIPALITIES HAVING OVER 30,000 INHABITANTS, IN THOSE
places of 8,000 inhabitants or more at each census
HAVING *BOX 8,000 TO 30,000 INHABITANTS, AND OUTSIDE SUCH
year from 1790 to 1870. The bureau in its report for
MUNICIPALITIES: 1790-1912.
the Thirteenth Census reproduced this statement and
s MtUJONS
O
10
30
30
40
SO
00
TO
BO
00 100
combined it with similar and more exact records of
1912
/XX«255^Jfi^5fiJ^5^^5555i^5^555f
the population of places having over 8,000 inhabitants
1911
mfyMAwM»M/»;///Aw/aB*
for the years of 1880,1890,1900, and 1910. The com
1910
w///jM///»////tom.233
5ZZZ
I90O
O^i^555^00555£»0555!%55$«^
parative statement thus prepared, combined with esti
1890
V>S!»fi^5555555fi!55555^555^55
mates of the population July 1, 1912, of the places
1880
which in 1910 had 8,000 inhabitants or over, is pre 1870
sented in Table III, which follows.
I860
Table II
Cities.
GEOGBAPHIC DIVISION.
Population*
T
1 I
Table i n
UNITED
STATES.
PLACZ3 WITH 8,000 INHABITANTS
Oft KOBE.
Population.
TXIB.
Population.
1912
1910
1900
1890
1880
1870
1860
1850
1840
1830
1820
1810...
1800
1790
.
95,545,336
91,972,266
75,994,575
62,947,714
50,155,783
38,558,371
31,443,321
23,191,876
17,039,453
12,866,020
9,638,453
7,239,881
5,308,483
3,929,214
Num
ber.
1778
778
556
449
291
226
141
85
44
.26
13
*6
Total.
^37,781,998
35,726,720
25,142,978
18,327,987
11,450,894
8, OH, 875
6,072,2562,897,586
1,453,994
864,509
475,135
356,920
210,873
131,472
Per
cent of
nation
al.
139.5
38.8
33.1
29.1
22.8
20.9
16.1
12.6
8.5
6.7
4.9
4.9
4.0
3.3
* Of places which in 1910 had 8,000 Inhabitants or more.
In this table all New England towns containing 8,000
inhabitants or over are included for each census year.
No estimates have been made of the number or popula
tion of places which had less than 8,000 inhabitants
April 15,1910, but had more than that number July 1,
1912. Thefigureswith reference to places having over
8,000 inhabitants in 1912 as given in Table III are there
fore not strictly comparable with those of cities having a
population of over 30,000 as given in Tables I and II.
The extent of noncomparability, however, is small, and
does not greatly affect the value of the table as indi
I860
1840
1830
1820
1810
1800
1790
wm
■ ■ I
CtriEB WITH 3 0 . 0 0 0 Oft MOPE POPULATION
VSJA
ernes WITH B ,000 TO 30,000 POPULATION
Y////A
POPULATION OUT*!DC SUCH CtTlCS
DIAGRAM 2.—PEE CENT OF TOTAL POPULATION IN MUNICIPALITIES
HAVING OVEB 30,000 INHABITANTS, IN THOSE HAVING FROM 8,000
TO 30,000 INHABITANTS, AND OUTSIDE SUCH MUNICIPALITIES:
1790-1912.
PERCENT
1912
191!
1910
1900
1890
1880
1870
I860
I860
1840
1830
1820
1810
/Z/^«^?^^5^^^^555^iS55^
/Z/^^#55^$«3^»5^K5^ZZ*S$3
V>OSgg3^g!ggSZg^ggg!»g^SS^Z»S3a
rxy^^^^53S$*5^»5$5«00$555«^
sssv/y///;f/?ysA?jy/^^^
1790
■ ■ I PER CSNT IN QITIW WIT* 30,000 OK MORE POPULATION
Z Z Z P E " CtNT IN CITIEB WITH B.OOOTO J o . 0 0 0 POPULATION
faW/AfV*
CSNT OUTWOC SUCH OTICS
UCTION,
17
Statistics of cities having over SOfiOO irihahitants.— than of the United States as a whole are very striking.
The unprecedented increase in the number and the They do not, however, show the magnitude of the
actual and relative population of-places having over financial problems which have developed in connection
8,000 inhabitants, as well as of cities having over with that increase as do the figures in Tables IV and
30,000, has given rise to many and grave governmental V which follow.
problems. To assist, so far as the same could be ^ Table IV gives for each of the 11 years from 1902
done by the aid of exact statistical information, in the | to 1912, inclusive, the total and per capita net gov
solutioivof these problems, Congress in 1898 authorized ernmental costs of the 146 cities for which the bureau
the Department of Labor to compile and publish an has compiled statistics, and the corresponding costs
nually the statistics of cities having a population of of the National Government, together with the net
over 30,000. Later, after the establishment of the total and per capita outlay payments for New York
Department of Commerce and Labor, the compilation City for its public works, and those for the National
of these statistics was transferred by executive order Government for the Panama Canal, public buildings,
to the Bureau of the Census, and this office published forts and fortifications, and river and harbor improveits first statistics on this subject for the year 1902. | ments. The net governmental costs of the United
Similar statistics have been compiled and published States Government for current operation, by which
for each year up to and including this report.
i is meant costs exclusive of pensions, for the 11 years
Comparative statistics of lJfi cities for 11 years.—OfI covered by the table exceeded those of the 146 cities by
the 195 cities to which this volume relates, statistics §138,151,164, or only 1.8 per cent. In 1912 the costs of
have been presented in all of the 11 reports mentioned these 146 cities exceeded the above mentioned costs of
for only 146 cities. In this statement of numbers the the National Government by S95,314,105, or 11.7 per
two cities of Pittsburgh and Allegheny, Pa., which cent. If comparison is made between the total gov
wore consolidated into the present city of Pittsburgh, ernmental costs of the United States, including those
are counted as one for all years. The growth in pop for pensions, it is seen that the total of the United
ulation of the 146 cities for which the Bureau of the States exceeds that for the 146 cities for the 11 years
Census has now compiled comparable statistics for 11 by only $1,767,612,958, or 23.5 per cent; and that in
years is shown in the following statement:
1912 it exceeds it by only 6.4 per cent. In 1912 the
net governmental costs of the 195 cities covered by
this report were $954,635,839. Comparing these
TZAR.
YEAR.
Population.
Population.
I costs with those of the United States it is found that
1912
27,422,994 1 1906
22,530,736
the total costs of the United States Government for
1905
1911...„
.
29,788,017
21,973,431
25,904,769
1904
1910
21,434,324
that year exceeded those of the 195 cities by only
25,108,590 1 1903
1909
20,869,155
20,369,308
23,608,858
1902
1908
§10,637,839, or 1.1 per cent.
23,107,777
1907
The most striking figures of the table are the outlay
payments
of the city of New York for permanent prop
The 146 cities whose population is given above and
erties
and
public
improvements, as compared with simi
for which comparative statistics are given in this re
lar
payments
of
the National Government for (1) the
port include all cities to which this report relates, with
Panama Canal, including payments on account of that
the exception of the cities of Fort Worth, Tex., Okla
structure to the French Company in 1904, (2) public
homa City, Okla., and Wichita, Kans., of Group IV,
buildings, (3) forts and fortifications, and (4) river
and the following cities of Group V: Pueblo, Colo., New
and harbor improvements. In 11 years the United
Britain, Conn., Berkeley, Cal., Bay City, Mich., El Paso,
States Government expended for all these purposes
Tex., San Diego, Cal., Tampa, Fla., Flint and Kalama
the total of $730,186,603, while the single city of
zoo, Mich., Macon, Ga., West Hoboken, N. J., Roanoke,
New York expended for permanent properties and
Va., Huntington, W. Va., East Orange, N. J. ; Hamil public improvements the aggregate of $778,029,771,
ton, Ohio, Lexington, Ky., Springfield, Mo., Charlotte, or 6.6 per cent more than the National Government*
N. C , Pasadena, Cal., Everett, Mass., Decatur, HI.,
The population which bore the burden of national gov
Portsmouth, Va., Perth Amboy, N. J., Quincy, Mass., ernmental costs was nearly three and five-tenths times
Lansing, Mich., Pittsfield, Mass., Cedar Rapids, Iowa, as great as that of the 146 cities, and nearly nineteen
San Jose, Cal., Amsterdam, Jamestown, Mount Vernon, times as great as that of the city of New York. The
and Niagara Falls, N. Y., Jackson, Mich., Williamsport, totals of the table, therefore, do not exhibit the rela
Pa., Lima, Ohio, Muskogee, Okla., New Rochelle, N. Y., tive burden of national and municipal governmental
Aurora, 111., Lorain, Ohio, Austin, Tex., Newport, Ky., costs. That burden is measured approximately by
Orange, N. J., Lynchburg, Va., Shreveport, La., Colo the per capita figures of the table. The per capita
rado Springs, Colo., and Council Bluffs, Iowa.
governmental costs of the 146 cities for the 11 years
GovernTnerddl costsl of cities and of ihe Nation.— average three times those of the National Govern
The figures given in Tables T and n showing, the ment for all purposes and were three and six-tenths
greater relative growth of the population of cities times those of the National Government for all pur
1
poses other than pensions; and the per capita outlay
For definition of "governmental costs,*' see p. 30.
28656°—14
2
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
18
payments for New York City for the same period National Government for all public works of which tho
were twenty-one and nine-tenths times those of the table makes specific mention.
NET GOVERNMENTAL COST PAYMENTS.
Table IV
*
TEAE.
146 cities for all
purposes.
|
For all purposes.
United States.
New York City lor
permanent proper
ties and public
improvements.
For Panama Canal,
public bufldinjp,
For all purposes other
forts and fortifica
than pensions.
tions, and river and
harbor Improvement*.!
For pensions.
1
Total.
1912
1911
1910
1909
1908
1907..
1906
1905
1904
1903
1902
,
Per
capita. 1
Total.
$7,521,929,978
29.03 19*289,542,936
906,997,327
862,229,808
807,224,695
761,562,037
761,527,311
691,049,439
965,273,678
33.08
964,085,555
32.19
950,795,418
31.16|
90.33 1,002,303,040
924,566,889
32.26]
818,541,147
29.91
600,383,766
583,646,656
566,509,115
518,225,379
462,574,445
26.65
26.56
26.43
24.83
22.71
763,103,908
746,568,098
776,802,225
694,111,489
683,391,489
Per.
capita.)
Per
capita. 1
Total.
TotaL
Fcr
capita. 1
Total.
capita.*
'
Total.
Per
capita,!
1.60 17,660,081,142
7.07
$730,186,603
$778,029,771
16. »
lbl'lO
10.28
10.32 1
11.07
10.40 1
9.37
153,590,456
157,980,575
160,696,416
161,710,367
153,892,467
139,300,514
1.61
1.68
1.74
1.79
1.73
1.60
811,683,222
806,104,980
790,099,002
840,592,673
770,674,422
679,231,633
8.50
8.59
8.57
9.28
8.67
7.78
93,150,050
91,454,237
86,997,306
83,760,608
82,161,537
62,528,589
0.93 1
0.98
0.94
0.92
0.92
0.72
82,831,928
£8,424,126
75,379,758
60,959,555
£3,417,149
75,481,437
16.35
17.84
15.81
15.11
18. C&
17*86
8.90
8.88
9.42
8.59
8.63
141,034,562
141,773,965
142,559,266
138,425,646
138,488,560
1.65
1.60
1.73
1.71
1.75
622,069,346
604,794,133
634,242,959
555,685,843
544,902,929
7.26
7.19
7.G9
6.87
6.88
56,468,527
39,946,415
84,723,534
28,362,054
20,622,647
0.66
0.4S
1.03
0.35
0.26
64,890,253
62,300,640
68,501,402
64,422,050
42,322,573
15.78
15.58
17.64
17.34
11.68
9.66
$1,629,461,794
0.75
i Average annual per capita.
The table further shows that the relative burden of
"governmental costs as measured by per capita pay
ments therefor is increasing much faster for munici
palities than for the National Government, Com
paring thefiguresfor the total costs in 1902 and 1912
it is found that those of the National Government for
all purposes increased from $8.63 to 810.10, or 17 per
cent; while those of the 146 cities increased from
$22,71 to $33.08, or 45.7 per cent. Thesefiguresdis
close at once the greater relative importance of the
proper administration of city affairs and the necedsity
of such a system of accounting and reporting as will
best assist in securing and maintaining economy and
efficiency in city government. The necessity of such
accounting and reporting is much more pressing in
DIAGRAM 3.—NET GOVERNMENTAL COST PAYMENTS
UNITED STATES AND 146 CITIES: 1902-1912.
OF THE
the case of cities than in that of the Nation, owing to
the greater relative per capita governmental costs of
the cities. The two diagrams wliich follow arc de
signed to present graphically the most important facta
shown in Table IV. They present for each year (1)
the total payments for all governmental costs by 146
cities; (2) those by the United States for pensions
and for all purposes other than pensions; (3) tho total
payments of tho United States Government for tho
construction of tho Panama Canal, public buildings,
forts and fortifications, and river and harbor im
provements; and (4) tho payments of Now York
City for the construction of its various public works,
buildings, and other public improvements.
DIAGRAM 4.—NET PAYMENTS roa OUTLAYS ton THE UNITEDSTATES AND NEW YORK CITY: 1902-1912.
M I L L I O N * O r DOLLARS
, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
40O
COO
40
1012
1911
eo
r///jr//:M?///s7///m&.w//y^^^
wjy/jy/swmr/r//jy///w/s^^^^
I9IO
r////////?/w///sy/////^^^^
1900
v////Mw//mrwy/mY//^^^^
1008
1007
v////wmr//#?//s/////s^^^^
%7////AV/////MV///J^^^
1006
r/zwy/.?/////M'/M^^^
1005
1004
'w///AY/mr/Aw///mv^
Ml
1
1
I
wmwtf/////Aw//mr^^^
it
Ws/sww/////s/y/M^^
OUTLAYS UNITED STATES
OUTLAYS. NEW YOWK CITY }
INTRODUCTION.
19
Comparative indebtedness of cities and of the Nation.— From 1902 to 1912 the net indebtedness of the
Table V is a comparative statement which calls atten Nation varied somewhat from year to year, increasing
tion to one class of financial problems which grow out during the 11 years by $58,117,456, or 6 per cent ol
of the vast expenditures above noted.
the indebtedness in 1902. This increase was wholly
due to the expenditures for the acquisition and con
INDEBTEDNESS.
Table
struction
of the Panama Canal. The national popu
V
lation increased, however, during those years by a
YEAR.
United States.
New York City.
146 cities.
greater percentage than the national debt, and hence
Per
Per
Per i
Total.
Total.
Total.
capita.
capita.
capita.
the relative burden of national indebtedness as
represented by the per capita indebtedness decreased
$1,027,574,697 $10.77 $1,932,547,533 $70; 47 $792,927,021 $156.57
1912
723,292,829
145.92
1911.. . 1,015,784,338 10.83
1,803,129,085 67.31
from $12.24 to $10.77, or 12 per cent. In 1902 the
1910
1,046,449,185 11.35 11 1,657,861,296 64.00 i 656,194,384 137.66
1909 . . .
1,023,861,531 11.31 1 1,537,099,399 61.22 ! 608,244,820 131.39
net
indebtedness of the Nation exceeded the net in
10.55 1 1,434,991,649 60.78
550,778,903
123.16
938,132,409
494,799,541 117.09
878,596,755 10.06 1 1,288,318,890 55.75
debtedness
of the 146 cities by $69,279,080, or 7.7 per
11.25
435,324,772
105.84
964,435,687
1,175,970,979 52.11
11.77
395,596,022
98.89
989,866,772
1,118,087,784 50.88
cent. The increase of the city debt in the 11 years
11.73 t 1,062,746,750 49.58 ! 370,503,521
95.29
967,231,774
11.44 | !
305,067,267
82.09
943,006,632 45.19
925,011,637
1903.v...
was so much greater, actually and relatively, than
12.24
276,983,472
76.45
969,457,241
900,178,161 44,19
that of the Nation that at the close of the fiscal year
By net indebtedness is meant the total debt obli 1912 it exceeded the national debt by $904,972,836,
gations outstanding less the resources available or or 88.1 per cent. Another fact of importance to be
provided "for their immediate or ultimate redemp noted is that while the population of these cities in
tion. In the case of the National Government the creased in 11 years from 20,369,308 to 27,422,994,
amount of indebtedness is computed by subtracting or 34.6 per cent, their net indebtedness increased
the cash in the Treasury from the total debt obliga from $900,178,161 to $1,932,547,533, an addition of
tions outstanding; and in the case of the cities it is $1,032,369,372, or 114.6 per cent, as compared with
obtained by deducting the sinking fund assets from the an increase of only 6 per cent in the national indebted
sum of the funded and floating debts, as those terms ness. The greater burden of municipal than of na
are used in this report, the outstanding current debt tional indebtedness, as well as the greater relative
being approximately balanced in all cases by cash in increase in that burden, is exhibited by the per capita
the general treasury and by special assessments and gen debt of the cities, which increased in the 11 years from
eral property taxes levied but uncollected. So far as
$44.19 in 1902 to $70.47 in 1912, an added burden of
the figures fail to be comparable they slightly exag
gerate the city debt ; owing to the fact that many cities 59.5 per cent.. I t is to be noted that the per capita in
have uncollected taxes and cash on hand in excess of debtedness of these cities, which in 1902 was three and
their revenue loans and warrants outstanding; but six-tenths times the corresponding per capita indebt
this excess affects the per capita for the several years edness of the Nation, had so increased in 11 years that
in 1912 it was nearly seven times such indebtedness.
by only a very few cents, at most.
DIAGRAM 5 . — N E T INDEBTEDNESS OP 146 CITIES, THE UNITED
STATES, AND N E W YORK CITY: 1902-1912.
MtLOON* OF 0OUAR3
* 1*00
DIAGRAM 6 . — P E R CAPITA N E T INDEBTEDNESS OF N E W YORK
CITY, 146 CITIES, AND THE UNITED STATES: 1902-1912.
ZZ2ZZZZZZZZ7
1012
(oi2 r^^Afyy/^yz/^vyA^cBBfaaa
^///////>//W///J
ion
^
^
^
Q
7///W/IZ
'jjjbsjMfyMrr^JMJbm*
ioio
tezzzttzzoazmzMzzzza
Msujfjfmmffju
jooe
BZZrMteiTitt
| UNITED « T * m
| NtW YORK CITY
E22E3
M M HEW YORK CITY
BZZ21«« cmcs
HSS2I UNITED «TATt».
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
20
The figures for the city of New York are more
striking than those for the Nation, or for the 146 cities
taken as a whole. In the 11 years covered by the table
the population of that city increased from 3,623,160 to
5,064,237, a gain of 39.8 per cent, while the net in
debtedness of the city increased from $276,983,472 to
$792,927,021, a gain of 186.3 per cent. As a result
the per capita indebtedness, which in 1902 was $76.45,
so increased that at the close of 1912 it was Si56.57,
or two and two-tenths times that of the 146 cities
taken as a whole and fourteen and five-tenths times
that of the United States Government, as compared
with twenty-one and nine-tenths, the number of times
City
num
ber.
CITY AND STATE.
ALABAMA:
♦Birmingham.
. Mobile
• Montgomery
ARKANSAS:
-Little Rock.
A
y
V 115
w
124
14
31
. U 162
V, 109
I
"* Bridgeport
• Hartford...
•New Britain
•New Haven
- Waterbury
DELAWARE:
• Wilmington
y
V
Y/
Y
V)
V.
4r
52
36
[/
78
Y
64
DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA
. Washington
FLORIDA:
♦Jacksonville
•Tampa
1/
K
91
133
GEORGIA:
• Atlanta
• Augusta
•Macon
• Savannah
</,
s/.|
yk
32
116
140
89
ILLINOIS:
• Aurora
•Chicago
• Decatur
• East St. Louis
-Joliet
•Peoria
'Quincy
;.
• Rockford......
- Springfield
INDIANA:
• Evansville....
•Fort Wayne...
•Indianapolis .
• South B e n d . . .
• TerreHaute..
IOWA:
• Cedar Rapids.
• Council Bluffs,
• Davenport
• Des Moines
• Dubuque..
•Sioux City.
LOUISIANA:
186
2
165
1/ 9 0
y i6i
v
86
V
159
114
[y 103
85
87
22
r
y\J 92
• 93
y
v.
y
M\
195
130
62
147
J 111
V
I ,
New Orleans
•Shreveport
MARYLAND:
194
26
119
104
157
*j . 27
Jr 189
•Portland
{/ 16
W 193
"
/
V
•Baltimore
MASSACHUSETTS :
* Boston
* Brockton..-,.....
' Cambridge
^[
* Chelsea
vf
-Everett
Fall River.
Fitchburg.
Haverhill
rhilL
• Holyoke
-Lawrence
-Lowell
..
•Lynn
Maiden
•New Bedford..
•Newton
• Pittsfield
♦Quincy
-Salem
• Somerville
•Springfield
-Taunton
W
• Worcester
5
97
49
184
164
42
146
126
99
63
48
61
123
51
141
171
169
128
74
59
168
MINNESOTA:
*Duluth.v
• Minneapolis...
-St. Paul
MISSOURI:
- Joplin
- Kansas C i t y . . .
• St. Joseph
• St. Louis
• Springfield
MONTANA:
• Butte.*
* Atlantic City,.
• Bayonne
* Camden
* East Orange
•Elizabeth
• Hoboken
• Jersey C i t y . . . .
•Newark
-Orange
* Passaic
, Paterson
r Perth Amboy..
Trenton
•West Hoboken,
^
r
136
170
110
J
70
18
28
K> 181
¥/
21
K 75
h
V
113
96
.*{
58
if 154
.V 77
82
19
y 15
190
94
40
V 167
54
149
N E W YORK:
•Albany
•Amsterdam....
* Auburn.......
♦ Bingham ton...
•Buffalo
• Elmira
if
♦ Jamestown....
* Mount V e r n o n . . . . . 4^
• NewRocheile.
• New York
-Niagara Falls..
^ Rochester
. Schenectady..
' Syracuse
Troy
,
-TJtica
-Yonkers
• Charlotte
125
9
135
V
81
55
175
163
112
10
152
176
177
185
1
178
25
73
35
79
76
66
NOBTH CAROLINA:
MICHIGAN:
•Bay City
• Detroit
' •Flint
> Grand Rapids.
• Jackson
^Kalamazoo
• Lansing
•Saginaw/
N E W HAMPSHIRE:
N E W JERSEY:
4
ij/ 1 142
58
/
- Akron
» Canton
•Cincinnati.....
»Cleveland.
u
• Columbus
>j
• Dayton
*ny
• Hamilton
....r
'Lima
-Lorain
• Springfield....
-Toledo
-Youngs town...
V
'Muskogee......
.Oklahoma City
160
80
107
13
6
29
44
156
182
187
117
30
67
|y 183:
J
72
V
24
OHEGON:
• Portland
•Allen town
'Altoona
* Chester
•Erie
' Harriaburg.
* Johnstown
* Lancaster
•AIcKeesport....,
.Newcastle
.Philadelphia....
•Pittsburgh
'Beading
* Scran t o n . .
Wilkes-Barre...
•Williamsport....
•York.....
102
105
145
84
&
1/ 05
118
? 134
150
3
y S
y 57
38
y-y 83
y/ 1 8 0
v^122
R H O D E ISLAND:
•Pawtucket
•Providence
•Woonsocket....,
0100
< 23
/ 143
SOOTH CAROLINA:
100
-Charleston
TENNESSEE:
•Chattanooga....
* Knoxville
'Memphis
,
-Nashville
,
U 121
K/155
1/
46
TEXAS:
•Austin
'Dallas..;
* El Paso
,
•Fort Worth
* Galveston.....
'Houston
•San Antonio....
UTAH:
* Salt Lake City.
VIRGINIA:
OHIO;
OKLAHOMA:
num
ber.
OTT AJCD STATE.
PENNSYLVANIA:
129
41
-Lincoln
-Omaha
Manchester....
•Covington
* Lexington
•Louisville
^Newport
V 174
• Colorado Springs.. ., Denver
■>]
• Pueblo
y
65
W 127
U 101
KENTUCKY:
MAINE:
COLORADO:
CONNECTICUT:
'Kansas City
•Topeka..
* Wichita
Xl32
City
num
ber.
OTT AND STATS.
NEBRASKA:
KANSAS:
34
108
144
CALIFORNIA:
* tBerkeley
*Los Angeles.
• Oakland
: Pasadena...
' Sacramento
• SanDiego--...
• San Francisco
'SanJose...
aty
num
ber.
OTT AND STATE.
which the per capita outlay payments of tho city for the
11 years were of the corresponding outlay payments
of the General Government, as summarized in Table IV.
The accompanying diagrams present by tho graphic
method the facts set forth by Table V, that tho bur
den of net municipal indebtedness at the present time
is much greater, relatively, than is that of tho National
Government; and tho further fact that tho debts <rf
cities are rapidly increasing, while that of tho Nation
is remaining practically stationary.
Cities having a population of over 30,000 in 1912.—
The cities having an estimated population July l,
1912, that exceeded 30,000 numbered 195.
* Lynchburg
•Norfolk...
•Portsmouth
'Richmond
* Roanoke.......
V
^
188
53
131
V
60
V
56
192
71
166
V, 39
V 151
WASHINGTON:
•Seattle
•Spokane
•Tacoma.......
W E S T VIBGINIA:
* Huntington....
'Wheeling
WISCONSIN:
■La Crosse..
•Milwaukee
.Oshkoah........
* Racine
* Superior
< , 20
y/, 43
•
60
1/153
^ 139
1/191
1/ 173
1/ 137
138
INTRODUJCTION.
In the general tables of this report, with one excep
tion, the cities are arranged in the order of their esti
mated population and each is given a number corre
sponding to its position in the tables. For convenience
in finding any particular city the preceding list has been
prepared, the cities being arranged alphabetically by
states and the number assigned to each being indi
cated. The location of these cities is shown on the
accompanying map of the United States.
DIFFICULTIES IN COMPILING REPORT.
In the compilation of statistics such as have been
described in the opening paragraph of this introduc
tion, especially in the compilation of those of munici
pal expenses, many difficulties are met with. De
tailed statements of those difficulties, of the factors
and circumstances giving rise to them, and of the
methods employed and the success realized by the
Bureau of the Census in overcoming them are here
presented to aid in the proper use of this report, espe
cially .in comparing its figures with those of local
reports.
Difficulties arising from differences in governmental
organization are met with in all parts of the country.
In some cities all local municipal powers and activities
are administered by a single governmental organiza
tion, while in others those powers are distributed
among a number of independent governmental bodies.
In each case the one or more bodies by which the local
governmental activities are administered constitute
the government of the city, which is here spoken of as
the city government. The term city corporation as used
in this report is applied to the governmental organiza
tion or body in a city which has only one independent
division, and also to the municipal organization exer
cising the principal authority in the government of a
city with two or more local governmental bodies.
For a city with local governmental powers exercised
by two or more bodies the data required relate to
all such bodies, and the Bureau of the Census has
collected them from all and has combined them
into a single report for the city government, thereby
making the resulting statistics comparable with
those of a city in which the governmental powers are
concentrated in a single governmental body or
corporation.
A special difficulty arising from differences in local
governmental organizations is met with in those locali
ties where the territory governed by the city corpora
tion is materially less than that governed by another
municipal body, as that of the school district. For
such a city the census, instead of including for its com
bined statement all the receipts and payments, or all
the revenues and governmental costs, property, and
debts of the civil division with the larger territory, in
cludes only such a percentage of the same as the valua
tion of the property within the territory of the city
, corporation assessed for the purpose of taxation con-
21
stitutes of the valuation of the property within the
limits of the larger division.
Difficulties arising from differences relating to the
custody and expenditure of money are, if anything, more
common than those described in the last paragraph.
Not infrequently a city with a single governmental
unit receives and expends some revenue or other money
for which the corporation is responsible without such
money passing through the hands of the treasurer or
chamberlain. These receipts and payments are (1)
those of departments which are authorized to collect
certain fees and charges and make specified sales, and
expend the money thus obtained for specified pur
poses without covering it into the treasury or receiving
warrants or orders for its expenditure, and (2) those
of sinking, trust, and all other funds under the man
agement of special commissions or boards. In a large
number of cities with two or more governmental units
some money is similarly expended by those units.
Further, in some cities referred to, each of the persons
acting as treasurer or chamberlain may pay out money
on the order of two or more different officers with the
authority or power of a comptroller or auditor. The
difficulties here described are overcome by securing
reports from all officials receiving and paying out
money from which the city corporation or other gov
ernmental body derives benefit, or for which it is re
sponsible, and from every officer issuing warrants or
orders, the same as is done in the case of independent
governmental units, and combining the data thus
obtained with other data into a single statement of the
financial transactions of the city government.
Difficulties arising from differences in accounting for
administrative funds are universal. The most impor
tant are those met with in the case of so-called trust
funds. The character of the resulting difficulties may
be illustrated by concrete cases.
Some cities having trust funds whose incomes by
the terms of the trust are expended for educational,
charitable, or other purposes, keep accounts with these
funds, which show on the one side their annual earn
ings, and on the other their direct expenditures for the
purposes of the trusts. Other cities having similar
funds keep trust accounts which show on the one side
the earnings of the funds, as in the first instance, and
on the other the transfer of these earnings to other
funds, as the general fund, or revenue fund, through
which those earnings are expended, and in the ac
counts of which the expenditures are recorded. Sta
tistics of payments compiled from the general fund
accounts of the second class of cities will include with,
other payments for expenses the amounts expended
for the purposes of the trusts from moneys transferred
from the trust funds to the general treasury, and will be
noncomparable with those based upon the accounts of
the same kind of funds of the first class of cities.
Further, there will be no comparability between the
statistics based upon the records of the so-called trust
22
FINANCIAL STATriSTTCS O F CITIES.
funds of the two classes of cities, since the trust ac
counts of the cities of the first class contain a record
of expenses not included in those of the second class.
The differences above noted affect statistics of
municipal expenses. Similar differences are to be
met with on the side of municipal revenues, the most
common case of noncomparability of this class being
found in the accounts of cities with the receipts from
taxes on fire insurance companies that are appropri
ated by general statutes for the maintenance of fire
men's pension funds. Some cities in which such use is
made of the given tax collect the tax by their general
collecting agencies, and the amounts so collected are
shown in the accounts of the city treasurers and city
comptrollers with the general or revenue funds, from
which the amounts collected are transferred to the
trust funds for custody and investment or expendi
ture. In other cities the amounts are collected by
officials connected with the administration of the
trust funds, and no account of their receipt is shown
in the accounts of the city treasurers and comptrollers
with the general or revenue funds, and there is no com
parability between the tax statistics of the two classes
of cities if these are based solely upon the record of
either the general or revenue funds, or of the trust
funds.
Many other cases can be cited, all showing how
statistics which are based upon the fund accounts of
cities are noncomparable as exhibits of governmental
costs or of revenue receipts. The two typical cases will
suffice. The difficulties arising from the great differ
ences in the organization and accounting for city
funds here noted are overcome by the Bureau of the
Census by preparing a schedule for each independent
fund in a given city and consolidating the data so
obtained into a single report for that city. The indi
vidual cities are with few exceptions keeping their fund
accounts as required by good accounting usage and
as prescribed by conditions under which they have
accepted trusts, or as called for by constitutional or
statutory provisions, but the differences in these con
ditions and provisions necessitate the census treatment
to secure comparable statements of revenues and gov
ernmental costs.
Difficulties arising from the use of antiquated and
diverse methods of classifying revenues and govern
mental costs or receipts and payments are overcome
by the Bureau of the Census only in part. Many of
the smaller and some of the larger American cities
have accounts that were installed before the business
world generaly introduced revenue and expense ac
counts to measure the results or outcome of financial
transactions. These accounts are what are known
in the commercial world as cash accounts, or accounts
with cash receipts and payments. They do not
classify receipts with reference to revenue; nor do
they classify payments with reference to governmental
costs, or to the costs of functional or departmental
activities. Further, no common classification has
been adopted by the majority of cities which have
introduced so-called revenue and expense accounts,
or have begun to classify receipts and payments with
reference to revenue and governmental costs. The
Bureau of tho Census endeavors to overcome diffi
culties which result from these conditions by having
its agents reclassify, from original vouchers, the
revenues and governmental costs, or receipts and
payments of cities. Such a reclassification, even
though made by skilled accountants with a largo ex
penditure of clerical labor and money, can not bo the
basis of as comparable statistics as would result from
the classification by intelligent public officials at the
time of the original audit. I t overcomes some, but
not all, of the difficulties which now exist. These
difficulties will diminish as fast as the cities here
referred to can be brought to see the wisdom of adopt
ing a common and scientific classification of all
revenues and governmental costs, or of receipts and
payments, such as is now in use by the Bureau of the
Census.
In this connection mention should be made of the
fact that, unless cities have introduced classifications
of expenditures based upon an intelligent application
of the principles of cost accounting, the statistics
compiled by the Bureau of the Census can not be
made comparable by the methods outlined above
except for the most important classes of expenses and
outlays, and that comparable data for the several cities
can be expressed only in per capita figures. Moreover,
the compilation of comparable cost statistics will be
possible only after the cities adopt more detailed
classifications of expenses and outlays than have
hitherto been employed by the census, and combine
their finanical statements with records of work done
or services performed or public improvements con
structed so as to show the unit costs of services and
improvements. Among such unit costs that should be
thus shown are those for the services of cleaning streets
per thousand square yards of each class of paved
highways cleaned; the cost per ton of removing each
class of city refuse; the cost per square yard of con
structing each of the various classes of pavements,
and the cost per thousand yards of laying sewers of
each size and class. It is hoped that, with the increased
public appreciation of the value of unit cost accounts
and statistics as measures of governmental and private
efficiency in business management, the Bureau of the
Census may be able at no distant date to broaden the
field of its truly comparable statistics, and to present
not only per capita statements of the costs of certain
principal public services, but also the unit costs of such
services as those mentioned and many others of equal
administrative importance.
Difficulties arising from the collection of state and
county revenues hy different governmental units are
closely related to those referred Jo under the last head-
INTRODUCTION.
23
ing. In some states the general property tax, taxes urer's accounts record the flow of cash into and out
on the capital stock of banks and other corporations, of the treasury. The accounts of the comptroller are
taxes on the liquor traffic, and other revenues accruing for most cities records of cash received by the treasurer
ior the benefit of the state and county, are collected and of warrants or orders drawn upon him in settle
by the city and transmitted to the civil divisions for ment of bills.or claims, though in a limited but growing
whose primary benefit the revenues are exacted. In number of cities they also comprise records of reve
other states the same revenues are collected by county nues, expenses, interest, outlays, assets, and liabilities.
governments. In the cities of the states first referred In a city of either class the totals for the treasurer's
to the receipts and payments to the city on account of and comptroller's accounts with cash will agree for a
these collections must be recorded in the accounts givenfiscalperiod, as a month or a year, if the treasurer
-and set forth in the published reports, while the records makes no payments except upon warrants or orders
and reports of the cities of the states last referred to of the comptroller, and if all warrants or orders of the
contain no statement of sifhilar receipts and payments. comptroller are paid within the fiscal period in which
Most of the cities in the states first referred to treat they are issued. The total of the cash accounts of
their payments to the state and county as payments these officials for any given oity will differ for a given
for current expenses, and the receipts from taxes and fiscal period if the treasurer makes any payment with
other revenues to meet these expenses, as receipts from out the comptroller's warrant or order, or if any
city revenues. A compilation of revenue receipts and warrant or order of the comptroller remains unpaid
payments for expenses based upon the printed reports at the end of the fiscal period.
In a city in which the comptroller keeps, accounts
of cities, some of which collected state and county
taxes while others did not, gives rise to noncompara- with revenues, expenses, interest, outlays, assets, and
ble statistics, the revenues and expenses of the cities liabilities, as well as with cash, no direct comparison
of the first class being exaggerated as compared with can be made between the comptroller's accounts with
those of the second. To secure comparability under revenues, expenses, interest, and outlays, and the
the circumstances mentioned the Bureau of the Census treasurer's accounts with receipts and payments.
treats receipts and payments of cities on account of Comparison can be made, however, between the total
the revenues of states and counties as nonrevenue of the. comptroller's accounts with claims accrued or
receipts and nongovernmental cost payments, even bills audited, or of his accounts with warrants or
though the local authorities have included them among orders drawn, and the total of the treasurer's accounts
with warrants or orders paid.
revenue receipts and payments for expenses.
Difficulties arisingfrom {he exclusiveuse ofcashaccwmts Detailed comparisons between the cash accounts of
by city comptrollers and treasurers are in a large part a comptroller and treasurer can be made in each of the
overcome by the Bureau of the Census. The accounts cases mentioned in the preceding paragraphs only to
of those officers, or of those exercismg their functions the extent that the two officials classify municipal
under other designations, necessarily constitute the transactions in the same way. The methods adopted
bases of the census municipal financial statistics, they by the Bureau of the Census for overcoming the diffi
being the only accounts covering the field of those culties arising in the compilation of detailed and
statistics. But the use of these accounts gives rise to comparable statistics of governmental costs from the
many difficulties which must be overcome before the existing and widely differing accounts of local comp
data therein can be embodied in comparable statistics trollers and treasurers are as follows:
For a city in which there is no comptroller, auditor,
of governmental costs. Those difficulties are patent
to every one familiar with the elements of accounting, or other official performing the functions usually
and result from the use of accounts based upon current assigned to the city comptroller, the Bureau of the
payments, rather, than upon current expenses. A Census bases its municipal financial statistics upon
description of the different accounting records in use the accounting records of the treasurer or treasurers
at the present time in American cities will assist to an of the one or more governmental units and of others
understanding of the methods adopted by the Bureau having the custody of the city money, and makes such
reclassification of the receipts according to revenue
of the Census for overcoming these difficulties.
In one class of cities the only books of account are and of payments according to governmental costs as
those of the treasurer or other officer having the may be necessary.
For a city in which there is a comptroller or other offi
custody of municipal funds. In another class addi
tional books are kept by the comptroller, auditor, or cial performing the duties of a comptroller, the census
other official exercising the duties of comptroller or statistics, for the reasons which follow, are based upon
auditor. In a city of the latter class the books of the the accounting records of such officer with such reclas
comptroller are in some respects similar to those of sification according to revenue and governmental costs
the treasurer and serve as a check upon his accounts as maybe necessary, and the records of the treasurer
and transactions, as well as upon those of the departr are used as merely auxiliary thereto:
mental officials who immediately direct the expendi
1. In most cities some of the warrants or audits
ture of moneys appropriated to publicuses. The treas issued or recorded in or for a given fiscal period are
24
FINANCIAL STAT!ISTICS OF CITIES.
not paid until a subsequent period. For such a city
the warrants, orders, or audits recorded in the comp
troller's or auditor's books for a given fiscal period
represent for that period more nearly than do the pay
ments recorded in the books of the treasurer the cur
rent costs of government, the presentation of which
constitutes the most important object of the census
statistics of financial transactions, and hence are of
greater value for statistics showing the total costs of
operating individual departments and offices, or of
acquiring and constructing the several classes of prop
erty and public improvements, and the unit costs of
services rendered or improvements constructed or
acquired, such as those of education per pupil in the
public schools, or of the construction or care and
maintenance of particular classes of paved highways
per thousand square yards of surface2. The treasurer's books, in a city having a comp
troller as well as a treasurer, do not ordinarily show
payments classified by division and subdivision of
governmental service and by object, as the books of
the comptroller or auditor classify the governmental
costs or payments, and it is from exhibits of govern
mental costs or payments so classified that such sig
nificant and comparable statistics of financial trans
actions as the Bureau of the Census endeavors to pre
sent can best be compiled.
3. In a city where neither the treasurer nor the
comptroller sufficiently classifies revenues or receipts,
and governmental* costs or payments, and the census
agent classifying the same is compelled to depend
principally upon the original vouchers of expenditures,
as has been described on page 22, he can find such
vouchers only in the office of the comptroller or
auditor.
Although the accounts of the one or more comp
trollers or auditors of a city are used by the Bureau of
the Census as the basis of the financial statistics of the
city, truly comparable statistics of its governmental
costs for a given fiscal period, as well as statistics of
its revenue receipts, of its receipts and payments on
debt and agency accounts, and of its assets and liabili
ties at the beginning and close of the fiscal year, are
secured by a combination of (1) the comptroller's
statement of warrants or orders drawn or bills audited
and judgments registered during or for the fiscal year;
(2) statements of the warrants ororders drawn or claims
audited and judgments registered during or for the
fiscal year but remaining unpaid at its close, and of
the warrants, orders, or audits and judgments of pre
vious years paid during the year, such statements
being compiled by comparing the accounts of the
comptroller and treasurer; and (3) the treasurer's state
ment of cash receipts and payments during the year and
of assets on hand at the beginning and close of the year.
By obtaining a statement for each city, as above de
scribed, the Bureau of the Census secures as accurate
and comparable statistics of governmental costs as
is feasible based almost wholly on "cash" accounts.
In addition, the methods above described make possi
ble the compiling of other comparable statistics, of
which mention was mado in the opening paragraph.
Difficulties arising from lad: of proper accounts with
materials and supplies can not be overcome by the
Bureau of the Census. Not infrequently in a city
without an organized bureau of supplies and supply
accounts, tho several departments use their unexpended
appropriations toward the close of the year in pur
chasing supplies to bo used in tho succeeding year.
In such a city t|ie materials and supplies thus pur
chased in one year are seldom the same in quantity or
cost as those purchased in the year preceding or suc
ceeding, and hence tho costs of tho various sub
divisions of the service are made to appear to vary
much more than they actually do; and tho statements
of expenses or outlays, whether recorded in cash ac
counts or expense and outlay accounts, do not repre
sent the actual current costs. A few cities are begin
ning to appreciate tins fact and are establishing
bureaus which make all purchases, charging them to
an asset supply account, and issue supplies to de
partments as required for immediate use. Tho establishnfent of such bureaus of supplies and tho employ
ment of such methods of accounting for supplies make
the local accounts or statements of expenses and.outr
lays more accurate, and to that extent aid in making
the census statistics more comparable.
Even with accounts as described, a minor adjust
ment must be made by tho Bureau of the Census in
compiling statistics of governmental cost payments,
if the cost of supplies purchased by the bureau of sup
plies for a given year is less than that of supplies
given out on requisition. The adjustment is made
by treating the excess as if it had been sold or disposed
of in meeting expenses and outlays and crediting the
supply account with receipts from supplies disposed
of which balance the excess, the same as the amount
of outstanding warrants and audits is balanced by a
receipt on account of such warrants and audits.
Difficulties arising from confounding expenses and
outlays with contingejU liabilities incurred are met with
in the case of cities which have installed so-callod
revenue and expense accounts independent of cash
accounts, but have not differentiated their accounts
with appropriations from their accounts with expenses
and outlays. These cities include in their expenses
and outlays for a given fiscal year the contingent lia
bilities that have been incurred by contract or upon
market orders during the year, and which do not ma
ture until a subsequent year. They also omit the
actual costs of the year that accrued during that year
by reason of contracts or orders of preceding years.
Such accounting gives rise to inaccurate statements
the exact reverse in character of those which arise
when payments are recorded as expenses and outlays
without regard to the period in which were performed
the services represented by the bills or claims paid.
Such accounting magnifies the inaccuracies to which
INTRODUCTION.
25
attention has been called above when cities have no same as is done in the case of the receipts and pay
accounts with supplies, and makes their expense and ments mentioned under a preceding heading, for which
outlay accounts or their payment accounts record the the treasurer or comptroller has no record.
A city operating a municipal service enterprise,
cost of materials purchased but not consumed or
used until a later period- In the collection of its data such as. an electric light plant employed exclusively
in cities having accounts such as are here referred to, for lighting streets, parks, and public buildings, if
the Bureau of the Census disregards the local record keeping accounts for the enterprise by methods sub
of current expenses and outlays^ and compiles new stantially the same as those employed by private
statements of such governmental costs based upon enterprises, makes its primary account with the
enterprise a distribution account, and shows sepa
the accrued or audited claims of the year.
Difficulties arising from the different methods of rately in its printed report the cost of lighting streets,
accounting for interdepartmental services or services by parks, and buildings as is done by cities obtaining
one department of the government for another are their lighting from private parties. Without such an
overcome by the Bureau of the Census in only a lim account the printed report can only show the cost of
ited number of cases. The noncomparability of the operating the enterprise as an independent departr
local records and the inaccurate statements of gov ment. For cities having municipal service enter-*
ernmental costs in the case of many cities, which arise prises the Bureau of the Census prepares special
from these different methods, are here illustrated by a exhibits which show on the one side the expenses and
outlays of the plants, and on the other the value of
number of concrete cases.
Many cities utilize the labor of the inmates of their the utilities and services furnished by them to the
penal and charitable institutions in caring for and public and to the various departments, the value of
maintaining their highways, or in making highway the latter being shown in Table 16 under the title
• improvements, or in performing similar work of various "Offsets to payments for expenses." For a city
kinds in parks or other departments. A few of these having accounts of operating expenses and charging
cities, recognizing the value of correct statements of the value of the utilities, services, and materials
highway and park as well as institutional expenses furnished to the proper accounts, departments, and
and outlays, charge the proper highway or other enterprises, the exhibit is a condensed summary of the
account with the value of the labor of the institutional local account. For a city whose accounts with one of
inmates at amounts equal to what it would cost if their these enterprises show no cost of the services rendered
work had been done by city employees or by contract, and utilities furnished the various branches of the
and credit the institution with the same amounts. governmental service, the Bureau of the Census
The records of such cities, so far as the highway and secures estimates of the value of these services, util
park accounts are concerned, are strictly comparable ities, and materials, and employs these estimates in
with those of cities in which work is done by city preparing the second side of the exhibit mentioned.
employees or by contractors; and their accounts with To the extent that the local statement of expenses of
institutions, showing on the one side the direct ex operating the electric light system includes all costs
penditures for the care, clothing, and guarding of for furnishing light, the resulting statistics are true
the prisoners, and on the other the value of the serv statements of the cost of public light and are compa
ices secured from them, exhibit accurately, by their rable with those of other cities; and to the extent that
balances, the burdens which the institutions force the local statement takes account of only a part of the
costs of furnishing light the statistics are inaccurate
the taxpayers to bear*
The records of such cities stand in marked contrast and the figures of the several cities are noncomparable.
with those of others in which no account is taken of (For a statement of the method of correcting inac
the value of the labor of the inmates of institutions curate statistics resulting from the failure of cities to
for other departments. Those records contain no accu include interest on the value of the electric light
rate statements of the costs of highway and park system as a part of their operating expenses, see page
maintenance or of the net burdens resting upon the 26, under "Difficulties due to faulty accounting for
cities by reason of their institutions. To overcome interest chargeable as outlay or expense.")
Inaccurate statements of governmental costs are
the difficulties in the way of comparable statistics and
to provide the basis in the case of such cities for accu ( found in the reports of all cities with public service en
rate statements of the net costs of highway, park, and terprises, such as water-supply and gas-supply systems,
institutional maintenance and operation in these in which no account is taken of the value of the public
cities, the Bureau of the Census secures estimates of utilities furnished other departments by such systems.
the value of the labor of the inmates of institutions These inaccurate statements can not give rise to statis
upon the highways and in parks, and credits the insti tics that are comparable, any more than accounts of
tutions with the value and charges the proper depart institutions and parks in the case of cities such as those
ment or account with the same. This is done by referred to on a preceding page. The inaccurate state
preparing a schedule of the receipts and payments, ments could be corrected by the Bureau of the Census
or of credits and debits on account of this labor, the I and the basis laid for comparable statistics in the case of
26
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
these public service enterprises if the data were avail- I the Bureau of the Census to compile accurate statis
able for correct estimates, as in the case of the labor of tics of governmental costs. A beginning toward cor
inmates of institutions, and in the case of the interest on recting this inaccuracy has, however, been made by the
the value of the plants of municipal lighting systems, few cities which in the case of their municipal service
as described on page 25. But such data are entirely enterprises prepare statements of depreciation as the
wanting except in the case of a few cities in which the basis of showing the costs of the services furnished
officials in charge of flie water-supply systems have and the extent to which the enterprises are actually
prepared estimates of the value of the public utilities self-supporting. So far as these statements of depre
furnished, and such estimates are included in the ciation have been prepared in any form by cities with
departmental reports, though not in the comptrollers' reference to these enterprises, they are included by the
or treasurers' accounts and reports. These estimates, Bureau of the Census in its statistics of governmental
when available, are used by the Bureau of the Census costs. These statements assist in making the census
the same as the estimates described in the case statistics for the cities concerned more accurate, but
of the work of the inmates of penal and charitable they can not materially increase their general compara
bility until similar statements are available for a con
institutions.
It should be stated in this connection that neither siderable number of cities.
The methods employed by the Bureau of the Census
in the case of these estimates nor in that of the credits
which are included in the accounts of a city comptroller in reporting the local expenses for depreciation among
of actual payments by the city for water furnished by the operating expenses of a municipal or public service
the water-supply system to other branches of the enterprise is to deduct the amount so reported from
city government is there any great accuracy or com the outlay payments for the enterprise affected, when
parability, owing to the lack of a well-accepted basis possible; otherwise, from the aggregate payments of
for assigning values to the water furnished by privately the city for outlays.
owned and municipally owned water-supply systems | Difficulties arising from faulty accounting for interest
to the city departments and offices. The same lack j chargeable as outlay or expense are more common than
of a basis affects the statistics of all other public utility the average student of municipal finance appreciates*
enterprises operated by cities, and this lack will con Many of the public improvements of cities require
tinue to make difficult the preparation of accurate several years for their completion, and the cities re
and comparable statements of the cost of water and ceive no benefit from their use until completed. These
other utilities furnished by public service enterprises improvements are constructed from the proceeds of
to fire departments and other departments until, as a bond sales and the cities pay interest during the con
result of general discussion and investigation of the struction period. In commercial accounting, interest
subject, an approximately correct value can bo assigned so paid is always charged to the account of outlay or
to the utilities furnished.
capital expenditure, and interest is charged as a current
Other difficulties in the way of comparable statis cost only after the property constructed comes into
tics of public service enterprises exist by reason of service. Only a few cities in the United States recog
the fact that in the case of many of them the cost nize this principle of good commercial accounting, and
of making out bills and collecting revenue is included the Bureau of the Census is able to present only for
with the cost of collecting revenue other than of these such cities true statements of the costs of public im
enterprises, and there is no basis in city accounts ior provements, and also to show the total interest for
comparing the expenses of conducting a municipally the use of credit capital.
owned enterprise, whose employees make out and collect
Cities lighting the streets, parks, and buildings with
all their bills, with those of a similar enterprise whose municipally operated electric light plants do not show
bills are made out and collected by some one of the by their accounts or statements of lighting the true
generalfinancialofficers of the city. The Bureau of the costs of that service, unless they take into account the
Census has formulated no method by which it is able interest on the value of their plants as well as the depre
to overcome the difficulties here mentioned, and to ciation of those plants. Only a few cities prepare state
the extent of the inaccuracy of local accounts here ments of the costs of their lighting service by the
described the resulting statistics fail to be strictly municipally operated enterprises which include the
comparable as between the several cities.
interest charge mentioned, and hence, with the excep
Difficulties due to lack of accounting for depreciationtion of the cities referred to, local reports of the costs
are everywhere met with. With a few exceptions of the lighting service are more or less defective. The
cities do not include depreciation among their expenses, bureau hopes that the practice of the few cities with
nor do they make other adequate provision for it in reference to this item may become the practice of all,
their accounts. As a result, the reports of all cities so that the local statements of the cost of municipal
exaggerate their outlays or expenditures for additions lighting may be made more accurate and also more
to their permanent properties and public improve comparable as between cities. In its statistics, the
ments and understate their current expenses. These Bureau of the Census includes the interest charged byt exaggerations and understatements make it difficult for
cities as an outlay or as an expense of a municipal
INTRODUCTION.
27
service enterprise as a revenue receipt from interest, l and value of comparable statements of the financial
^tnd the amount so included is tabulated as an interest transactions and financial conditions of cities. This
transfer.
act was the outcome of an agitation by those inter
Difficulties arising from auditing claims after the close ested in municipal affairs for securing standard or
of the year to which they relate readily fall into two uniform city reports and standard or uniform accounts
•distinct classes: (1) Those which arise from holding as the basis for such reports. The same agitation led
the accounts of the year open for a limited period of the legislature of Ohio to pass an act in 1901 requiring
-time, as ten days or a month, for receiving or auditing the use of uniform methods of accounting and uniform
olaims, and (2) those which result from the faulty reports by the municipalities of that state and to
system of transacting municipal business that permits create a state office with power to enforce such uni
■claims to be audited months or even years after the formity and secure the use of good business methods.
Since 1901 New York, Massachusetts, Indiana, Iowa,
-close of the fiscal year during which they mature.
The Bureau of the Census overcomes the difficulties Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, Washington, Ore
zfirst mentioned and secures comparable statistics by gon, and some other states have enacted laws which
including with the warrant payments and audits for a provide for the compilation and publication of uniform
:given year those which represent the bills audited in municipal reports, either with or without the estab
the succeeding year and balancing these payments by lishment of uniform accounts and the supervisory con
receipts from outstanding warrants or claims issued trol established in Ohio.
Cooperation between the accounting offices or
^during the year but unpaid at its close. Warrants
-drawn during the year on account of the governmental | bureaus of the states having bureaus or offices for
'costs of the preceding year and paid in cash are securing uniform accounts and. the Bureau of the
treated as payments on account of the indebtedness Census, and popular discussion, have given great
of prior years and not as payments on account of impetus in all parts of the United States and Canada
to the movement for uniform municipal accounting.
'Current costs of government.
The great difficulties of the second class mentioned City officials, private accountants, and others have
atbove are met with in cities where the final approval also been making earnest efforts to improve the
of bills, or, in other words, their audit, is made by the methods of municipal administration. Each year the
<Mj council. This method of audit involves the exer officials of the Bureau of the Census meet the account
cise of a purely executive or administrative function ing and other officers of cities in conference, at which
3>y & legislative body. It arises from a faulty com- improvement in accounting methods, in systems of
imingling of administrative and legislative functions accounts and forms for reports, as well as a proper
^nd is at once bad government practice, poor admin accounting terminology are discussed; and as a result,
istration, and vicious accounting, which it is hoped the Bureau of the Census is able to improve its sched
will ultimately be discarded by all cities, as it has ules, its classification of receipts and payments, and
leen by those best administered. The difficulties its methods of presenting statistical data, and many
Arising from faulty systems of transacting business of the cities are induced to bring their accounts and
<can not bo overcome by the Bureau of the Census, reports more into harmony with the census schedules
And the statistics of municipalities with such business and forms, and thus into approximation to a scheme
.methods will be comparable one year with another, of uniform accounts and a standard form of reporting.
And those of the different cities will be comparable To the extent that this has been done the difficulties in
ivith one another to the extent to which the deferred the way of comparable municipal statistics have been
-costs of different years or different cities are in like lessened.
Introduction of improved accounts as a factor decreasing
total amounts and in like amounts for particular func
tions. The Bureau of the Census notes with satisfac the difficulties of compilation.—Since the Bureau of the
tion, however, that the last few years have witnessed Census ..began the collection of data for its municipal
;great improvement in the business methods of cities, financial statistics for the year 1902, many cities
And that the relative amount of expenses now audited having a population of over 30,000 have installed new
i n a fiscal year succeeding the one to which they relate systems of accounts which have been designed to afford
is much less than it formerly was, and it hopes that the greater assistance to the executive officers and to
introduction of bettor business methods will in a few provide the legislative branches of the government
years eliminate the factor of noncomparability to and the general public with the data required for
forming an intelligent opinion concerning the economy
ivhich attention is here called.
State supervision of municipal accounts decreasing the and efficiency of the various departments and enter
difficulties of compilation.—Many factors and agencies prises of the city. The great majority of these cities
have contributed and are at present operating to in installing their new systems of accounts have
lessen tho difficulties mentioned above. The act of striven to bring their classification into harmony with
'Congress in 1899 authorizing the annual collection and that employed by other cities, so far, at least, as to
publication of financial statistics of cities having a enable them to compare revenues and governmental
population of 30,000 was a recognition of the need costs. In addition to the foregoing, many cities
28
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
which still retain their earlier systems of accounts
have introduced classifications of revenues and ex
penses which approximate those of other cities. To
the extent that such a uniform classification has been
introduced the difficulties in the way of compiling
comparablefinancialstatistics of cities have decreased,
and the utility of the census reports and of other
similar reports has increased.
The difficulties will not, however, be entirely
removed until the remaining cities have adopted
similar systems of accounting. Realizing that with
such a variety of systems to choose from the average
conscientious city official, even though desirous of
bringing his accounts into conformity with those of
other cities, must experience difficulty in determiningby what system of accounts ho can secure the greatest
assistance in his own duties and responsibilities, the
Bureau of the Census recommends that each city
installing a new system of accounts should include in
its report a concise and complete statement of the
administrative gains obtained by the system adopted.
The publication of such statements relating to ac
counts, set forth by those friendly to each new system,
and the later discussion of the same, will help to clarify
the situation by disclosing the actual helpfulness of the
various schemes adopted and of the various accounting
forms introduced.
The value of uniform accounting terminology in lessen
ing difficulties—The cstablislunont of state bureaus or
offices with power to enforce tho uso of uniform
accounting and correct business methods has been
the most important single agency at work in recent
years for securing better municipal administration
and increasing tho efficiency of local governmentThe Bureau of the Census can never bocomo such an
agent for tho improvement of governmental admin*
Istration as these state bureaus and .offices are, but by
cooperation with them it can aid in tho development
of accounting principles and terminology and in tho
standardization of municipal accounts and reports.
Realizing the value of a standard and uniform
accounting and financial terminology as a basis for
standard or uniform municipal accounts and com*
parable statistics offinance,the Bureau of the Census,,
some years ago, made a study of tho more important
terms used in governmental business. Tho results of
that study have been published in earlier volumes
of reports on the financial statistics of cities having
a population of over 30,000. Tho definitions which
were presented in those volumes have been discussed
by accountants and city officials and have been
revised from time to timo. Some of those presented
previously, with a few additional ones, aro hero given
under the heading "Accounting terminology.1'
ACCOUNTING TERMINOLOGY.
different purposes for which municipalities aro main
tained and private enterprises are operated.
Accounts.—Accounts are systematic statements of By reason of the limitations referred to in (1) mu
financial facts of identical or opposite character, so nicipal accounting must provide detailed information,
arranged as readily to provide summaries or balances not necessary in tho case of private accounting, show
of the same.
ing that the expenditures have been and aro being
Accounting.—Accounting is the art of analyzing, made in accordance with the limitations imposed by
classifying, recording, summarizing, and interpreting legislative authority. Again, municipalities being
facts relating to the acquisition, production, transfer, maintained to provide their proprietors, or the urban
and ownership of articles of wealth or value. Its communities to which they relate, at community ex
function or purpose is xeadily to provide, from the pense with certain services and with public facilities,
accounts of a business, accurate and complete state conveniences, and funds required for rendering those
ments of thefinancialresults of its operation for any services, while private enterprises are operated to earn
given period and of itsfinancialstate or condition at for their proprietors and stockholders income or profit,
any given time, and to furnish all other information municipal accounting must show how municipalities
which accounts can supply for its systematic and have expended money for municipal purposes, and how
successful administration.
they have obtained the same, and private accounting
Municipal accounting.—Municipal accounting is themust demonstrate how much income or profit has beca
application or adaptation of the general principles and earned, and what disposition of it has been made.
methods of accounting to the administrative require
The differences above noted in tho subjects with ref
ments of cities and other municipalities. Municipal erence to which municipal and private accounting
accounting differs from private accounting with ref must provide information should not, however, conceal
erence to the subjects concerning which it provides or obscure the fact stated in the definition of municipal
detailed information, the chief differences being (1) accounting that the principles and methods of munic
those which are caused by the special limitations placed ipal and private accounting are identical, and that
upon the administrative action of municipal executive there is as much necessity for applying these principles
officers by the terms of appropriation acts and other and making use of these methods in the one case as fat
legislation, and (2) those which are caused by the the other, since municipal business may be adminis-
ACCOUNTS AND ACCOUNTING.
ACCOUNTING TERMINOLOGY.
tered with economy or wastefulness, or with efficiency
or inefficiency, and may result in an increase or de
crease in the interests of its proprietors, the same as in
the case of private business. Under such circum
stances municipal accounting, in addition to showing
how expenditures have been made in accordance with
the terms of appropriation acts and other legislation,
should (a) demonstrate the extent to which municipal
proprietary interests have increased or decreased; (6)
set forth the methods of financing all acquisitions or
constructions of municipal properties and public im
provements, and all accumulations of municipal funds;
(c) aid those in responsible places in formulating intel
ligent programs for the future conduct of municipal
business; and (d) assist in securing economy, fostering
■efficiency, and applying wisdom in the administration
of such programs.
Classification of financial data.—The financial data
recorded in city accounts, like those entered in private
records, are readily separable into two principal classes:
(1) Those from which may be prepared summaries of
municipal financial transactions, or statements of the
outcome or results of these transactions for specified
periods of time called "fiscal periods;" and (2) those
-which, when summarized, will constitute statements
of municipal financial condition at specified times, as
a t the beginning and close of a given fiscal period.
The segregation of the data recorded in municipal
accounts' into the two general classes noted above is
necessary with reference to all subjects concerning
which information is desired. To secure that segre
gation in all cases an accounting terminology must be
adopted, with each term so defined as fully to differ
entiate the data of the two classes and to show their
relation to the subjects of information, which are spe
cifically required in municipal accounting as compared
with those needed in private accounting. Such a ter
minology, with definitions, is presented on the pages
which follow. In- its presentation first consideration
is given to the terms required for use in the preparation
of accurate and complete summaries of the municipal
business transactions authorized by appropriation acts
and other legislation.
MUNICIPAL FINANCIAL PROGRAMS AND BUDGETS.
Municipal financial programs.—The authority of
.the executive officers of municipalities to raise and
expend money for municipal purposes is granted by
the legislative branch of their governments, and is
embodied in appropriation acts or ordinances and in
general statutes and ordinances with reference to the
raising of public money and the use or application of
the same. The aggregate of the authorizations thus
granted or made applicable for a given city for a
-specified year constitutes its municipal financial
program for that year.
Municipal budgets.—A municipal budget is a
;formal statement of the financial program or plan of
29
a municipality for a fiscal period, comprising a state
ment of authorized municipal expenditures for that
period correlated with the estimated revenues and
other resources for meeting them.
To be of greatest administrative assistance a munic
ipal budget should be a final and complete statement
of the character described. As a matter of fact, the
so-called budgets in American cities in but few cases
are final, and in fewer instances are complete state
ments of authorizations. As enacted they generally
require transfers of authorizations from the original
to other objects of appropriation, so that the original
budget gives but an imperfect picture of the final
authorizations with reference to public expenditures.
The average city budget is also incomplete by reason
of the fact that it includes authorizations for only
those "expenditures that are to be met from ordinary
revenues, and thus contains no authorizations for those
that are to be met from the sinking, public trust, and
other special funds, or from special assessments,
special assessment certificates, or long-term bond
issues. I t is further incomplete in that it contains no
statement of the revenues of the special funds last
mentioned or of the revenues or other resources
authorized to meet the expenditures last referred to.
Recognizing that budgets thus prepared are incom
plete and that complete budgets should be provided
in all cities for the information and guidance of citi
zens, the National Association of Comptrollers and
Accounting Officers, at its meeting held in Buffalo
June 7, 1912, recommended that cities whose gov
ernmental costs are met from ordinary revenues, spe
cial assessments, and the proceeds of bond issues, should
prepare their budgets in three sections. These sec
tions should show, respectively, the expenditures that
are authorized to be met from (1) ordinary revenues,
(2) special assessments and special assessment certifi
cates, and (3) long-term debt obligations other than
special assessment certificates. With budgets thus
prepared the citizens of a given city will be provided
each year with a complete and final statement of its
financial program for that year. If, in addition to
such budgets, summaries of the results or outcome of
business are similarly prepared at the close of the
year, the citizens will have the data from which to
form intelligent judgments concerning past and pro
posed expenditures and methods employed or recom
mended for financing them.
MUNICIPAL APPROPRIATION ENCUMBRANCES, EXPEND
ITURES, REVENUES, AND BORROWINGS.
Municipal appropriation encmribrances.—The term
/'municipal appropriation encumbrances" is a desig
nation very generally used by American city officials
in speaking of the contingent liabilities represented by
contracts entered into and orders made by those offi
cials in accordance with the authorizations of the
budgets, but which have not become demand liabilities
by the completion of the services or the delivery of the
30
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
materials contracted or ordered. The difference interest, outlays, and expense ledger adjustments for
between the appropriation for a given purpose in a that year.
Municipal expenses.—Municipal expenses are tho
given year and the sum of the expenditures made and
expenditures
of municipalities for providing the urban
appropriation encumbrances authorized for that pur
communities
to
which they relate with tho services for
pose constitutes the unencumbered balance of that
rendering which they are organized and maintained.
appropriation.
Municipal expenditures.—The term "municipal They are expenditures from which no permanent or
expenditures" is used in this report as a generic subsequently convertible values are received. Tho
designation of all the costs and losses of municipalities most important municipal expenses are (1) tho costs*
for the maintenance of their governments and their of municipalities for providing the services for which
" payments and other disposition of money for govern their governments are organized and maintained; (2)
the losses of municipalities by neglect, defalcation,
mental purposes.
Municipal expenditures are to be differentiated from and other wrongful acts of employees and by bank
municipal appropriation encumbrances, since they failures; (3) depreciation or decrease in the value of
represent the value of services rendered the city, or municipal properties and public improvements duo tothe value of the materials or other forms of wealth waste, wear, and obsolescence; and (4) all other ex
furnished to or lost by the city, while the encum penditures, other than interest on municipal debts,
brances represent those contracted for or ordered but which, like those specifically mentioned in (1), (2), and.
which have not been rendered or furnished. If a (3), increase the liabilities of municipalities without
municipality has not disbursed money in final settle increasing their assets, or decrease the amount of their
ment or payment of its expenditures, these expendi assets or the value of their properties and public im
tures have created obligations against the city in the provements without also decreasing their liabilities.
nature of demand liabilities, while its obligations by Municipal expenses such as those referred to after (1)
reason of appropriation encumbrances constitute con are hero called municipal budget expenses, since they
tingent liabilities and become demand liabilities only are the only municipal expenses for which provision
when, by the completion of the contracts or the fur is ordinarily made in tho appropriation acts of Ameri
nishing of the materials, the encumbrances become can municipalities. The expenses of a municipality for
expenditures. (For a statement of the difference a given fiscal year are thoso expenses that become
between "municipal expenditures" and "municipal enforcible claims or that otherwise accrue during that
expenses," see later paragraphs under the title "Mu year* They include (1) its expenses for personal
nicipal expenses.")
services utilized, materials consumed, and property
Municipal expenditures may be classified with refer rented during the year; and (2) its expenses due U>
ence to many bases and the classes given many descrip losses sustained and depreciation suffered during tho
tive designations of great significance in accounting. year*
When classified with reference to the purpose of expen
Municipal expenses should be fully differentiated
diture they are here called expenditures for govern from municipal expenditures of which they constitute
mental costs or simply governmental costs, expendi only a part, otherwise the term will bo used, as it now
tures for amortization of debts, and expenditures for is in many city reports and in some books on municipal
accumulation of special funds. When classified with accounting, with two or more different meanings,
reference to the authorizations of appropriation acts including those assigned to the terms "municipal
they are here referred to as budget expenditures and expenditures," "municipal expenses," and "municipal
nonbudget expenditures. Statements of the character budget expenses." Such use of this or any other
of these and of many subordinate classes of municipal accounting term marks the absence of scientific
expenditures are given in the definitions which follow: methods, and always leads to inaccuracy and vague
Municipal governmental costs.—The term "expendiness of statement and should therefore be avoided.
tures for municipal governmental costs," or, more
Classes of expenses referred to in text.—Municipal ex
briefly, "municipal governmental costs" is employed penses may be classified with reference to many differ
in this report as a generic designation of the expendi ent bases and the classes given specific designations.
tures, or costs or losses, of municipalities for (1) provid The most important of the classes employed in the
ing the urban communities to which they relate with descriptive text of this report are expenses of gov
the services for rendering which the municipalities are ernmental maintenance, expenses of property mainte-*
organized and maintained, (2) for the use of credit nance, commercial expenses, noncommercial expenses,
capital, and (3) for acquiring or constructing the per trust expenses, and nontrust expenses. These classes
manent properties or public improvements employed are described in the definitions which follow:
in providing the services here mentioned. These ex
Municipal expenses of governmental maintenance is
penditures are readily separable into four principal the designation here applied to the costs of maintaining
classes, here called expenses, interest, outlays, and municipal governments, protecting person, property,
expense ledger adjustments. The governmental, costs and health, providing social necessities, promoting tho
of a municipality for a given fiscal year are its expenses, general economic welfare of the laboring classes, caring
ACCOUNTING TERMINOLOGY.
for the dependent and defective, restraining and
punishing the delinquent, bettering social conditions,
promoting education, research, literature, and art,
providing for recreation, conducting municipal service
enterprises, caring for productive properties, managing
investments, negotiating loans, and performing other
services and carrying on other activities for which the
government has authority, together with all judgments
against and all losses of the city due to the mistakes,
neglect, defalcation, and other acts of municipal em
ployees, and all municipal losses due to bank failures
and other causes.
Municipal expenses of property maintenance is the
designation here used in speaking of the costs of the
upkeep of municipal properties and public improve
ments, including the cost of making good by repairs,
replacements, and otherwise, the depreciation in such
properties and improvements due to wear, waste, and
obsolescence.
Municipal commercial expenses is the designation
given to (1) the expenses of municipalities for operat
ing and maintaining departments or enterprises, such
as municipal water-supply systems and gas-supply
systems, which are organized for the purpose of pro
viding the inhabitants with public utilities or services,
such as are usually furnished by private corporations,
and the losses and depreciation incident to such opera
tion and maintenance; and (2) the expenses for the
management of properties other than assets of sinking
funds and public trust funds for municipal uses held
as investments.
Municipal noncommercial expenses is a term used in
referring to all expenses of municipalities other than
those specifically described in the definition of "Mu
nicipal commercial expenses."
Municipal trust expenses is the descriptive term used
in referring to commercial and noncommercial ex
penses of municipalities which accrue in administering
the trusts assumed by them, and in caring for and
maintaining property left to them in trust for speci
fied purposes and uses.
Municipal nontrust expenses is the descriptive term
used in referring to all municipal expenses other than
those specifically called "Municipal trust expenses."
Classification of expenses for municipal statistics.—
I n the census statistics of payments for expenses,
which are the only statistics of municipal expenses
practicable at the present time for all cities, as has
i>een explained on page 23 under "Difficulties arising
from the exclusive use of cash accounts by comptrollers
and treasurers," expenses are segregated according to
function into two principal classes, which are tabu
lated under the headings "Expenses of general depart
ments" and "Expenses of public service enterprises."
The two groups of expenses which result from this clas
sification are further divided and subdivided, one by
departmental function, and the other by character of
enterprise, this being the method of classification that
provides, cities with the data for cost accounting, or
31
accounting to determine the economy and efficiency of
municipal administration.
Expenses of general departments.—Under this head
ing are tabulated in this report all payments for mu
nicipal expenses other than those for the operation
and maintenance of public service enterprises. These
expenses are segregated into ten principal groups ac
cording to departmental function, to which are given
the general designations of expenses for: I. General
government. II. Protection to person and property.
III. Conservation of health. IV. Sanitation, or pro
motion of cleanliness. V. Highways. VI. Charities,
hospitals, and corrections. VII. Education. VIII.
Recreation. IX. Miscellaneous. X. General. The
expenses included in these ten general groups are sub
divided into a number of subordinate groups, each in
cluding all the expenses for a certain general depart
mental purpose, or functional activity, as is shown in
detail in Table 12, and in the text accompanying the
same. The reports and accounts of individual cities
should further classify these expenses so as to show
the cost of administration, operation, and maintenance
for each and every distinct functional activity of each
department of the city government.
In the statistics of the report, Division VI of ex
penses, that for charities, hospitals, and corrections, in
cludes such expenses for promoting the interests of the
laboring classes, and for promoting general economic
welfare, as (1) payments for so-called "Mother's pen
sions;" (2) payments for the relief of sufferers by
flood, storms, and other calamities; and (3) payments
for free lunches for school children. The very general
authorization of expenses such as these in the legisla
tion of the last few years will necessitate an addition
in the early future of a functional division of expenses
with the title "Expenses for promotion-of general wel
fare." In such a division would be included the ex
penses above mentioned, as well as those for city plan
ning and for investigating labor conditions, conduct
ing free employment agencies, supporting children's
aid and humane societies, maintaining tenement house
commissions, conducting social surveys, making pay
ments for the relief and support of old soldiers and
sailors, and for kindred purposes, which in this report
are tabulated in other divisions.
Expenses of public service enterprises.—Under this
general title are included the expenses of operating and
maintaining all such municipal undertakings as watersupply and gas-supply systems. In Table 15 these
expenses are tabulated under a number of descriptive
headings, which are discussed in the text relating
thereto.
Municipal interest.—Municipal interest on public
debts, or municipal interest as it is most frequently
spoken of in this report, is the cost to municipalities
for the use of credit capital. In its statistics of pay
ments for interest, which are the only statistics of
municipal interest contained in this report, municipal
interest is segregated in two ways: (1) into that which
32
FINANCIAL STATHBTICS OF CITIES.
accrues or is paid on funded andfloatingdebts, on spe different cities using accounts with accrued revonues
cial assessment loans, and on other debts; and (2) that and expenses, all ledger adjustments should bo charged
which accrues or is paid on debts of the city corpora to expenses or credited to revenues substantially as is
tions, school districts, and other divisions of the city demanded by the latest accounting regulations of the
governments. The debts, the interest on which is Interstate Commerce Commission in the accounts of
shown under the heading "Payments for interest on railroads.
Municipal expense ledger adjustments.—Municipal
other debts," are principally those represented by
revenue loans, time warrants, and other short-term expense ledger adjustments include the debit and
obligations made payable out of current revenue* The credit entries in ledger balancing accounts that, like
interest of a municipality for a given fiscal year is that expenses, represent decreases in municipal assets that
which has accrued or become an actual or enforcible are not accompanied with decreases in municipal lia
bilities, or represent increases in municipal liabilities
liability of the municipality during that year.
Municipal outlays.—Municipal outlays are the costs that are not accompanied with increases in municipal
of properties, including land, buildings and equip assets, or at least are not so shown in the accounts.
ment, and public improvements more or less perma Of these ledger adjustments special attention is here
nent in character, which are acquired or constructed called to discounts allowed on original sales of city
by municipalities for use in the exercise of their munici debt obligations, and premiums paid on such obliga
pal functions or in connection with the business enter tions purchased for cancellation. If municipal ac
prises undertaken by them. The outlays of a munici counts were all kept on a scientific basis, the discounts
pality for a given fiscal year are the costs of its perma on bond sales would be charged to the account of
nent properties and public improvements which by the future interest accruals during the life of the bonds
terms of contracts or otherwise have become demand sold, calling for no special adjustment of the balancing
account. Such accounting with discounts on account
liabilities of the municipality during the year.
In the statistics of governmental cost payments for of city debt obligations sold is not practicable at the
outlays, which are the only statistics of municipal out present time in connection with the financial adminis
lays contained in this report, municipal outlays are tration of our American cities, and hence the discounts
segregated substantially as has been described above and premiums here referred to, liko all other ledger
for municipal expenses into three principal classes adjustments, should be debited to the balancing ledger
with the designations " Outlays for general depart account and shown in the city reports under specific
ments," "Outlays for public service enterprises/' and descriptive designations, if they can not, because of
"Outlays for municipal service enterprises," the first popular prejudices, be treated as current expenses.
of these classes being subdivided into ten principal
Municipal expenditures for amortization of debts.—
groups with specific names, which have been given The foregoing term is here used as the designation of
above in the case of expenses, and the two others the payments of municipalities from their general
into classes according to the enterprise to which they treasuries or from sinking funds for the redemption
relate.
or final satisfaction of debt obligations. In budget
Municipal ledger adjustments.—The term " municipal accounts and summaries the term is ordinarily used
ledger adjustments" is one here used in referring to the as the exclusive designation of payments made for the
debit and credit entries in municipal ledger accounts redemption of bonds and long-term debt obligations
similar to those kept by railroad corporations to which other than those issued in anticipation of the current
the Interstate Commerce Commission gives'the designa levies of the general property tax. In the text of this
tion " Profit and loss accounts." They are the entries report it is used in referring to all payments for the
that are required in the case of city accounts kept on redemption of municipal indebtedness, unless other
the basis of accrued revenues and expenditures which wise specifically stated.
•
record (1) the changes in the budget surplus or deficit
Municipal expenditures for accumulation of special
during a fiscal period that have been effected at the funds.—In their budgets most cities make provision
option of the accounting officers by adjustments not for increasing the assets of their sinking and public
properly attributable to the period, and (2) the miscel trust funds either by payments from the general
laneous losses and gains not classed as expenses or treasury to those funds by the terms of the budgets,
revenues. The most important municipal ledger ad or by the accumulated earnings of those funds. The
justments are those made (1) to correct the amounts additions last mentioned are generally authorized by
erroneously entered in previous years in such expense general laws, although sometimes specifically stated
accounts as those for depreciation, losses by defalca in the appropriation acts. All amounts added to the
tions, bank failures, and bad debts, and in such revenue assets of these specified funds by either method above
accounts as those with uncollected taxes and special mentioned are referred to as municipal expenditures
assessments; and (2) to take account of the original sale for accumulation of special funds.
of city debt obligations, or their purchase for cancel
Municipal hudget expenditures*—The term municipal
lation, at amounts above or below their face value. If budget expenditures is here applied in speaking of all
comparable statistics are to be secured as between expenditures authorized by municipal budgets. They
ACCOUNTING TERMINOLOGY.
33
seldom include depreciation and kindred expenses that portion of such wealth derived from a single source, as
are not met by the payment of money or its equiva poll taxes, fines, or fees, is properly spoken of as a
lent. Municipal, budget expenditures are here municipal revenue. The revenue of a municipality for
arranged in three groups designated as municipal a givenfiscalyear is the net amount that accrues from
revenue expenditures, municipal special assessment revenue sources for that year. It includes (1) the
expenditures, and municipal bond expenditures. taxes levied in accordance with the city's financial
These classes of expenditures are those described in the program or budget, to meet its governmental costs
during that year, whether such revenues are recorded
paragraphs which follow:
Municipal revenue expenditures or charges are the on the tax fists in that or some other year; (2) the
budget expenditures of municipalities that by the special assessments whose levies are authorized for
terms of appropriation acts and other legislation are the given year, or otherwise made legally available
paid or payable from ordinary revenues. The mu for use during that year; (3) the revenues earned
nicipal revenue expenditures of a given fiscal year are during the year by the operation of public service
those which by the terms of municipal budgets are enterprises, the management of public properties and
paid or payable from ordinary revenues and which investments, the loaning of money^ and leasing of
constitute the expenses, interest, and outlays of that properties, and the performance of services; (4)
year, and the expenditures made during that year for revenues like subventions, which are legally due and
the amortization of debts and the accumulation of receivable during the year; and (5) other amounts
received or placed to the credit of the municipality
special funds.
Municipal special assessment expenditures or chargesduring the year "that increased its assets without
are the budget expenditures of municipalities that are increasing its liabilities, or that decreased its liabilities
met from special assessments or from bonds or certifi without also decreasing its assets.
The general property tax which accrues as above
cates of indebtedness that are ultimately to be redeemed
from special assessments. Municipal special assess stated for a specified fiscal year of a given city depends
ment expenditures for a given fiscal year are the ex upon the laws in force in such city with reference to
penses, interest, and outlays of the year which are the time for assessing and levying the tax, or entering
met, or are to be met, from special assessments, to the same on the tax books, and that for preparing
gether with the expenditures during that year for the the budget. In some cities, notably those of the state
amortization of special assessment certificates and of Ohio, the tax is levied, and in part collected, before
bonds and for the accumulation of special funds for the opening of the fiscal year to which it relates; while
in others, notably in Chicago and other cities in Illinois,
such amortization.
'Municipal lond expenditures or charges are the it is levied so late in the fiscal year that the tax does
budget expenditures of municipalities that are financed not become due and collectible until some months
or are to be financed by the issue of long-term bond after the beginning of the succeeding year.
Classes of revenues referred to in text.—In the text of
issues other than special assessment certificates.
Municipal bond expenditures for a given fiscal year are this report municipal revenues are given certain de
those that accrue or become demand liabilities during scriptive designations. The most important of these
are commercial revenues, noncommercial revenues,
that year.
Municipal nonhudget expenditures.—This term is trust revenues, nontrust revenues, ordinary revenues,
here applied to the expenditures of municipalities that and extraordinary revenues.
Municipal commercial revenues is the term employed
represent the depreciation in the value of their prop
erties and public improvements, and other expenses in this report in referring to revenues obtained by cities
for which no provisions are made in appropriation and other municipalities by methods and tinder condi
tions which are very similar to those which prevail in
acts.
Resources for meeting municipal expenditures.—The private enterprises. They include the revenues derived
resources or pecuniary means upon which munici from the operation of productive enterprises, proper
palities rely or of which they make use in meeting their ties, and investments, including interest, rents, etc.
expenditures are of four distinct kinds: Kevenues,
Municipal noncommercial revenues is the term here
borrowings, and accumulated funds, and those repre used in referring to the revenues of cities or other
sented by revenue ledger adjustments.
municipalities which are exacted or otherwise ob
Municipal revenues.—Municipal revenues are the tained by methods and under conditions whidh are
moneys and other wealth received by or placed to the not employed or do not prevail in private enterprises.
credit of cities and other municipalities for govern
Municipal trust revenues is the designation here
mental purposes which increase their assets without applied to all commercial and noncommercial rev
increasing their debt liabilities, or. that decrease their enues which are received for specified purposes, or
debt liabilities without increasing their assets. The subject to specified conditions.
aggregate of these moneys and other wealth received
Municipal nontrust revenues is the common desig
by or placed to the credit of a given municipality con nation here used in referring to all revenues not prop
stitutes the revenue of that municipality, while the erly spoken of as trust revenues.
28656°—14
3
34
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
Municipal ordinary revenues is a generic term em the so-called "taxing power" and "polico power," the
ployed in this report, as it is in the printed reports of first including the power to raiso revenue and the
many American cities, in referring to all municipal second the power of social, industrial; and economic
revenues other than special assessments. In this re regulation and control. This difference has been
port it is used primarily as a budget accounting term evolved by the courts in their efforts to reconcile or
adjust tho revenue-producing laws as enacted by the
rather than one of general municipal accounting.
Municipal extraordinary revenues is a specific desiglegislatures of the several states to tho different con
nation employed in this report in referring to special stitutional provisions of those states. Tho great dif
assessments. It is here used as a municipal budget ferences which exist in tho constitutional and statutory
provisions under which tho 195 cities covered by this
accounting term.
Classification of revenuesformunicipal statistics.—report derive their rovenues render it impossible, how
In the census statistics of receipts from revenues, ever, for the Bureau of the Census to use this differen
which are the only statistics of revenues practicable at tiation as tho basis of any classification of revenue,
the present time for all American cities, as has been and hence it canploys tho phrases "tho taxing power"
explained on page 23, under the title "Difficulties and tho "polico power" only for purposes of reference
arising from the exclusive use of cash accounts by and for moro exact description of certain rovenues.
city comptrollers and treasurers," municipal rev
Subjects, objects, and methods of taxation.—Consid
enues are segregated according to source, and ar ered as exacted under tho sovereign power of taxation,
ranged under headings which are the designations of taxes may bo levied upon every person, natural and
particular revenues or specific groups of revenues, as corporate, and with reference to every object to which
shown in Tables 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, and are also the legislative power of the Nation or state extends;
classified by the division of the city government for but the subject and object of taxation and the amount
which they are received. The most important of the of taxes levied upon each at any given timo are always
municipal revenues are specifically mentioned and determined by public needs and public policy with ref
described in the paragraphs which follow.
erence to .the conservation of order in political society,
Taxes and the sovereign power of taxation.—In thethe encouragement of industry, and tho discourage
broad significance of the word, taxes are amounts of ment of pernicious employments and injurious business
money, other wealth, or services which, by virtue of or other activities. Further, tho revenues exacted
that sovereign power of a nation or a state generally under the sovereign power of taxation may bo levied
spoken of as the taxing power, are exacted for the sup and collected by any method that may be adopted by
port of governments, for meeting general public the legislative authority of the Nation or state under
needs, and for other governmental purposes* The which it is exacted. Special attention is hero called
sovereign power of taxation, by virtue of which taxes to two of those methods involving an exaction of
in this broad sense of the word are exacted, is the revenue (1) in connection with tho grant of a privilege
power which Chief Justice Marshall declared "in by the issue of a license or permit, and (2) by tho
volves the right to destroy," and which when consid infliction of a penalty pr mulct for violation of law.
ered as a right of the government "is a right which in When taxes arejexacted by thefirstmethod, the license
its nature acknowledges no limit."1 It includes the or permit is commonly granted by tho government on
power to prescribe the conditions under which per
payment of a valuable consideration, though this id
sons and corporations may engage in business and
not essential. According to court decisions with ref
business activities, receive franchises, and enjoy
erence to this subject, tp constitute a privilege such as
common-law rights and privileges; and also the power
is
involved in this method of collecting taxes tho grant
to prescribe the conditions under which they may take
must
confer authority to do something which without
and hold title to real and other property. Exercising
the
grant
would be illegal, for if what is to be done
that power, nations and states may take away from
under
the
license is open to everyone to do without
the owners of property the legal title to lands and chat
it
the
grant
would be idle and nugatory. But the
tels and give it to others if taxes on the same are not
thing
to
be
done
may be a thing lawful in itself and
paid when due, and take away from persons following
restricted
only
for
tho purpose of securing revenue;
given occupations or businesses, holding certain fran
that
is
to
say,
restricted
in order to compel tho taking
chises, or enjoying specified privileges, the right to
out
of
a
license.
This
is
always the case where that
follow, hold, or enjoy the same unless, or until, the
which
is
licensed
is
not
unlawful
at the common law.
tax is paid for that special occupation, business, fran
The
second
method
is
that
employed
by tho states
chise, or privilege.
of Iowa and Ohio in exacting revenue from those
The sovereign power of taxation is by the courts
and many writers on publicfinancedifferentiated into engaged in the business of selling intoxicating liquors.
The constitutions of those states expressly prohibiting
1
See Cooley's " Taxation;" footnote 2, pp. 10 and 12.
the licensing of such business, the legislature exacts
ACCOUNTING TERMINOLOGY.
an annual mulct or penalty from those engaged therein
as an assumed punishment for violation of law.
Classification of taxes.—In exacting revenues under
the sovereign power of taxation as above set forth,
governments may levy and collect the same (1) with
out reference to any actual or assumed measurable
benefits conferred upon or services performed for the
taxpayer, or any actual or assumed burdens imposed
upon the general public by the subject or object of
taxation; (2) with reference to some actual or assumed
measurable benefit conferred upon or services per
formed for the taxpayer, including actual or assumed
measurable increase in the value of his property;
(3) with reference to some actual or assumed expense
or burden imposed upon the general community by
reason of the subject or object of taxation; or
(4) with reference to some actual or assumed viola
tion of law.
Recognizing the four distinct sets of circumstances
or conditions under which compulsory revenues are
levied, many writers on public finance use the word
"taxes" as the exclusive designation of the revenues
obtained as stated in (1), employ the terms "fees" and
''special assessments" as the designations of those
obtained as described in (2) and (3), and classify those
referred to under (4) as ''fines" or "penalties." In its
classification for this report of the municipal revenues
exacted under the so-called taxing and police powers,
the Bureau of the Census employs the theoretical
classification of the writers above referred to so far as
the same is practicable. Revenues levied and col
lected with reference to property as described under
(1) have been separated from those levied and col
lected as described under (2). When thus separated,
revenues such as those described under (1) are called
property taxes, and the others are called special
assessments or betterment taxes. (For a detailed
statement of the differences between special assess
ments and the compulsory revenues tabulated in this
report under the heading "Taxes," see under the
heading "Special assessments" in a succeeding para
graph.) In the tabulation of compulsory revenues
other than those exacted with reference to property,
no such segregation has been practicable, it being
impossible to differentiate that portion of such other
revenues as was obtained under conditions stated in
(1) from that secured under conditions described in
(2), (3), and (4). For example, the revenues secured
by the receipt of a so-called license fee from a dealer
in intoxicating liquors is said by many writers to
include (a) a compensation for the service of making
out the license papers; (6) a payment for the privilege
of conducting the business; (c) reimbursement for the
special expenses of the government in supervising a
business that naturally creates disorder; (<Z) a reim
bursement for the special expenses of the government
by reason of crime, pauperism, and disease that arise
35
from the business; and (e) a tax in the narrow signifi
cance of the term as used by the writers on public
'finance above referred to. Revenues such as those
referred to under (a) and (6) are identical in character
with those previously mentioned in (2); and those
referred to in (o) and (d) with those mentioned in (3);
but how much of the money collected in connection
with the issue of any liquor license represents revenues
of the classes mentioned under (a), (6), (c), (5), or (e)
is not susceptible of determination. In some states the
statutes have been enacted under circumstances that
demonstrate that the so-called license fees, even though
large in amount, are levied principally for the purpose
of obtaining revenue, and are,therefore, according to
the theory of the writers above referred to, in large
part taxes. In contrast, the statutes of other states
are enacted on the assumption that license fees are col
lected either as stated in (6), or as in (c) or (<Z),
What has been said above with reference to the
practical separation of the revenues secured from the
licenses issued to dealers in the liquor traffic is, with
minor modifications, applicable to all revenues col
lected in connection with the issue of licenses or per
mits or the exactions of so-called mulcts. With refer
ence to them all it can be said that there is no practical
agreement among legislators, judges, and writers on
public finance as to what portion of these revenues is
received as compensation for services or other benefits
conferred, or for special expenses imposed upon the
government, and what portion is otherwise received.
The Bureau of the Census has been unable, therefore,
to employ a classification which would show for rev
enues other than property taxes and special assess
ments the relative amounts of revenue which are
collected with and those collected without reference
to benefits received or burdens imposed. For this
reason the Bureau of the Census uses the word " taxes"
in this report as the generic designation of all com
pulsory revenues other than fines and special assess
ments, but tabulates separately that portion of the
aggregate amount of these so-called taxes which is
obtained in connection with the issuance of a license
or permit. The impossibility of further segregation
demonstrates the extent to which the legal fiction of
calling enforced contributions of wealth "fees,"
"fines," and "mulcts," which was employed by the
early absolute rulers of Europe to reconcile their sub
jects to the payment of taxes, is continued in the
modern terminology of revenues exacted under the
sovereign power of taxation. (For a statement of the
differences between the so-called "license fees" and
"permit fees" here tabulated as taxes as stated above,
and the amounts tabulated as fees and charges, see a
later paragraph under the heading "Fees and
charges.")
In this report the revenues tabulated as taxes, in
addition to being classified as above described with
FINANCIAL STAT] 3TICS OF CITIES,
reference to the issue of a license or permit in connec- j excess above the value of specified investments; and
tion with their collection, are classified with reference j taxes upon life insurance corporations assessed upon
to the objects taxed. Thus classified, they are tabu the basis of the valuations of their policies. Special
lated as belonging to one of four principal classes: property taxes also include all taxes levied upon mort
(1) property taxes, (2) poll or personal taxes, (3) busi gages at the time of their execution or entry of public
record (as in New York), and taxes on investments,
ness taxes, and (4) nonbusiness license taxes.
Property taxes.—"Property taxes are taxes upon the choses in action, bonds and notes for specified periods
property of persons, natural and corporate. Under of time (as in Connecticut), and on corporation bonds
the existing laws in the United States, property taxes held by residents (as in Pennsylvania), and all specific
are universally levied without reference to benefits taxes upon property, as taxes upon land in specified
conferred upon or enjoyed by the taxpaying property amount per acre, taxes upon horses, mules, and other
owner. A marked departure from this method of animals in specified amount per head, taxes upon grain
levying property taxes, which has long prevailed in in specified amount per bushql, or taxes upon ships in
both the United States and Europe, has been author specified amount per ton of capacity. The greater
ized by laws recently enacted in Germany and Great portion of the taxes here tabulated as "Special prop
Britain under which the property tax upon the un erty taxes" are taxes exacted from corporations and
earned increment of land values is levied with reference could with propriety be called "Property taxes of
corporations."
to measureable benefits received or accrued.
PoU or personal taxes.—Under the term " poll o: per
Most property taxes are apportioned according to
the value of the properties upon which or by reason of sonal taxes," the Bureau of the Census includes all ex
which they are levied, and in so far as they are thus actions by the government/from private individuals
apportioned they are properly spoken of as ad valorem which are levied without regard to the property or
taxes. Others not thus apportioned are generally income of the taxpayer. These taxes comprise (1)
called specific taxes. Property taxes are readily sepa all so-called poll or capitation taxes, whether levied
rable into two groups, the. general property tax and in special amounts upon all males of specified ages,
or levied as quasi property taxes based upon on arbi
special property taxes.
The general property tax is the common designation of trary valuation of polls; (2) all so-called poll taxes
the direct tax upon real property, and upon other graded in amounts according to occupations; and (3)
property which is apportioned and levied by substan all exactions of personal service, as work upon high
tially the methods employed in apportioning and ways or elsewhere, whether classed in local statutes
levying taxes upon privately owned real property. as taxes or otherwise. Poll or personal taxes graded
Receipts from the general property tax form the largest according to occupation may, with propriety, be called
portion of the revenue receipts of most American "occupation poll taxes." These are to be distin
guished from business taxes, since they are primarily
cities.
A general property tax, levied at the same rate upon levied upon persons and not upon the business or busi
the greater portion of the property within the terri ness activity from which the taxpayer secures an
tory subject to the taxing power, is here called a gen income.
eral levy of the general property tax. A similar tax
Business taxes.—Business taxes arc taxes upon busi
levied upon a specified class of property within that ness and business activities exacted from persons
territory is called a special levy of the general property natural and corporate (1) in proportion to the volume
tax; and if levied upon the property of a specified por of their business, (2) by reason of the business in which
tion of that territory, it is called a local levy of the genr they are engaged, or (3) by reason of some business
eral property tax. A general or a special levy which is activity which constitutes a part of their business.
applicable for a specified purpose is further designated Business taxes as here defined may be levied with or
as a specific levy of the general property tax.
without reference to measurable or assumed measur
Special property taxes are those direct taxes levied able benefits conferred upon or enjoyed by the tax
upon property which are assessed, levied, and collected payers, or special expenses imposed by them upon the
by methods that are not generally applied in the case government. Business taxes may be classified in
of privately owned real property. As such taxes the many ways and the classes given specific names,
Bureau of the Census includes all taxes upon the prop according to the basis of classification employed*
erty of corporations levied upon the basis of the Classified according to the business or business activity
amount of corporate stock, corporate indebtedness, or of the taxpayer, they are grouped under the headings
of both corporate stock and indebtedness, or by any "Taxes upon traffic in intoxicating liquois," "Taxes
other method than the basis of the valuation of all upon traffic in tobacco," etc.; classified so as to sepa
property of the corporation; taxes upon savings banks rate the business taxes paid by corporations from those
arid kindred corporations, which are levied in propor paid by private persons and firms, the resulting classes
tion to a certain specified portion of deposits, as their would be designated as corporation and noncorporation
36
ACCOUNTING TERMINOLOGY.
taxes; classified with reference to tho issuance of a li- |
censo or permit at tho time of their collection, they
fall into the two classes, called license and nonlicense
business taxes.
License business taxes are taxes exacted in connection
with the issue of a written instrument called a license
or permit, which authorizes the licensee to engage in
some specified business or business activity. Most
of these taxes arc exacted primarily for purposes of
regulation and only incidentally for revenue, and are
thus what tho courts and some writers on public finance
call revenues levied under the police power; but some
of them are exacted primarily for revenue, and are
referred to by tho same writers as revenues levied
under the taxing power, Nonlicense business taxes
are business taxes exacted without the issuance of a
license. License and nonlicenso business taxes are in
this report tabulated under three headings: "Taxes on
liquor traffic," "Taxes other than on liquor traffic
collected without tho issue of a license/' and "Taxes
other than on liquor traffic collected with the issue of
a license."
Nonbusiness license taxes.—Nonbusiness license taxes
are taxes other than upon business that are exacted
primarily for purposes of regulation, and are collected
in connection with the issue of so-called licenses or per
mits, and are always levied with reference to measur
able or assumed measurable benefits conferred upon
or enjoyed by tho taxpayers. They may be subdivided
and classified in many ways, although their aggregate
is small. The receipts from these taxes are segregated
for the purpose of this report into three classes, and are
tabulated in Table 7 as taxes paid by persons granted
(1) dog licenses, (2) general licenses, and (3) permits.
In the first class, or in that of license taxes on dogs,
are included all taxes which are collected from the
owners of dogs in connection with the issue of licenses
or permits to keep such animals for a specified period
of time, generally a year.
In tho second class, or that of general license taxes,
are tabulated all nonbusiness license taxes that are
collected in connection with tho issuance of licenses
or permits other than for keeping dogs, which are
granted for a specified period of time, as a year, month,
or day. Among taxes of this kind are those collected
from persons keeping vehicles, as automobiles, bicycles,
etc., irrespective of whether these vehicles are used for
business or pleasure.
In tho third class, or that of permit taxesf are in
cluded all nonbusiness taxes that are collected in con
nection with the issue of so-called licenses or permits
which are granted for some specified act or transac
tion, as marriage licenses or permits, and departmen
tal permits, such as those authorizing the connecting
of houses with sewers and water pipes. I t should be
noted in this connection, however, that nonbusiness
license taxes collected by public service enterprises in
connection with the issuance of permits by them are
87
included for accounting purposes with revenue re
ceipts from those enterprises, although, like other
revenue obtained in connection with the issue of per
mits, they are permit taxes.
Special assessments.—Special assessments are gen
eral proportional contributions of wealth levied
against land and collected from its owners and occu
pants to defray the costs of specified public improve
ments made, or of specified public services undertaken^
in the interest of the general public. Special assess
ments, like taxes, are levied and collected under the
sovereign powers of the state, generally called taxing
and police powers, but under very different conditions
and subject to the application of widely different princi
ples, as may be noted from the following comparisons,
based upon court decisions:
1. Taxes upon property are levied for the purposo
of raising revenue (1) for meeting the general costs of
government, (2) for providing for all general publio
needs, and (3) for other governmental purposes; and
the only benefit which taxpayers in the United States
at present receive is as members of organized society*
The individual taxpayer is therefore poorer, in a sense,
by reason of the payment. Special assessments are
levied only for the purpose of providing for specified
general public needs, and, in theory at least, do not
leave the property owners who pay their assessments
any the poorer, since they are fully compensated by the
benefits conferred upon them by the improvements or
by the services for which the assessments are levied.
2. Taxes may be levied upon personal as well as real
property, and upon person, business, occupation, fran
chise, privilege, and right; but special assessments are
levied upon land alone.
3. A tax is levied on the whole, or with reference t a
the whole, of a known political subdivision, as a state,,
county, city, town, or school district, or some special
subdivision thereof or some special class of property
therein; while a special assessment is levied on the^
property situated in a district created for the express
purpose of a levy, and possessing no other function or
even existence than to include the thing upon whichthe levy is made.
4. Taxes constitute a personal liability of the tax
payer, but special assessments can not become such
liability.
5. Certain properties may be specifically exempt
from property taxes on account of their public char
acter or from consideration of public policy, but no
property is thus exempt from special assessments.
6. Receipts from taxes may be expended for any
purpose or object for which the taxing authority may
make appropriations; but receipts from special assess
ments may be expended for only those public improve
ments and public services from which an exceptional
and plainly perceived benefit ensues to the property
or to the occupant of the property upon which they
are imposed.
38
FINANCIAL STA1?ISTICS OF CITIES.
7. Taxes are a continuing burden of recurrent
charges which must be collected at stated short inter
vals, while special assessments are levied occasionally
only, being exceptional both as to time and locality.
Fines and forfeits.—Fines are amounts of wealth ex
acted from individuals, firms, and corporations under
the sovereign power of inflicting punishment as penal
ties for violation of law, while forfeits are amounts
accruing to governments in accordance with the terms
of contracts as penalties for nonobservance of such
contracts. Forfeits of one class, however, are received
in lieu of fines and are classified as such. These are
deposits exacted to guarantee the appearance of the
depositor before a court. They, in a sense, are paid
to bind the agreement to thus appear, but as the
amount usually approximates the fine that would be
imposed in case of appearance and conviction, their
forfeiture relates them more nearly to fines than to the
usual forfeits for nonobservance of contracts. Re
ceipts from fines, like receipts from ,taxes, are what
writers on public finance call "compulsory revenues,"
while those from commercial forfeits belong to the class
called "contractual." It should be noted in this con
nection that the revenues from the liquor traffic in
Ohio and^ Iowa which are collected under what are
known as "mulct" laws, or laws for imposing mulcts or
penalties, are tabulated in this report as business taxes
and not asfines,such revenues being levied under the
legal fiction of a "fine" or "mulct," just as the corre
sponding "license fees" are levied under the legalfiction
of a benefit or service.
Escheats.—Escheats are amounts of money received
from the disposal of property whose owners can not be
ascertained or located.
Subventions and grants.—Subventions and grants
are gratuitous contributions made by one government
to another. The Bureau of the Census applies the
designation subventions to those contributions for
specified purposes made by the Nation and by states
and counties to their minor civil divisions, which are
granted subject to the formal compliance by the recip
ient with certain prescribed conditions, while the term
grants is applied only to those contributions of one
government to another which are made without the
prior establishment of conditions.
Donations and gifts.—Donations and gifts are gratu
itous contributions made by private individuals and
corporations to governments. The Bureau of the
Census uses the term donations in referring to those
contributions from private sources which are for the
establishment or maintenance of almshouses, hospitals,
infirmaries, libraries, and kindred institutions, and ap
plies the designation gifts to all other contributions by
private individuals and corporations to governments.
Pension assessments.—Pension assessments, as the
Bureau of the Census uses the term, are amounts of
;moneyjcollected from policemen, firemen, teachers,
and other governmental employees toward the pay
ment of pensions and the maintenance of pension
funds in the interest of the classes of employees con
tributing. Pension assessments are always received
subject to conditions, and thus always constitute trust
revenues.
Fees and charges.—Whenfirstused in private busi
ness, the word "fee" was the designation of the com
pensation exacted for a service performed or work
done, and the word "charge" was the designation of
a burden imposed. In private business the word
"fee" to-day retains its earlier significance, although
it is most frequently applied to the compensation for
the service of a physician, lawyer, or other pro
fessional person; but the word "charge" has come to
have the same general meaning as "fee," although it
is applied most frequently to the compensation ren
dered for a service performed, work done, or some
thing sold.
When first used in governmental business the word
"fee" was employed with the significance which it had
in private business, but it soon began to be also used
as the designation of an amount exacted by absolute
rulers by virtue of.what is now called the taxing
power, under the fiction that it was compensation for
a special service rendered or a special benefit conferred
in the form of a privilege or right that the taxpayer
was permitted to enjoy or exercise. In modern
statutes the word "fee" is used with both of these
meanings, inherited from the Middle Ages.
Municipal compulsory revenues called "fees" which
are levied and collected by virtue of the so-called
taxing or police powers are in this report tabulated as
"Taxes;" for reasons already stated.
Only those revenues arc tabulated as "Fees,"
which are what Seligman calls "contractual," and
which represent the actual compensation for services
performed by the employees of the government as
one person performs a service for another in private
life. They are payments for something done, as com
pared with payments for the privilege or right of doing
something, as are the so-called fees exacted under the
taxing or police powers and tabulated as taxes.
The Bureau of the Census places in the generic
group of revenues to which fees are assigned, the
revenues called "charges." In so tabulating charges
it uses the word with its secondary or derivative mean
ing, which is identical, as has been pointed out, with
the primary meaning of "fees*" The Bureau of the
Census specifically applies the term fees to amounts
collected as compensation for such services as are
performed only by governments; while it uses the
word charges as the designation of amounts collected
as compensation for governmental services that are
similar in character to those performed by one indi
vidual for another. The amount of a governmental
fee is usually established by statute, and the fee is
ACCOUNTING TERMINOLOGY.
generally collected in advance. On the other hand, a
governmental charge can be definitely determined only
upon completion of the work or service, and advance
payment for such work or service, if made at all, is
made only to guarantee the costs when determined.
Charges are differentiated from special assessments
by the following characteristics: A charge is the com
pensation for something done by governmental
employees for the benefit of a particular individual,
and in determining its amount no consideration is
taken of any service performed for another, or the
cost of any public improvement made or service ren
dered to the general public, or in behalf of the people
in a given territory. In contrast, a special assess
ment paid by a given individual always represents the
cost of some public improvement' or service which is
levied on all the land of a given territory. The dif
ference can best be illustrated by the following con
crete cases:
If in one portion of its territory a city constructs a
sewer or sidewalk or lays a water pipefor one or more
squares and apportions a whole or a part of the cost
to the property benefited, the amount so apportioned
constitutes a special assessment; while if a given indi
vidual with land outside of the line of sewer or water
pipe authorized, or in front of which no sidewalks
have been ordered, petitions to have his land connected
with the sewer or water main or to have sidewalks laid
in front of the same, and the city complies with his
petition and makes the improvements requested and
the petitioner reimburses the city wholly or in part
for the improvement made, the payment is here called
a charge and not a special assessment.
Further, if a city assumes the task of removing the
snow from the sidewalks or the rubbish from the
back yards of any portion of the territory and reim
burses itself for the* cost by a proportional levy upon
those benefited by the services, the amounts levied
upon the property benefited are special assessments.
If, however, the city makes it obligatory upon all
owners or occupiers of land to clear the snow from
the walks or remove rubbish from their back yards,
but establishes no general service for its removal or
collection, and in default of compliance by a particular
owner or occupier the city does the work and collects
the cost by a levy against the land, the amount col
lected is a charge and not a special assessment or tax.
ToUs is the designation given to charges made for
passing over bridges or traveling over roads.
Rates is the generic designation generally applied to
the revenues of water-supply, gas-supply, and electric
light systems and similar enterprises which they earn
by furnishing or supplying their respective utilities.
Rates and tolls are in reality but charges of certain
classes of enterprises which are given special names.
The names thus given and tho classification of these
revenues employed in this report are never modified by
39
the method adopted for enforcing their payment. In
some cities unless the rates of water and gas supply
systems and similar enterprises are promptly paid they
are made a lien upon the real property to the occupant
of which water, gas, or electric current is furnished,
and the amount is placed on the tax roll and collected
with taxes. This is a lien, as the courts have decided,
securing the payment of the debt by the individual
property owner for the "rate" or charge for the service
furnished, and not a tax.
Highway privilege dues.—Highway privilege dues is
the generic designation applied by the Bureau of the
Census to amounts of money received by cities as com
pensation for special privileges in, upon, under, or
over the public highways granted to particular indi
viduals and corporations beyond the privileges of other
individuals and corporations. Some of the privileges
granted for which these dues are received are priv
ileges in, upon, under, or over the highways that in
the case of private realty are called licenses, and others
are rights which are most frequently spoken of as ease
ments, and others, granted to public service corpora
tions, are privileges called franchises. They differ
from the privileges granted upon realty by lease in
that they are exercised under conditions that permit
the use of highways by others than the recipients of
the privileges. They also differ from the privileges
for which license taxes are paid in that they are priv
ileges to make certain uses of land owned by the
grantor, while the privileges secured by the payment
of license taxes are merely privileges to do something.
Highway privilege dues differ from fees in that fess
are received as compensation for services performed
or rendered, while highway privilege dues are received
as compensation for specified rights or privileges upon
the public highways. Highway privilege dues are
divided by the Bureau of the Census into two classes,
called major and minor.
Major highway privilege dues are amounts of money
exacted as compensation for those privileges upon the
highways which are exclusively enjoyed by public
utility corporations and which such corporations must
possess in order to carry on their business. The priv
ileges for which these dues are received as compensa
tion are those most generally called "franchises," and
are by some writers referred to as "operating fran
chises/' to distinguish them from "corporate fran
chises," or authority to exist as a corporation. These
dues may with propriety be called "franchise highway
privilege dues."
Minor highway privilege dues are amounts of money
exacted for licenses or easements granted for utilizing,
for purposes specified, portions of the highway or
space above or below it, including the privilege of
erecting awnings and signs projecting over or extend
ing across the sidewalk or street or constructing vaults
under the sidewalk or street in front of or adjoining
40
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
the property owned or occupied by the grantee- with decreases in municipal assets, or at least are not
Minor highway privilege dues may be collected from so shown in the accounts. Of tlieso ledger adjust
ments special attention is here called to premiums
corporations as well as from private individuals.
Other revenues.—Governmental revenues other than received on original sales of city debt obligations,
those mentioned above include interest receivable, and to discounts obtained in connection with the
rents, minor sales of materials and scrap when these purchase of such obligations for cancellation. If
are offsets to governmental expenses, and the sales of municipal accounts were all kept on a scientific
utilities and products furnished by public service basis the premiums on bonds sold would be credited
enterprises and municipal institutions. These govern- to a liability account with "premium," and written
f
mental revenues are of the same character as similar off or amortized year by year during the life of the
revenues of private persons and corporations to which bond, thus calling for no special adjustment of the
are given the designations mentioned- None of them balancing account. Such accounting is, however, not
call for any special definition or description in this practicable with the financial* administration of our
American cities at the present time, and hence the
connection.
Municipal borrowings.—Municipal borrowings is the premiums and the discounts here referred to should
generic term here used in referring to (1) the money re be debited to the balancing ledger account, and so
ceived by municipalities from the issue of long or short shown in city reports under some specific descriptive
term bonds, or other municipal debt obligations; and designation, if they can not, because of popular preju
(2) the bonds and other municipal debt obligations that dices, be treated as current revenues. In practice the
have been authorized but not issued. Borrowings in premiums here referred to are by American cities (1)
budget accounting are readily separable into those called used for meeting current expenses, (2) used for meeting
the cost of constructing or acquiring the properties and
funded, revenue, and special assessment borrowings.
public
improvements for which the bond issues them
Funded borrowings are the borrowings of cities rep
resented by long-term bonds or certificates issued or selves are used, (3) reserved for meeting the first pay
ment of the bonds for which they aro premiums, or
authorized.
Revenue borrowings are the borrowings of cities which (4) transferred to sinking funds and made reserves for
are represented by bonds and other obligations issued amortizing future debts. All of these treatments call
to secure money in anticipation of the receipt of ordi for ledger adjustment entries, if complete accounts aro
kept showing the effect of current transactions upon
nary revenues.
Special assessment borrowings are municipal borrow the interests of the city as a proprietor.
ings represented by bonds and certificates and time
MUNICIPAL* BECEIFTS AND PAYMENTS.
warrants issued in anticipation of the collection of
special assessments.
Receipts and payments in census statistics.—The
Municipal fund accumulations.—Most American census financial statistics of cities are, for reasons
cities which incur indebtedness by the issue of long-* already stated, based upon, and in largo part derived
term debt obligations, variously designated as "cor from, the accounts and reports of city comptrollers
porate stock," "bonds," and "certificates of indebt and treasurers, or those of other officials discharging
edness," provide for their final amortization by the some or all of the duties of officers bearing those
accumulation of sinking funds. The amounts appro designations. Those accounts, so far as they aro
priated from revenues each year to be added to the records of financial transactions, are with few excep
assets of such funds, including the earnings of the tions primarily accounts with what aro called in the
funds so added, are here called expenditures for commercial world "receipts and payments of cash."
accumulation of special funds, or, more briefly, special The methods employed by the Bureau of the Census
fund accumulations. The same term is applied to the in using these accounts for the purpose of compiling
additions made by donations, gifts, or otherwise to comparative statistics of governmental costs have
public trust funds for municipal uses, and to investment already been described at length. By those methods
funds and properties held as investments.
certain receipts and payments not recorded in cash
Municipal revenue ledger adjustments.—On page 32 a accounts are included in these statistics. The char
definition has been given of "Municipal ledger adjust acter of the receipts and payments thus included is
ments," and statements have been made setting forth described in the statements which follow.
the methods of recording them to secure comparable
Receipts.—In accounts, receipts are amounts of
statistical reports. Municipal revenue ledger adjust money, bills receivable, land, materials other than
ments include the credit and debit entries in ledger bal money, and services that in the conduct of business
ancing accounts that, like revenues, represent increases are received by or placed at the disposal or to the
in municipal assets which are not accompanied with credit of the recipient for his own use or benefit, or
increases in municipal liabilities, or represent decreases for the use or benefit of another. Receipts recorded
in municipal liabilities which are not accompanied in so-called cash accounts are called cash receipts.
ACCOUNTING TERMINOLOGY.
41
Payments.—In accounts, payments are amounts of so-called cash accounts of the municipalities from (1)
money, bills payable, land, materials other than sales of investments, (2) sales of supplies which have
money, and services that in the conduct of business been purchased for sale, (3) sales of municipal securi
are paid, delivered, or transferred in the settlement ties, (4) transactions other than sales of municipar
of claims against or for the final discharge of the debt securities which increase municipal indebtedness, and
obligations of the payer, or for his use, benefit, or (5) counterbalancing receipts such as those mentioned
credit. Payments recorded in so-called cash accounts in the preceding paragraphs; together with (6)
are called cash payments.
receipts during the year of services whose costs have
Municipal receipts and payments.—Municipal re been included among the expenses and outlays of the
ceipts and municipal payments axe the receipts and year, as has been described on pages 23 and 24, under
payments recorded in the accounts of cities and other "Difficulties arising from the exclusive use of cash
municipalities. Theso receipts may be classified with accounts by comptrollers and auditors," and "Diffi
reference to many different bases, and thus arranged culties arising from lack of proper accounts with
in a number of different classes, to each of which is materials and supplies."
given an appropriate designation. The primary
Municipal governmental cost payments.—The term'
• classification made use of in this report is one which "municipal governmental cost payments" is here
segregates receipts with reference to revenues, and applied to the payments of cities and other munici
payments with reference to governmental costs. When palities for their governmental costs, or for their
thus classified municipal receipts are separable into expenses, interest, and outlays, less amounts which
revenue receipts and nonrevenue receipts, and muni have been returned or are to be returned by reason
cipal payments into governmental cost payments and of error or otherwise. The amounts so returned or to
nongovernmental cost payments.
be returned should always be recorded as receipts in
Municipal revenue receipts.—The term "municipal the same accounts with governmental cost payments,
revenue receipts" is here applied to the receipts of and the payments and counterbalancing receipts are
cities and other municipalities on revenue account, in this report called counterbalancing payments and
less amounts which have been returned or are to be receipts. The municipal governmental cost payments of
returned by reason of error or otherwise. The amounts a given fiscal year included in the census financial
so returned or to be returned should be recorded as statistics comprise (1) the amounts recorded in local
payments in the same accounts with the revenue re cash accounts of the comptrollers, or other officers
ceipts, and the receipts and the counterbalancing pay acting as comptrollers, as paid during the year in
ments are called in this report counterbalancing receipts settlement of the claims of the current year on account
and payments. The municipal revenue receipts of a of expenses, interest, and outlays, including payments
given fiscal year included in the census municipal sta for materials and supplies used during the year; (2)
tistics comprise (1) amounts on revenue account re the amounts recorded in the same accounts as paid
corded in local cash accounts during the year, and during the succeeding year in settlement of the
(2) amounts of similar receipts which the Bureau of expenses, interest, and outlays for the given year; (3)
the Census combines with the recorded cash receipts payments recorded in the local cash accounts of city
for the purpose of compiling more comparable statis comptrolling officers in preceding years, equal in
tics of revenue receipts and governmental cost pay amount to the excess of the value of materials and
ments. (For details of these added receipts, and of supplies charged during the year as expenses and out
receipts recorded in local revenue accounts but omitted lays over the payments of the year for new materials
from the so-called revenue receipts of this report, see and supplies; and (4) payments for interdepartmental
pages 25,26,24, and 22, under " Difficulties arising from services not recorded in local cash accounts. The
the different mothods of accounting for interdepart payments mentioned after (1) and (2) are in most
mental servicer," "Difficulties arising from faulty ac cases equal in amount to payments recorded in war
counting for interest chargeable as outlay or expense," rant registers, and differ from them only to the extent
"Difficulties arising from lack of proper accounts that some payments are made without the issue of a
with materials and supplies," and "Difficulties arising warrant or order, as has already been explained.
from the collection of state and county revenues by With that exception those payments may be called
different governmental units*)"
"warrant payments" as well as "cash payments."
The
payments mentioned in (3) and (4) are combined
Municipal nonrevenue receipts.—The term "munic
by
the
Bureau of the Census with those mentioned in
ipal nonrevenue receipts" is here applied to all
(1)
and
(2) and certain payments recorded in local
receipts of cities and other municipalities other than
municipal revenue receipts as previously defined. expense accounts have been omitted from its so-called
Tlte municipal nonrevenue receipts of a given fiscal year governmental cost payments of this report for the
included in the census municipal financial statistics purpose of compiling more comparable statistics of
comprise (a) all receipts recorded during the year in governmental cost payments, as has been explained
42
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
on pages 25, 26, and 22, under the captions "Diffi of materials,and supplies, and receipts during the
culties arising from lack of proper accounts with year of services the cost of which are included by
materials and supplies/' "Difficulties arising from the the Bureau of the Census as expenses and outlays,
different methods of accounting for interdepartmental but which were represented at the closo of the
services," "Difficulties arising from faulty accounting year by unpaid warrants, orders, audits, claims, or
for interest chargeable as outlay or expense," and judgments.
Municipal payments to the public.—Municipal pay
"Difficulties arising from the collection of state and
ments
to the public comprise the payments by cities
county revenues by different governmental units."
and
other
municipalities to private persons and cor
Municipal nongovernmental cost payments.—The
term "municipal nongovernmental cost payments" is porations and to other civil divisions of cash or of
here applied to all payments of cities and other munici warrants, orders, bonds, notes, judgments, and other
palities other than municipal governmental cost bills payable in settlement or adjustment of claims
payments as previously described. The municipal non- against or in final satisfaction of tho debt obligations
governmerdal cost payments of a given fiscal year of the municipalities or of any of tho divisions of their
-included in the census financial statistics comprise governments, or for their use or benefit. The municipal
all cash or warrant payments recorded during the year, payments to the public for a given fiscal year included
in the accounts of municipalities for (1) the purchase in the census statistics comprise (1) cash paid during
of investments; (2) the purchase of supplies in excess the year to private persons and corporations and to
of those used or sold; (3) the final cash payment of other civil divisions in settlement of claims against the
municipal debt obligations in the form of bonds, notes, municipality or one of the divisions of its government,
warrants, and audited claims; and (4) counterbalanc or for its use or benefit; (2) cash paid to such persons,
ing payments such as those described in preceding corporations, and divisions during tho year in final
paragraphs which are recorded in revenue and govern satisfaction of warrants, orders, and other bills payable,
mental cost payment accounts..
of the given year or of any preceding year; (3) war
Significance of primary classification of municipal rants and other bills payable issued, delivered, trans
receipts and payments.—The segregation of municipal ferred, or entered of record during the year or during
receipts into revenue and nonrevenue receipts and the the succeeding year, in settlement of the claims of
segregation of municipal payments into governmental private persons and corporations and other civil divi
cost and nongovernmental cost payments is of great sions against the municipality, or one of the divisions
significance, since it permits the preparation of sum of its government, which arose or accrued during the
maries of financial transactions that show the excess given year. It should be noted in this connection that
of revenue receipts over the expenses and interest for the only payments such as those montioned in (3) as
meeting which they are provided, or the reverse, and being issued, delivered, etc., during the succeeding
the excess of governmental cost payments over reve year that are included in the census statistics are those
nue receipts, or the reverse.
of warrants and orders in settlement of claims audited
Secondary classification of municipal receipts and during the year that were issued in tho succeeding year,
payments.—Another classification of municipal re and the warrants, etc., that were issued by cities that
ceipts and payments made use of in this report is one held their books open for a limited period after the
which separates the receipts into those called "receipts close of the fiscal year to make a complete statement
from the public" and "transfer receipts," and the pay of the governmental costs of that year, as described on
ments into "payments to the public" and "transfer page 27, under "Difficulties arising from auditing
payments."
claims after the close of the year to which they relate."
Municipal receipts from (he public.—Municipal re Municipal transfer receipts.—Municipal transfer re
ceipts from the public is the designation applied in this ceipts is the designation applied in this report to
report to receipts from private persons and corpora amounts of cash (1) which the divisions of the govern
tions, and from states, counties, and other civil divi ment of a city or other municipality place at the dis
sions by cities and other municipalities for (1) their posal or to the credit of their accounts with their
governmental uses and purposes, and (2) for the use, various funds, including those for their departments
benefit, or credit of other civil divisions or of private and enterprises; or (2) which are transferred to one of
persons or corporations. The municipal receipts from these accounts from another; or (3) which one of these
the public for a givenfiscalyear included in the census funds, departments, or enterprises receives from or
municipal financial statistics comprise (1) all receipts transfers to another. The municipal transfer receipts
by cities and other municipalities from other civil for a givenfiscalyear included in the census statistics
divisions and from private individuals and corpora comprise all such receipts as those mentioned above
tions that during the given year are recorded in the after (2) and (3), which are recorded in the local
so-called cash accounts of the officers of the various accounts during the year, and similar interdepart
divisions of the government of the municipality; and mental receipts combined therewith by the Bureau of
(2) receipts during the year or during preceding years the Census for the purpose of compiling more compa-
ACCOUNTING TERMINOLOGY.
43
xablo and accurate statements of governmental costs, presents a summary of municipal revenue receipts
as has previously been explained.
and governmental cost payments classified as "net"
Municipal transfer payments.—Municipal transfer and "transfer;" the net revenue receipts being the
payments are the amounts of cash which a division receipts on revenue account, less the revenue transfer
of the government of the city or other municipality receipts and the receipts returned or to be returned
transfers or takes from the credit of one of its funds, by reason of error or otherwise, and the net govern
departments, enterprises, or accounts in settlement mental cost payments being the payments for expenses,
or adjustment of claims against it in favor, of another interest, and outlays, less transfer governmental
fund, department, enterprise, or account; or which cost payments and the payments returned or to be
one fund, department, or enterprise delivers or pays returned by reason of error or otherwise.
to another in settlement of its claims. The municipal
In addition to the common subclassification of receipts
transfer payments for a given fiscal year included in from and payments to the public and transfer receipts
the census statistics comprise (1) all municipal inter and payments described in preceding paragraphs,
departmental payments recorded in the local accounts attention is here called to two additional classifica
during the year, and (2) similar payments combined tions of transfer receipts and payments made use of
therewith by the Bureau of the Census for the purpose in this report: (1) A classification according to the
of compiling more comparable and accurate state character of the transaction, separating the transfers
ments of governmental costs, as has previously been j into those designated as general, service, interest,
explained.
and investment transfer receipts and payments;
Significance of the secondary classification of municiand (2) a classification by the degree of independence
pal receipts and payments.—The segregation of munici of the divisions, departments, offices, or accounts
pal receipts and payments into the two classes termed between which the transfers are made, separating the
"receipts from and payments to the public" and transfers into those designated as major and minor
"transfer receipts and payments" is of great signifi transfer receipts and payments.
cance, since a receipt of cash or any specific equivalent
General transfer receipts and payments are amounts of
thereof from the public increases the amount of such cash or its equivalent received and paid by transfer
cash or specific equivalent in the possession or control between independently administered divisions, funds,
of the government, and a payment or delivery to or enterprises, where the receipt is not associated
the public decreases the amount of such cash or with the performance of services, the purchase of
specific equivalent; while corresponding receipts by securities, the payment of interest on securities,,
one division, fund, or account of the city from another or the renting of real property.
effect no change in the amount of cash or such equiv
Service transfer receipts and payments included in
alent. In recognition of this fact the receipts from this report are (1) the receipts by or for public service
and payments to the public are sometimes spoken of enterprises as compensation for the public utilities,
in this report as actual receipts and payments, and the such as water, gas, and electric current furnished by
transfer receipts and payments as nominal receipts them for city uses; (2) certain receipts by one govern
and payments. The first class of receipts and pay mental division, fund, department, or office, as com
ments may be called corporate receipts and payments, pensation for the service performed.and the materials
since they are the receipts and payments of the various andother equivalents of cash furnished By it for another
corporations that constitute the government of a governmental division, fund, department, or office,
municipality; while the second class of receipts and or for a municipal enterprise, and the payments by
payments may be called fund receipts and payments, or for a division, enterprise, department, fund, or
since they are receipts of the funds of the city including account for which the services are performed and the
those for the various enterprises, departments, and materials and other equivalents of cash are furnished;
other objects of appropriation, or interdepartmental and (3) the accounting transfer receipts and payments
receipts and payments, for reasons that are obvious. described on pages 25 and 26 which represent similar
Subordinate classes of municipal receipts and pay receipts and payments not recorded in*city accounts.
Interest transfer receipts and payments are the re
ments.—Municipal revenue receipts, whether receipts
ceipts
and payments included in the census statistics
from the public or transfer receipts, are classi
of
municipal
financial transactions which represent (1)
fied and tabulated in Tables 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11,
the
receipts
shown on the books of city funds with
so as to show those from public service enter
prises and those from other sources and from the investments and the counterpayments shown on those
various classes of those revenues.. In like manner of the city corporation or division of the city govern
municipal governmental cost payments are classi ment on account of amounts paid by the corporation or
fied and tabulated in Tables 12, 15, 17, and 18, division to the funds as interest on municipal securi
and in the text table on page 72, so as to show those ties or debt obligations held by those funds, and (2)
paid in settlement of claims arising for expense, the accounting interest transfer receipts and payments
interest, and outlays. The text table on page 67 | described on page 26.
44
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
Investment transfer receipts and payments are munici erty, machinery, land, and plant of a mine, or the
pal receipts and payments recorded in the books of roadbed and rolling stock of a railroad.
Assets in governmental accounts.—Some modern
city funds with investments and in the books of the
accountants,
who have prepared what they call com
city corporation or other divisions of the government
plete
balance-sheet
statements of the financial condi
of the city, representing the value of securities or
other investments received by one fund from another, tion of the governments of municipalities and,, of other
or the value of those securities received by the city civil divisions, havo used the word "assets with a
corporation from one of the other divisions of the significance which differs from both the original and
derived meanings of the term as above sot forth. As
city government.
Major transfer receipts and payments are amounts of they use it the term loses the limitation which alwa3*s
cash or its equivalent transferred by one independent attaches to it in commercial accounts and statements,
of property liable for debts and holden for meeting
division or fund of a government to another.
Minor transfer receipts and payments are amounts claims, and comes to be the generic designation, not
of cash or its equivalent received by one office or only of cash, investments, uncollected revenues, and
account from another, or transferred from one account other resources provided and available for meeting
or division of a government to another. The greater debts and other liabilities, but also of all public im
portion of such transfers recorded in city accounts are provements, including street pavements and sewers, as
treated by the Bureau of the Census as accounting well as of all public property, such as city hails, parks,
credits and debits and are not included in its published and fire and police stations, although none of the
public improvements and only a limited portion of the
statistics.
property is legally liable for governmental debts or can
MUNICIPAL ASSETS, PBOPEBTIES, PUBLIC IMPROVE
be seized or held in satisfaction of claims.
MENTS, LIABILITIES, AND PROPRIETARY INTERESTS.
The Bureau of the Census, however, prefers the
Assets in private accounts.—The word "assets/' de usage of another class of governmental accountants
rived from the Latin ad satis, was first used as an ac and of a number of students and writers on govern
counting term in the statements prepared by heirs, mental finance who, fully appreciating the economic
administrators, and executors of the estates of deceased significance if not the administrative value of the so*
persons to include all the property, real and personal, called complete balance-sheet statements of govern
realizable and unrealizable, belonging to the estate mental financial condition, prefer to use the word
when such property was sufficient in. value jor amount "assets" in governmental accounts and statements
to meet all debts of the estate or all the claims upon with the restricted meaning it always has in private
it arising under the terms of the will of the deceased. accounts and statements. When the term <'assets" is
In this use the word fully retained the force of its employed with this limited or restricted significance,
Latin derivation and could be defined as "property the terms "properties" and "public improvements"
sufficient to meet debts and claims."
are necessarily used in referring to other forms of
The word "assets," which was first used as an wealth in the possession of the government. Such a
accounting term with the meaning just stated, was terminology assists in keeping to the front the great
later employed in the balance-sheet and other state differences that exist between the objects and view
ments of the financial condition of living persons,* and points of private and governmental business. I t
of firms, corporations, and governments, and is so emphasizes the fact, which the first terminology does
used to-day. In this later use the word has lost the not, that municipal debts arc not ordinarily liens upon
limitations of its Latin derivation and has come to city properties and public improvements, as all private
have its present significance in private accounts of debts are upon the property of the debtor, but upon
"property liable for meeting the debts of or claims the privately owned property of the citizens subject to
against the owner."
taxation; and that only the property given the desig
For convenience in accounting, the assets of com nation "assets" with the narrower significance is
mercial undertakings and those of private persons or seizablc for the payment of governmental debts in the
corporations are separated by accountants into two way that private property is for the payment of private
classes, designated as current assets and fixed assets, debts. This report uses the word " assets" in this
current assets being those which vary from day to day restricted sense as exclusive of properties and public
from sale, realization, exchange, etc., including such improvements of cities. The specific meanings given
property as stock in trade, cash, accounts and notes to the terms "municipal assets," "municipal prop*
receivable in the case of all concerns, and land in the erties," and "municipal public improvements," and
case of* real estate companies, while fixed assets are to their subclasses are stated in the definitions which
those which are employed in the accomplishment of follow.
the principal purposes of the enterprise or the person
Municipal mete.—Municipal assets are the cash and
owning them, and which are expected to have a life other wealth in the possession of cities and other mu
in service of more than one year, such as the real prop nicipalities, or at their disposal, which have been
ACCOUNTING TlERMINOLOGY.
acquired or provided for meeting their governmental
costs, for investment, and for paying debts, including
those which have been incurred by accepting private
or public trusts. The cash and other wealth that con
stitutes governmental assets as here defined are some
times referred to as funds. This meaning of the word
funds is to be distinguished from that of the word jfuTwZ
in the singular, and also in the plural, as the designa
tion of any amount of money or other wealth available
for a specified purpose.
Classification of municipal assets.—In municipal
Accounting records, as in those of private enterprises,
.assets are always represented by debit entries and
balances in accounts generally referred to as asset
accounts. Some of the debit entries and balances in
these accounts represent wealth actually in the posses
sion of municipalities or in their control or at their
disposal, and others represent the claims of one of
their departments or divisions upon another, or are in
other ways offset by the credit balances of liability or
other accounts. The assets represented by the first
class of entries are here called actual assets of municirjmlities to distinguish them from those represented by
the second class, which are here called nominal assets oj
municipalities. Nominal assets, which consist of
wealth not actually in the possession or at the disposal
of a municipality, but which under certain circum
stances may come into its possession or be placed at
its disposal, are generally called contingent assets of
municipalities. When classified according to the
purpose for which they are used, the assets of govern
ments are specifically designated as current and in
vested, and when classified with reference to the
account in which they are recorded or the fund to
which they belong, are referred to as general account
assets, special assessment account assets, capital ac
count or bond account assets, sinking fund assets,
public trust fund assets, or by other descriptive
designation.
The current assets of a municipality are the resources
or forms of wealth which have been provided and are
available for meeting its current expenses, interest,
and outlays, for meeting the current claims of credi
tors, and for investment. They include cash, mate. rials, and supplies, authorized but uncollected reve
nues, prepayments, advances to fiscal agents, and
bills and accounts receivable. The terms last men
tioned have substantially the same significance in
governmental as in private business accounting, and
for that reason are not specifically defined. The
accounts of most governments with their assets in
clude considerable amounts of nominal assets in the
form of uncollectible revenues not properly written
off. The recorded assets, which represent cash or its
equivalent in the possession or control of a govern
ment, constitute its actual current assets.
Invested assets, or investments, are those resources
or forms of wealth which have been acquired or held
45
by governments for such purposes as securing an in
come from their use, deriving gain from their rise in
value, avoiding losses that otherwise might be suffered,
and securing other possible advantages through their
acquisition and possession.
General account assets is a term which is employed
by some cities in referring to their current assets that
have by their ordinances or accounting usage been
specially provided or set aside for meeting either their
expenses and interest or their revenue expenditures.
Its exact significance in any given case will depend
upon the objects of the expenditures to be met from
the same.
Special assessment account assets is a term which'is
employed by some cities as the general designation of
their uncollected special assessments and of the cash
on hand which has been obtained from special assess
ments and th*e sale of special assessment certificates.
Capital account assets is a term which is employed
by the cities making use of the term " general account
assets," as above stated. It is applied as the designa
tion of all or specified portions of the current and
invested assets of cities as above defined that are to be
used for meeting outlays and for the final, amortizing
of municipal indebtedness. Its exact significance will
depend in part upon the meaning given to the term
"general account assets," and in part to the inclusion
or exclusion of the assets of sinking funds and other
special funds with investments.
Trust fund assets is the generic designation of cash
and invested assets that belong to so-called trust
funds. These fund assets should receive such addi
tional and specific designations as "Assets of private
trust funds," "Assets of public trust funds for mu
nicipal uses," "Assets of public trust funds for nonmunicipal uses," and "Assets of educational trust
funds," according to the purposes of the trusts for
which the funds are provided.
Municipal properties.—Municipal properties is the
designation employed by the Bureau of the Census in
referring to land used by cities and other municipali
ties for governmental purposes, to buildings and other
more or less permanent structures on said land (other
than those here called public improvements), and to
furniture, tools, apparatus, and other equipment having
a life in service of more than one year, excepting hand
tools and other small portable tools which may be lost
or stolen and of which no accounting record is kept.
These properties are further classified as productive
and nonproductive. Municipal^ productive properties
include the land, buildings, structures, furniture, ma
chinery, tools, and other equipment that are used by
cities and other municipalities in connection with the
operation of their public service enterprises. All other
properties of municipalities are spoken of as municipal
nonproductive properties.
Municipal public improvements.—Municipal public
improvements is the term employed by the Bureau of
46
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
the Census as the designation of those permanent they are confessedly far from perfect. Statistics of
structures used by^cities and other municipalities for uncollected revenue have not, however, been included
community purposes, which have a value in use but not in the report for any year, since tho data obtained with
in exchange, and whose value in use is reflected in the reference to this class of municipal assets have not
enhanced value of the property of private persons and been deemed sufficiently trustworthy to warrant pub
corporations. They are readily separable into three lication, and this extension of census statistics of
classes, here called municipal highway improvements, assets, properties, and public improvements is there
municipal sewers, and other municipal public improve fore deferred until approximately correct statements
ments. Municipal highway improvements is the desigof these values shall have been prepared by the
nation used in speaking of the structures and other cities.
Liabilities in private and governmental accounts.—Tho
improvements upon the land belonging to cities and
other municipalities which are employed for highway first financial statements in balance-sheet form in
purposes, including pavements, sidewalks, curbs, which the word "assets" was tho heading for ono side
bridges, tunnels, grades, and fills for highway pur had tho word "liabilities" as the heading for the other*
poses, but not structures for public service enterprises, These were statements for tho estates of deceased
such as railroads, street railways, and revenue-earning persons, as has already been explained. In them the
canals. Under the designation municipal sewers are word "liabilities" had tho meaning which tho courts
included not only the structures bearing that name, in that day assigned to it, and which they continue to
but all structures, such as manholes and catch basins, give to it. The word acquired no new meaning when
forming parts of sewer systems, and also all drain it was later used in tho balance sheets of living persons
age canals and open drains. Under the designation as well as in those for tho estates of deceased persons;
other municipal public improvements the Bureau of thebut with tho adjustment of accounts and balance
Census includes such public structures as retaining sheets to the needs of modern corporations, the word
walls, unproductive docks and wharves, and unpro "liabilities" has become, in the practice of some
ductive waterways.
accountants, a common designation of the debts of and
Accounts with assets, properties, and public improve^
claims against tho corporation and of its capital stock
ments.—When the accounts of governments with the and surplus.
value of their properties and public improvements are
In his work "The Philosophy of Accounts," Mrproperly kept, they contain approximately correct Charles E. Spraguo objects to this usage, sinco it con
statements of their value in use as determined either founds the rights and interests of creditors with those
by their original cost or the cost of their replacement, of the proprietors of an enterprise. The difference
less depreciation. When, however, these accounts are between theso rights and interests are stated by
improperly kept, they do not contain correct state Mr. Spraguo in the following words:
ments, and for that reason lose much of their account
1. The rights of the proprietor involve dominion over the assets
ing and administrative importance and can not be and power to use them as ho pleases, even to alienating them,
taken as a basis for a correct judgment concerning the while the creditor can not interfere with him or them except in
financial condition of governments or the results of extraordinary circumstances.
governmental methods of constructing and financing 2. The right of the creditor is limited to a definite sum which
does not shrink when the assets shrink, .while that of the pro*
improvements.
prietor is of an elastic value.
Few cities have any trustworthy records of the cost
3. Losses, expenses, and shrinkage fall upon the proprietor alone,
or present value of their properties; a still smaller and profits, revenue, and increase of value benefit him alone; not
number have any intelligible or trustworthy accounts his creditors.
of the original cost of their public improvements or
By reason of these differences, liabilities in accounts
any data for estimating the present cost of replacing should be fully differentiated from proprietary rightsf
them, and few prepare any trustworthy estimates of as* is done in the definition of the two terms which
the probable amount to be realized from their uncol follow, and in the accompanying suggested form for a>
lected revenues. Some improvement has been made, municipal balance sheet.
however, in this branch of accounting during the last
The Oxford Dictionary defines liability as "tho con
few years. Of the factors bringing about this im dition of being liable or answerable by law or equity,"
provement, one of the most potent has been the and.as "that for which one is liable, especially ptf tho
repeated attempts made by the Bureau of the Census debts or pecuniary obligations of a person or com
to secure correct information with reference to the pany/' These definitions are condensed statements
value of governmental properties and public improve of a large number of definitions embodied in American
ments. As a result of the progress made in this field and British court decisions, according to which Kaof accounting, the bureau has been able each year to lUities in accounts are the amounts of money and other
make its statistics of the value of governmental prop property and service, expressed in terms of money, for
erties and public improvements more trustworthy which persons, corporations, and governments iire
than those of any previous year, although even now liable or answerable by law or equity.
ACCOUNTING TERMINOLOGY.
Debts or debt liabilities*—In tho accounts of private
individuals and corporations, and also .in those of
governments, the most important items listed in
balance sheots under tho term "liabilities" are debts or
debt liabilities. Tho Oxford Dictionary defines debt
as "that which is owed or due; anything (as money,
goods, or services) which one person is under obliga
tion to pay or render another; a sum of money or
material thing." The debts of private individuals,
corporations, and governments are separable into those
called "contract" and "fiduciary," according asthey
are founded on or arise from simple contract, or from
some trust or confidence imposed upon the debtor.
Tho greator portion of debts arise from contract, and
call for no special explanation or discussion in this
connection. The character of those created by assum
ing trusts can best, be stated by first defining trusts
and their principal classes.
Trusts are the obligations to hold, use, or expend
money or wealth in the interest of specified persons," or
for specified purposes or objects, and may be grouped
into two general classes: (1) Obligations or responsi
bilities which are strictly trusts in the legal sense of
the word; and (2) obligations or responsibilities in the
nature of trusts which involve the relation of agent
and principal, such as those arising in the case of a
city acting as agent for the state or other civil division.
The trusts belonging to the first class are of two kinds,
private and public.
Private trusts aro those which concern individuals
and families and are limited in duration. They are
obligations and responsibilities to hold or use speci
fied amounts of money or other wealth in tho interest
of specified individuals, or to expend such wealth in
their interest or at their behest, or in accordance
with tho specified conditions of the trust.
Public or charitable trusts are those which are estab
lished for the benefit of the public at large or of some
designated -portion of the public, such as the young,
the poor, or the insane. These trusts are obligations
to expend specified amounts of monoy or other wealth
for specified objects or purposes, or responsibilities for
holding the same in the interest of such objects and
purposes.
All public or charitable trusts assumed by private
individuals and corporations and all guasi trusts as
sumed by them when acting as agent create fiduciary
debts which are scheduled as such in balance sheets.
I t is otherwise with municipal and other governments.
The only municipal trusts that give rise to fiduciary
debts aro private trusts, the quasi trusts arising from
agency transactions, and a class of public trusts to
which the Bureau of the Census gives the designation
public trusts for wmpmmi&'pal uses, or public trusts
for objects and purposes for which the municipality
has no authority to make appropriations. Public
trusts assumed by municipalities for objects and pur
47
poses for which the municipality has authority to
make appropriations are here called public trusts for
municipal uses. The obligations created by accepting
these trusts should be shown in balance sheets after
the title "Reserves," the definition of which is given
later under "Municipal proprietary interests."
Municipal debts or debt liabilities.—Municipal debts
or debt liabilities, or the debts or debt liabilities
recorded in the accounts of cities and other munici
palities and summarized in their balance sheets, are
the amounts of money or of property or services
expressed in terms of money which the municipalities
owe, or are under obligations to pay, deliver, or
render. They include, in addition to the debts arising
from contracts, the fiduciary debts above described.
Municipal debts may be evidenced by written instru
ments, such as those called bonds, certificates of in
debtedness, mortgages, notes payable, warrants pay
able, audits payable, or by decrees of courts called
judgments. Further, some municipal debts, like pri
vate debts, are represented by accounts without the
issue of any formal instrument acknowledging the
indebtedness. The terms bonds and certificates of
indebtedness are generally applied to all written in
struments evidencing municipal liabilities given under
the seal of the city or other municipality issuing the
same. These instruments are generally given specific
names when the money for redeeming them is to be
obtained from certain specified sources. Thus bonds
and certificates of indebtedness to be redeemed from
the proceeds of special assessments are called special
assessment bonds or special assessment certificates; and
instruments given as evidence of debts to be paid
from the current tax levy are called revenue bonds,
anticipation tax bonds, anticipation tax warrants, war
rants, and kindred designations. Instruments evi
dencing municipal indebtedness less formal than those
mentioned above are called notes payable, warrants
payable, and audits payable. Liabilities recorded only
in books of account are called accounts payable, and
those evidenced by the decisions of courts are called
judgments.
The debts or debt liabilities of municipalities may
be classified in many ways, and the resulting classes
given many specific designations. Classified with ref
erence to creditor, they are here called actual and
nominal debts or debt liabilities; classified according
to the provision made for meeting them, they are
called current, fixed, and floatinjg liabilities; and clas
sified according to the time when due and payable,
they are called due and demand debt liabilities, debt
liabilities not due, and unadjusted debt liabilities and
claims.
The actual debts or debt liabilities of municipalities
are the amounts of money or of property, or services
expressed in terms of money, which cities and other
municipalities are under obligation to pay or render to
48
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
private persons and corporations and to other civil debts" in speaking of the debts evidenced by the
long-term bonds and certificates of indebtedness
divisions*
specifically mentioned above.
The nominal debts or debt liabilities of municipalities The floating debts or floating debt liabilities of munici
are (1) the amounts which cities and other munici
palities are those debts or debt obligations of cities
palities owe to their funds, departments, or enterprises,
and other municipalities for the payment of which
or which one of their funds, departments, or enter
there is no cash in the treasury, or other assets specifi
prises owes or is under obligation to pay to another;
cally provided and available for meeting them when
(2) debts and debt liabilities which under specified
due. Under this heading the Bureau of the Census
circumstances or subject to specified conditions munici
has tabulated for this report (1) all debts evidenced
palities may be called upon to pay, deliver, or render
in the future, but for the payment, delivery, or ren by special assessment certificates, revenue bonds,
dering of which there are no present obligations; and warrants, and accounts payable that have been
(3) other debts or debt liabilities of municipalities incurred in excess of the amounts received or receiv
represented by credit entries in liability accounts that able on account of the levies of special assessments
are balanced by identical debit entries in asset and and general property taxes provided for redeeming
other accounts. The nominal liabilities of municipali them; (2) all debts evidenced by special assessment
ties which do not represent amounts which are present bonds to be redeemed from the levies of a succeeding
obligations to pay or render, but which under certain year; (3) all debts evidenced by short-term bonds to
circumstances may become such obligations, are gen be redeemed from the proceeds of long-term debt
erally called contingent delis or contingent debt liabilities. obligations; (4) all judgments outstanding; (5) all
The current debts or current debt liabilities of municiindebtedness to public trust funds not evidenced by
palities are the debts or debt liabilities of cities and formal bonds or certificates of indebtedness; (6) all
other municipalities for the payment or redemption of mortgages; (7) all liabilities growing out of tho rela
which provision is fully made by cash on hand, by tion of agent and principal or the acceptance of pri
revenues (including special assessments) levied but vate trusts where no assets to meet them are in the
uncollected, or by .other current assets provided and treasury; and (8) all debts or debt liabilities which
appropriated for the specific purpose of their payment havo a number of years to run and which are not
and redemption. The current liabilities of cities and evidenced by bonds or certificates of indebtedness.
Gross and net debts.—The term gross debt or gros$
other municipalities are readily separable into those
evidenced by special assessment certificates, revenue indebtedness is employed in this report as tho designa
bonds, warrants, and similar instruments, and the tion of the aggregate of all outstanding obligations,
fiduciary debts arising from the acceptance of private including current, funded, and floating indebtedness;
trusts for nonmunicipal uses and from acting as agent and the term net debt or net indebtedness is used as the
designation of the gross debt less the assets specifically
for other civil divisions.
The current debts evidenced by special assessment appropriated for meeting them. The amount of that
certificates are those which will be redeemed from the indebtedness as shown for the individual cities included
proceeds of special assessments that have been levied in this report is computed in each case by subtracting
and collected or are to be collected. The current debts the sinking fund assets from the total funded and
evidenced by revenue bonds and by warrants and floating debt, it being assumed that the current debt is
accounts payable are those'which will be redeemed balanced by the current assets. The method of com
from the proceeds of the general property taxes puting net debt or net indebtedness secures only
already levied, or from cash or other assets from the approximately correct statements, owing to the fact
city treasuries; and the current fiduciary debts are those that the current assets are not always identical with
arising from the acceptance of private trusts and current debts; but until cities generally provide more
public trusts for nonmunicipal uses, and those arising accurate statements of the value of such current assets
from acting as agent, for meeting which the city has as uncollected taxes and uncollected special assess
cash in the treasury.
ments, no more accurate or comparable figures of net
The fixed or funded debts of municipalities are those indebtedness are practicable for all cities.
debts or debt liabilities of cities that are evidenced by
Proprietary interests in private accounts.—Proprie
bonds or certificates of indebtedness which have a tary interests is the designation here used in referring
number of years to run, or upon which interest is to be to the amount of money or other wealth which the
paid in perpetuity, but for the amortization of which proprietor or proprietors of a private business have
no assets other than those of sinking funds have been invested in that business. Its amount in any case is
specifically provided or appropriated. Governments always the difference between the assets and the debt
at one time applied the term "funded debts" only to liabilities of the business. In accounts these proprie
those of their debts for whose amortization sinking tary interests or property rights of the proprietore are
fund provisions had been made; but at the present the represented by credit balances, the same as are the
term is used more or less interchangeably with "fixed liabilities, and in the case of corporations are readily
ACCOUNTING TERMINOLOGY.
separable into two classes—those which are recorded
in the accounts with capital stock, and generally
represent the original investments of the stockholders,
and those which are recorded in the accounts with
the so-called surplus which with a limited number of
exceptions represent the undivided profits or earnings
of the business. The difference between the interests
or rights of the proprietors represented by credit
balances in one group of accounts, and the claims of
creditors or liabilities that are represented by credit
entries in another set of accounts, have been set forth
on page 46 in the quotation from Sprague's "The
Philosophy of Accounts."
Municipal proprietary interests.—Municipal proprie
tary interests is the designation here applied to the
excess of the value of municipal assets, properties, and
public improvements over the amount of the munic
ipal indebtedness. This excess, having all been ob
tained from rovenue, may with propriety be spoken
of as municipal revenue accumulations. Municipal
proprietary interests, or revenue accumulations, are
of two distinct kinds: The reserved and the free or
unreserved.
Municipal reserves is the designation given by
accountants to the reserved proprietary interests of
municipalities. These reserves are of several distinct
classes, each receiving a descriptive designation. The
most important of these classes are (1) sinking fund
reserves, or proprietary interests which represent
assets that have been set aside or reserved for the
final amortization of debts; (2) public trust reserves, or
proprietary interests which represent (a) assets that
have been received and must be expended for speci
fied purposes or the income of which must be so
expended, or (jb) real property that has been acquired
under conditions that require its continual future use
for specified purposes; (3) appropriation reserves or
oudget reserves, or proprietary interests that represent
assets that must be expended for the purposes stated
in appropriation acts; and (4) reserves for contingen
cies, or proprietary interests which represent assets
that have b.een set aside in special funds, or otherwise
appropriated, to meet specified future contingencies,
such as losses by fire, bad debts, bad investments, or
depreciation.
Municipal free or unreserved proprietary interests is
the generic designation here given to that portion of
the municipal proprietary interests not properly
spoken of as municipal reserve as above defined,
while in ledger accounts this term is the proper desig
nation of the balancing accounts.
Offsets to municipal assets.—It should be noted in
this connection that some of the ledger accounts of
municipalities, like those of private individuals and
corporations, carry credit balances that do not repre
sent actual proprietary interests, but are offsets to the
debit balances in asset accounts. Considered as pro28656°—14
4
49
prietary interests, the credit balances of these accounts
are here spoken of as nominal municipal proprietary in
terests, to distinguish them from the actual municipal
proprietary interests, or the excess of actual assets over
actual liabilities. I t is better, however, to consider
these not as actual or nominal proprietary interests,
but to give them a name descriptive of their special
character. Designated in this manner they are here
referred to as offsets to assets.
MUNICIPAL ACCOUNTING SUMMARIES.
Use of summaries in accounting.—In governmental
as well as in private business, accounts are made of
assistance in administration mainly through the in
strumentality of summaries of the information con
tained therein. Without such summaries it is im
possible for an administrative officer or other person
to gather from accounts any comprehensive knowl
edge of a given business, and without comparative
annual summaries, or summaries for two or more years
arranged in parallel columns, it is impossible to use the
experience of any one year as a basis for measuring or
testing the results or outcome of the administration of
a given city in a given fiscal year. The number and
character of the summaries that are employed by a
government determines in large measure, therefore, the
extent to which its accounts are made of assistance in
its administration, and the extent to which its citi
zens are given intelligible statements with respect to
public business. The summaries employed in muni
cipal accounting, like those made use of in private
accounting, are readily separable into two principal
classes: (1) Those which exhibit the results or outcome
of municipal business for a specified period of time,
and (2) those which exhibit the state or condition of
that business at a specified time. Municipal sum
maries are given names according to the specific trans
actions to which they relate, or the classes of data
included. In the succeeding paragraphs descriptions
axe given of a number of the most important sum
maries of the two classes mentioned. Of these sum
maries, those which relate to municipal business in
its entirety are referred to as principal, and those
which relate to some division, or subdivision thereof
are given such specific designation as fund, depart
mental, functional, or subordinate summaries.
General income statements of private enterprises.—As
illustrative of the principles of accounting to be em
ployed in the preparation of municipal summaries, a
brief consideration is first given to the summaries of
revenues, expenses, and interest that are used by
private enterprises.
The summaries mentioned may be arranged in many
forms, and given many names. When prepared by
railroad companies they are given such designation as
"general income statements," "general income ac
counts/' "summaries of revenues, expenses, and
50
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
interest/' or "revenue and expense statements." referred to. The results of the second are shown by
They are designed to exhibit the results or outcome of the increases and decreases in assets, liabilities, and
the business transactions of a given fiscal year, ex proprietary interests. These increases and decreases
pressed in terms of the balance between revenues and are most frequently presented, as is done by the Balti
revenue ledger adjustments on the one side and the more & Ohio and other railroad companies, by arrang
total expenses, interest, and expense ledger adjust ing in parallel columns balance-sheet summaries show
ments on the other. An excess of the former over the ing (1) conditions at the beginning of the year, (2) con
latter is called income. BYom its net amount for a ditions at the close of the year, (3) increases during
given year are deducted all dividends and other the year, and (4) decreases for the samo period. The
apportionments to the stockholders. The portion data thus exhibited could bo readily joined to the
remaining after these deductions is most generally general income statement, as a second section of the
called current surplus, the word "surplus" having its same. A summary thus arranged would exhibit the
primitive meaning as given in the dictionaries "the results of all business transactions which are con
excess that remains above what is used or needed," tained in the two statements described above.
Summaries of the outcome of municipal business.—
being the amount of revenues not used or needed in
meeting current costs of - operation. The aggregate The principal object of a private incomo statement is
of such undistributed income of the current and pre to provide information showing the results of the busi
ceding years constitutes the total surplus of the enter ness operation in increasing or decreasing the amount
prise, or the interests of the stockholders as proprie of the proprietary interests of the stockholders. That
tors in the enterprise in addition to the amount of information is valuable in the case of municipalities,
such interests represented by the par value of the as in that of private enterprises. Similar summaries
capital stock. The total surplus which constitutes should therefore be prepared for cities, if municipal
the accumulated profit of the enterprise .consists of accounting is to accomplish for governmental busi
two portions: (1) That which has been set aside for ness what is demanded from the accounting of pri
specified purposes, such as the amortization of in vate enterprises. Of greater importance from an ad
debtedness and to provide for future depreciation or ministrative point of view, however, are summaries
losses; and (2) all other surplus. The first portion of the results of municipal administration as the same
constitutes the reserves of the enterprise, and the relate to the terms of appropriation acts. The two
second makes up its unreserved surplus.
summaries here mentioned should, however, be fully
Summaries of increases and decreases of assets, Zio-differentiated one from the other, or municipal account
lUities, and proprietary interests ofprivate enterprises.—ing will-fail to provide all the information required for
While engaged in the work of acquiring and construct the most efficient administration of city affairs and
ing its properties a new railroad or manufacturing com for an intelligent popular judgment concerning the
pany records its transactions in a group of accounts outcome of municipal business. Typical summaries
that are summed up in a statement generally entitled of the outcome of municipal business of the two kinds
"receipts and expenditures on capital account." referred to are presented and described in the para
This account is a summary of the outcome or results graphs which follow. The first mentioned are eco
of the business of the corporation in building and nomic in their character, while the second are mainly
equipping its road or manufacturing establishment. administrative. Thefiret,which are designed to show
All well-managed corporations have some similar the changes effected in municipal proprietary interests,
summary of their business incident to acquiring their are here called "Summaries of municipal revenues, ex
working plants. The great majority of private enter penses, and interest" and "Summaries of net munici
prises which operate with a more or less fixed capital pal receipts and expenditures on capital account," and
stock and funded debt make but few changes from those which are prepared for showing the relation of
year to year in their fixed assets and liabilities, and municipal financial transactions to the terms of the
the changes which do take place are of but trifling appropriation acts are called "Budget summaries."
significance. The original statement of receipts and Consideration is first given to the summaries last
expenditures on capital account remains a fairly cor mentioned, which are from an administrative point
rect exhibit of the business of acquiring fixed proper of view the most important.
ties and equipment. A different situation exists in
Municipal budget summaries*—The budget sum
the case of a great railroad or manufacturing corpora maries usually prepared by American cities are state
tion that annually expends vast sums in extensions ments of their ordinary revenues and the expenditures
and improvements. These corporations are engaged made therefrom through the general treasury. Such
in two quite distinct lines of business: One, the earn summaries are not complete statements of the financial
ing of income, or securing a profit; and the other the transactions of cities that take place in accordance
business of acquiring, constructing, and improving with the provisions of appropriation acts and other
properties. The results of thefirstline of business ac legislation. Completely to set forth those transac
tivity are summed up in the income statements above tions the budget summary of ordinary revenues and
ACCOUNTING TERMINOLOGY.
ordinary revenue expenditures, like a statement of
ordinary revenue authorizations, must be supple
mented, as set forth on page 54, by similar summaries
51
of the expenditures made from other resources, in
cluding those made from the revenues of special funds.
Such summaries follow:
CITY OF A. B.
BUDGET SIB1MARIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31,1912.
A. GRAND SUMMARY OP ALL FUNDS.
Net budget expenditures for—
Expenses
Interest
:
Outlays
Net revenues:
Ordinary
Special assessments
$7,430,000
1,050,000
4,370,000
Total governmental costs...;
Amortization of debts from—
Premiums on bond sales
Special assessments
Ordinary
revenues
$12,850,000
2,500
197,500
685,000
Total amortization of debts.
Payments to state of state revenue collected..
Accumulation of special funds:
Sinking funds
Public trust funds for municipal uses
Other funds.
885,000
500,000
295,000
30,000
30,000
Total accumulation of special funds
Totalrevenues
T
Premiums on bond sates:
Special assessment certificates...
Funded debt bonds
Total premiums on bond sales
State revenue collections
Borrowings for outlays by issue of—
Special assessment certificates
Funded debt bonds
$10,767,500
807,500
.
$11,575,000
2,500
35,000
37,500
500,000
.
245,000
3,100,000
Total borrowings for outlays
3,345,000
355,000
Total net budget expenditures
Increase in budget reserves
Increase in budget surplus
Grand total
14,590,000
615,000
252,500
15,457,500
Grand total
15,457,500
B. ORDINARY REVENUE SUMMARY OR SUMMARY OP REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES ON GENERAL ACCOUNT.
Budget expenditures for—
Expenses
Interest
Outlays
$7,395,000
725,000
860,000
Total governmental costs
*.
Amortization of funded debt obligations.
Payments to state of state revenue collected
Transfer payments—
To sinking funds
To public trust funds for municipal uses.
$8,980,000
345,000
500,000
Revenues:
Ordinary
,
Transfer receipts—
From insurance investment fund..
State revenue collections
. $10,413,500
30,000
500,000
635,000
16,000
Total transfer payments.
651,000
Total budget expenditures
Increase in budget reserves
Increase in budget surplus
10,476,000
215,000
252,500
Grand total
10,943,500
Grand total
10,943,500
C. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY.
Budget expenditures:
Interest
Revenues:
$45,000
$855,000
Amortization of debts from—
Special assessments
$807,500
2,500
245,000
Premiums on bond sales
Borrowings for outlays by issue of special assessment certificates
2,500
197,500
t.
200,000
Grand t o t a l . . . . . . . . -,...... *
1.O55.Q00 I
^-
..
1.055.000
D. SUMMARY OP RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES OP BOND FUNDS.
Budget expenditures for—
Utlays
Outlays
Transfer
'-■■■*--payments to sinking funds
Premiums on bond sales
Borrowings for outlays by issue of—
Funded debt bonds
$2,700,000
35,000
Total budget expenditures
Increase In budget reserves
Grand total
$2,735,000
400,000
3,135,000
$35,000
3,100,000
Grand total
3,135,000
E, SUMMARY OP REVENUES, RECEIPTS, AND EXPENDITURES OP SINKING FUNDS.
Budget expenditures for—
Interest
Amortization of debts..
$355,000
340,000
$695,000
295,000
Total budget expenditures.,
Increase in assets
Grand
total
—
-
990,000
Revenues:
Ordinary—
Investment earnings.
Other revenues
Totalrevenues..
Transfer receipts from general fund.,
Transfer from Dond funds
Grand total.
$120,000
200,000
$320,000
635,000
35,000
990,000
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
52
C I T Y O F A . B.—Continued.
BUDGET SUMMARIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31,1912-Continued.
F. SUMMART OP REVENUES, RECEIPTS, AND EXPENDITURES OP PUBLIC TRUST PUNDS FOR MUNICIPAL USES.
Budget expenditures for—
Revenues:
Ordinary—
$68,000
Total budget expenditures
Ticrw^ iii assets.... T 7
t T.
Grand total <..--■
-
.,
170,000
30,000:
-
, •.
100,000
13,000
82,000
$34,00*
16,000
Grand total
100,000
G. SUMMARY OP REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES OP INSURANCE INVESTMENT FUND.
Budget expenditures for—
Transfer payments to general fund
Increase of assets
;..Grand total*
130,000
30,000
60,000 I
Comparing the six fund summaries given above with
those of the principal summary, or grand summary of
all funds, it will be found that the sum of the grand
totals of the former exceeds the grand total of the latter
by $826,000. The difference represents the interfund or
transfer transactions eliminated from the principal sum
mary. Of these transactions, $110,000 were service and
interest transfers included in the fundsummaries of revenuesbalanced by transfer payments asfollows: $33,000
in the fund statements of expenses, $2,000 in the fund
statements of outlays, and $75,000 in the fund state
ments of interest. The other transfers were those here
called "general," which amounted to $716,000.
The total of the revenues and premiums on bond
sales of the principal summary exceeded the total of
expenses and interest by $3,132,500. Such an excess
measures the increase in the proprietary interests of
the city, only when the city has included in its appro
priations those required to make good the deprecia
tion of all municipal properties due to wear, waste,
obsolescence, and loss. Very few American cities,
however, whether keeping their accounts on the basis
of accrued revenues and expenditures, or on that of
cash receipts and payments, make such appropria
tions. If, therefore, a city preparing its budget sum
maries upon the lines presented above, or on any'other,
wishes to exhibit the increases or decreases of munici
pal proprietary interests as is done by private enter
prises, it must make adequate appropriations for de
preciation, or supplement those summaries with others
similar to those presented on pages 53 and 54. This
procedure is especially necessary in the case of the aver
age city which prepares no budget summary other than
that of ordinary revenues and revenue expenditures.
Of the $3,132,500 of excess of current revenues and
premiums on bond sales over expenses and interest
shown in the foregoing summary, $1,427,000 were ex
pended for outlays—$862,000 from ordinary revenues
and $565,000 from special assessments; $885,000 were
expended for the amortization or payment of debts—
$685,000 from ordinary revenues, $2,500 from pre
Ordinary—
Investment wiming*.
160,000
60,000
miums on bond sales, and $197,500 from special assess
ments; $355,000 were expended for adding to the
assets of special funds—$320,000 from ordinary reve
nues and $35,000 from premiums on bond sales appro
priated for such fund purposes; $215,000 were added
to the unexpended revenue appropriations or budget
reserves, as they are referred to in the summary; and
$252,500 were added to the unappropriated resources,
or budget surplus. In the foregoing statement recog
nition is taken of the duplication of $2,000 in the fund
outlay statements to which attention has been called
in a preceding paragraph.
The word "surplus/1 which is used in the foregoing
summary and text as a designation of the revenues
which have not been appropriated and which are at
the time of preparing the summary available for
appropriation, is used in strict conformity with its use
in private accounting. It is the "excess that remains
above what is used or needed." In the case of private
enterprises it is the excess of net income after the
dividends have been apportioned to stockholdere, and
in the present case it is the excess after all municipal
authorizations of the appropriation acts or budgets
have been made. It should be carefully differentiated
from the excess of revenues over expenses and interest,
with or without allowance for depreciation.
The foregoing budget summaries include an in
crease in budget reserves, or the unexpended budget
authorizations, of $400,000, in addition to those mentioned above as resulting from the revenue trans
actions of the year. These reserves represent the in
creases during the year in the unexpended balances of
outlay appropriations to be financed from the pro
ceeds of the issue of funded debt loans. In like
manner the outlays as shown in summary C, as met or
to be met from special assessments, amount to $245,000 more than the aggregate expenditures stated
above as met from current special assessment reve
nues. The difference between the two amounts repre
sents expenditures met from receipts obtained from
the issue of special assessment certificates.
ACCOUNTING ' ERMINOLOGY.
Summaries of municipal revenues, expenses, and in
terest—A summary of revenues, expenses, and interest
of the city as a corporation or business unit does not
have the same significance as that of a private enter
prise, although an excess of revenues over expenses
and jjiterest in the one case as in the other measures
the current increase in proprietary interests. This
excess in the case of municipalities is, however, never
"income" or "profit," as it is in the ease of a private
corporation or of a municipally conducted public
service enterprise. I t is the excess of current rev
enues that has been exacted or otherwise provided
for meeting the cost of acquiring or constructing per
manent properties or public improvements, purchas
ing investments or reducing indebtedness, but is not
something earned for the proprietors of the business,
as is private income or profit, but like the stock assess
ments of private enterprises, is something exacted or
otherwise secured from them. This excess is exacted to
add to municipal proprietary interests, while the
revenues used to meet expenses and interest are ex
acted to meet the cost of the community services
performed.
A contra-excess, in other words, an excess of ex
penses and interest over revenues, demonstrates that
the cost of all permanent properties and public im
provements for the current year, and an amount of
current expenses equal to the given excess, are thrown
upon the future to be met by future taxes and other
revenues. Such an excess is not a "loss," as in the
case of a private enterprise, but is the amount of de
crease in the proprietary interests of the city that has
taken place during the year as the result of the failure
of the municipal government to exact sufficient rev
enues to meet current expenses and interest.
The excess of municipal revenues over municipal ex
penses and interest, such as has been referred to above,
is designated by some accountants and city officials
as "surplus," "current surplus," or "current revenue
surplus." This use of the word has, without doubt,
arisen from a failure to differentiate the two classes
of summaries of the outcome or results of municipal
business to which attention has already been called.
' The word itself is a proper designation of the accounting
or administrative excess of revenues over budget ex
penditures, to which attention has been called on page
50, but is not such a designation of the additions made
to the municipal proprietary interests. The use of the
word "surplus" as a designation of such addition can
not, therefore, fail to give rise to incorrect judgments
relating to municipal financial conditions. Further,
when this incorrect use of the word is associated with
its employment as the designation of the municipal
budget excess, public accounts and reports are made
instruments for concealing rather than disclosing the
outcome of municipal financial business. For this
reason it is better to speak of the excess of revenues
over expenses and interest, or the reverse, by some
53
descriptive term that sets forth its true character as
an addition to, or reduction in, the interests of the
city as a proprietor in its assets, properties, and pub
lic improvements.
Summaries of net municipal receipts and expendi
tures on capital account—Summaries of municipal rev
enues, expenses, and interest, such as have been de
scribed above, are not statements of the outcome of
all the business of municipalities any more than its
income statement is a complete summary of all the
business transactions of a great railroad or manufac
turing company, since a city, like those corporations,
is engaged in annually expending vast sums for increas
ing the properties and public improvements required
for conducting its business. Municipal summaries of
revenues, expenses, and interest should, therefore, be
supplemented, as are the income statements of large
private enterprises, by statements of the annual in
creases and decreases in assets, properties, public
improvements, budget surplus, liabilities, and proprie
tary interests. Those increases or decreases are the
net receipts and net expenditures on municipal capital
account.
Commercial summaries of the outcome of municipal
business.—The following are two pro forma commercial
summaries of the outcome of municipal business, or sum
maries such as have been described above, showing the
economic results of the current financial transactions.
The first is a summary of the revenues, expenses, and
interest of an average American city having from
300,000 to 500,000 inhabitants in which substantially
one-fourth of the annual revenues is available for pur
poses other than meeting current expenses and interest.
The second is a statement of the incre(ises and decreases
in- the municipal assets, properties, public improve
ments, budget surplus, liabilities, and proprietary
interests expressed in terms of net current municipal
receipts and expenditures on capital account.
Summaries such as the following, like correspond
ing statements of private enterprises, to have any
significance or administrative value must be accurate
and complete, and the accounting on which they are
based must be of such a character as to provide data
for preparing the same promptly at the close of the
fiscal periods to which they relate.
To be complete and accurate, the revenues shown
in summary A should include the general property tax'
and the special assessments levied for and other reve
nues credited to the period to which the summaries
relate, other than amounts of such revenues abated
or canceled, or that probably will be abated or can
celed for. any reason, and all amounts returned or
that will probably be returned by reason of error
or otherwise. They should also include all amounts
that during the year were (1) added to the book
value assigned at the beginning of the year to the
revenue assets of that time, and (2) all amounts
deducted from municipal liabilities as stated in the
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
54
ledger at the beginning of the year. The expenses as like manner the interest as stated in the summary
stated in the same summary should include all current should include all accruing costs for the use of credit
costs for collecting revenue and all losses by defalca capital other than the amounts of such costs that have
tion, bank failures, and kindred causes, and the depre been previously received and have been or are to be
ciation in the value of permanent properties and equip returned. Further, for summaries such as the forego
ment by waste, wear, and obsolescence, other than ing, all revenues received by or credited to one depart
amounts of such expenses which have been returned mental fund which have been paid by or debited to
or are to be returned by reason of error or otherwise. another, as expense or interest, should be eliminated,
They should also include all amounts that during so that the amounts given are in all cases net. Only
the year were (1) deducted from the book value by a strict observance of the foregoing accounting
assigned, at the beginning of the year to the assets, or rules can a given summary be used in making com
(2) that were added to the municipal liabilities as parisons with similar summaries of other cities. (See
stated in the ledger at the beginning of the year. In text on page 32 relating to ledger adjustments.
CITY OF A, B.
COMMERCIAL SUMMARIES OF FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1912.
A. SUMMARY OF NET REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND INTEREST.
$8,100,000
1,750,000
111,960,000
40,000
9,850,000
1,200,000
050,000
12.000.000
12.mn.o0o
B. SUMMARY OF NET CUBRENT RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT.
Balances from revenue, expense, and interest accounts
1950,000
Decrease In budget surplus
600,000
Net receipts, other than premiums, from issue of funded debt obligations.. 2,300,000
Gross outlays (expenditures for properties and public improvements)... $5,100,000
Less depredation
1,760,000
NetoutlayB
Expenditures to increase sinking fund assets
Expenditures to increase assets of public trust funds for municipal uses..
Expenditures to increase assets of other reserve funds
Grand total
3,850,000
Summaries, such as those given above, should be
accompanied with-supplementary summaries of two
different kinds, one by administrative funds arranged
on substantially the same lines as the foregoing, and
the other presented in greater detail. The latter
should, with other information, exhibit the amounts
of the principal classes of revenue, the classes
of debt on which interest is paid, and the principal
objects of expense. The revenues and expenses of
public service enterprises should be given separately
from other revenues, and from the expenses of the
general departments. The supplementary summaries
should include all revenues received by or credited to
one departmental fund which had been paid by or
debited to another as expense or interest. The dif
ferences between the totals for those supplementary
summaries that result from the different methods of
treating inter-fund or interdepartmental transactions
should be explained in a statement or note reconciling
the two classes of summaries.
A careful comparison of summaries of revenues, ex
penses, and interest, and of municipal receipts and
expenditures on capital account with the budget sum
maries on pages 51 and 52 discloses the great accounting
and economic differences between a municipal budget
surplus and an increase in the municipal proprietary
interests of cities. It also demonstrates the need of
Grand total
3,350,000
400,000
£0,000
£0,000
3,850,000
an accounting terminology that will enable city officials
and private accountants to avoid the confusion and
inaccuracy of statements that follow the use of a single
word as the common designation of such dissimilar
accounting balances as those found in the two classes of
summaries.
Summaries of municipal receipts and payments.—
Under tho foregoing title consideration is first given
to summaries of the results or outcome of municipal
business as the same are embodied in the statistics of
this report. For reasons stated in the preceding pages,
which arise from tho general use on tho part of Ameri
can cities of accounts with receipts and payments of
cash, rather than with accrued revenues and expend
itures, those summaries are, with modifications pre
viously explained, summaries of municipal receipts and
payments. The summary and comparisons based
thereon, which follow, set forth a concrete and
analyzed statement of the receipts and payments for
the fiscal year 1912 of the average of the nine cities
covered by this report, each of which in that year
had from 300,000 to 500,000 inhabitants. Similar
summaries provided in local reports should present
in parallel columns the receipts, payments, and bal
ances of the current and preceding years, and the
increases and decreases in the amounts of the several
classes of receipts, payments, and balances.
ACCOUNTING TERMINOLOGY.
55
CITY OP A. B.
SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1912.
PAYMENTS.
From revenues
Service and interest transfers
Net revenue receipts
From transactions creating debU
From sales of investments
From sales of supplies
$11,000,081
248,621,
111,651,460
8,048,919
360,000
16,827
Total net receipts for governmental purposes
Service and interest transfer receipts
General transfer receipts
Other counterbalancing receipts
Cash balances at beginning of year
Total receipts and balances
20,077,206
248,621
S,958,006
246,361
5,283,809
31,814,003
Excess of revenue receipts over payments for expenses and Interest.,
Excess of governmental cost payments over revenue receipts
Increase in value of investments
Increase in value of supplies
Increase in indebtedness
Increase of cash on hand
;
A summary such as the foregoing, if included
in city reports, should be accompanied by detailed
exhibits stating the receipts and payments of the
various city funds classified as shown in the summary,
substantially as has been done in the case of budget
summaries on pages 51 and 52. It should also be
accompanied with other exhibits showing subclasses
of receipts and payments summarized above for the
average of nine cities, and given in detail for this
group of cities and for each of the cities in Tables 4 to
21 of this report. In exhibits of the class last men
tioned, receipts and payments should, however, be
given with more detailed classifications and subclassifications than are possible of presentation in statistics
such as those of this report.
The foregoing summary shows that the average
revenue receipts for the nine cities covered by the
statement exceeded the average of their payments
for expenses and interest by $2,550,520. It also
shows that the average receipts of the same cities
as the result of transactions which increased their
indebtedness, in excess of their payments for amortiza
tion or reduction of debts was $3,085,710, and these
receipts from this net increase of indebtedness were
expended for increasiug the value of their properties,
public improvements, investments, and supplies, or
were added to the amount of cash on hand. From
an economic or accounting standpoint these figures
with the other figures of the summary demonstrate
that the cities are incurring indebtedness to meet the
costs of some of their new properties and public im
provements, and to accumulate assets in special funds
and cash in the general treasury. The exact uses of cash
For governmental costs:
Expenses
Service transfers.♦..
$8,040,375
26,817
Net payments for expenses,.
Interest
Interest transfers
1,201,743
114,361
Net payments for interest.
Outlays
Service transfers
5,050,757
107,443
Net payments for outlays
.
$3,013,553
1,087,382
4,943,314
Net payments for governmental costs..
For amortization of debts
For purchase of investments
For purchase of supplies
14,044,254
4,963,209
700,000
37,472
Total net payments for governmental purposes.
Service and interest transfer payments
General transfer payments
Other counterbalancing payments
Cash balances at close of year
19,744,935
248,621
5,958,006
246,361
5,616,080
Total payments and balances
31,814,003
$2,550,520
2,392,794
340,000
20,645
3,085,710
332,271
receipts from revenue and from borrowings of various
kinds can, however, only be shown by budget sum
maries of cash transactions, substantially as has been
shown for the case of accrued revenues and accrued
expenditures in the summary on pages 51 and 52.
If a city having accounts on the basis of cash re
ceipts and payments, ,either holds its books open for
some days after the close of the fiscal year to audit
the accrued claims for services and materials, or se
cures the presentation and audit of all such claims
before the close of the year, its summary of cash pay
ments would be such as that contained in the census
reports. It would be practically identical with the
summary of the expenditures of a city with accounts
on the basis of accrued revenues and accrued expendi
tures, which does not include depreciation among its
expenses.
An accurate statement of municipal revenue re
ceipts will seldom be identical with that of municipal
revenues in the case of any city. The significance
of the difference will depend, in the case of any
individual city, upon the time for levying the general
property tax for a given fiscal year. In the case of
cities such as those of the state of Ohio, to which
attention has been called on page 33, in which this
tax for a given fiscal year is levied and a considerable
part collected before the beginning of the year, the
statement of revenues accrued, if substituted for that
of revenue receipts, will give slightly greater accuracy
to all summaries of municipal transactions. I t is
quite otherwise with cities such as Chicago, HI.,
referred to on the same page, for which no part of
the general property tax levied for a given fiscal
56
FINANCIAL STAT]ISTICS OF CITIES.
year is ever collected until some months after the close
of the year. For such cities statements of accrued
revenues will almost always be less accurate and
comparable than those of revenue receipts.
The foregoing statements with reference to the rela
tive value and importance of municipal summaries of
revenues, expenses, and interest, and those of revenue
receipts and payments for expenses and interest, are
predicated upon the supposition that the two classes
of summaries are compiled with equal accuracy and
completeness. At the present time, however, the
greater number of summaries of accrued revenues, ex
penses, and interest, that are presented by American
cities in their published reports, are more or less de- j
fective, and thus misleading, because they overstate
the amount to be realized from taxes levied but uncol
lected, and by reason of the fact that they contain no
scientifically prepared statement of current deprecia
tion. The factors of error which result from these
defects are greater than thb difference between the
revenues collected and the true accruals of an average
city for an average year, or that between the average
warrant expenditures and the accrued expenditures of
the same city. This is the case even in such cities as
those of Ohio," and is especially the case in such cities
as Chicago, HI., to which attention has been called
above. Hence, though governmental summaries of |
accrued revenues and expenditures form theoretically j
a better measure of the results or outcome of municipal
transactions than summaries of cash receipts and war- I
rant expenditures, their general adoption and use will
ultimately, depend more upon the development of
plans and methods for preparing correct estimates of the
amounts to be realized from uncollected revenues and
of the amount of depreciation that has taken place in,
property values than upon their theoretical superiority, j
The summary of cash receipts and payments given I
above for the average of the nine cities having from I
300,000 to 500,000 inhabitants each shows the excess
of governmental cost payments over revenue receipts.
Table 4 gives similar information relating to every city
covered by this report. The excess referred to meas
ures for all but 49 cities the extent to which the cities,
for purposes of convenience or for reasons of public
policy, have incurred governmental costs in excess of
collections from, or levies upon, their taxpayers. The
excess of revenue receipts over governmental cost pay
ments, which is shown in Table 4 for 49 cities, meas
ures the extent to which revenues have been exacted
or otherwise obtained in excess of the current expen
ditures for governmental costs, and is available for
increasing the cash on hand, for purchasing investments,
or for reducing indebtedness.
Summaries of municipal budget receipts and pay- \
ments.—Summaries of budget transactions by a city
whose accounts are on the basis of receipts and pay
ments of cash, rather than on that of accrued revenues I
and expenditures, differ from similar summaries of
cities with accounts on the basis of accrued revenues
and expenditures only in the following respects: Where
the summaries of the cities of the class last mentioned,
such as those given on pages 51 and 52, have the words
"revenues," "ordinary revenues," and "special assess
ments," the summaries of the cities with accounts on
the basis of cash receipts and payments should have
the words "receipts from revenues," "receipts from
ordinary revenues," and "receipts from special assess
ments;" and in turn, where the preceding summaries
have the words "expenses," "interest," and "out
lays," the others should have the words "payments for
expenses," "payments for interest," and "payments
for outlays." The budget surplus in the case of the
city with cash accounts always represents unappro
priated cash balances, and the current additions to
such surplus represent increases in the amount of such
unappropriated cash, while in the case of the other
cities the budget surplus represents the unappropriated
and unincumbered current resources and the additions
to the same during the year.
As the basis of preparing estimates of revenues and
fixing the tax levies for a given year, budget sum
maries of accrued revenues and expenditures must be
practically converted into cash summaries, or inter
pretations must be placed upon them on the basis of
cash receipts and payments, or the summaries will be
of but small administrative assistance in the prepara
tion of the financial programs of the ensuing year.
For this reason, even though accounts on the basis of
accrued revenues and expenditures may be introduced
in the future, that introduction will not wholly do
away with the administrative value of summaries of
budget receipts and payments.
Summaries of municipal budget payments, by funds
and objects.—On pages 51 and 54 attention has been
called to the desirability of accompanying condensed
budget summaries of revenues, exponsos, and inter
est, and summaries of receipts and payments, with
supplementary statements in greater detail, as by
funds for both receipts and expenditures, and in
the case of expenditures by governmental functions
and by object of expenditure or payment. The comp
troller of the city of New York has in the past two
years introduced into his published monthly reports
fund summaries of municipal payments, which are fur
ther classified by the objects described in the budget.
The following statement presents for the year ended
December 31, 1913, a summary of the total voucher
registration of all funds, for which the local report fur
nishes details as well as gives the grand totals which are
shown on page 57*
The items marked by an asterisk in the following
statement should be analyzed and presented in greater
detail and with headings that are applicable to all
cities, and not merely to the city preparing the report.
The imperfection in the statement hero noted is the
result of an imperfect way of preparing the budget t
and making appropriations rather than of the comp
troller's method of making the report.
ACCOUNTING TERMINOLOGY.
57
Budget expenditures:
Payrolls
$101,369,112.43
Contracts
.
83,098,550.38
Open-market orders.
5,588,049.12
Interest on city debt
44,821,062.46
Redemption of city debt
444,459,955.22
Amortization installments to sinking funds..
8,725,597.17
Jurors' fees
637,069.75
Charitable institutions
4,692,129.65
Pension funds
2,874,031.90
State taxes
7,947,031.96
To provide for deficiencies in revenue due to
uncollectible taxes....
2,300,000.00
Rents
1,115,671.02
Sundry educational expenditures
*2,981,934.21
Judgments and claims
*1,146,06L10
Acquisition of property for dock improve
ment, rapid transit, new courthouse, and
other municipal purposes
*28,269,668.24
Refunds of taxes, assessments, and water
rents
..
497,506.03
Sundry expenditures by board of water-sup
ply for new water system, etc
*3,805,720.84
Various departmental expenditures
..
*2,440,440.23
Surplus water revenue paid into sinking fund.
1,439,167.89
In the foregoing income statement of a typical
municipally operated water-supply system a deduc
tion from net income is made equal to 4 per cent of the
amount of the municipal proprietary interests in the
enterprise at the beginning of the year. Such a
deduction corresponds to the dividends paid to the
stockholders of a private enterprise. This is made on"
the basis of the average rate paid by American cities
at the present time for the use*of credit capital. In
the case of a city paying a higher or lower rate of
interest the computation should reflect the actual
average rate paid by the city. Without making this
deduction, the income statement of current surplus
or profit of a municipally operated water-supply sys
tem is not comparable with that of a privately owned
system. (For a more complete statement with refer
ence to accounting for public service enterprises and
the preparation of income statements or other sum
maries of revenues, expenses, and interest, the reader
is referred to a pamphlet published by the Bureau of
the Census entitled "Uniform accounts for systems of
water
supply.")
Total oxpendituro and outlay registration.. 748,208,759.60
Comptrollers' auditing summaries.—The comptroller
iTicome statements of municipally conducted public of the city of .New York, K. Y., presents in tlie
service enterprises.—The accounting principles em monthly reports of the financial operations of that city a
bodied in the preparation of an incomo statement for statement by funds of the registration and auditing of
a private enterprise set forth on pages 49 and 50 should vouchers or claims against the city, and the action of
be employed by cities in tho preparation of income the department with reference to those claims, showing
statements of all their municipally conducted public separately the auditing deductions from the face of
service enterprises, such as water-supply systems. those claims as presented, and the cancellation of
Such a statement, arranged on lines such as those em claims, the liquidation of claims by the issue and
ployed by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad in the registration of warrants in satisfaction of the claims,
preparation of its annual income statement, is here and the amount of unaudited claims remaining at the
presented.
close of the period covered by the statement. State
CITY OF A. B,
ments are presented showing the action of the depart
INCOME STATEMENT OF THE T7ATEB-SUPPLY SYSTEM FOK THE FISCAL
ment with reference to the vouchers presented for each
TEAK ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1012.
month, and for the whole or that portion of the year
Water service revenue or earnings:
that has elapsed at the date for which the statement
From water services for public
15,500,000
From water services for city
.
60,000
was prepared. The following is a condensed repro
$5,550,000
Water service expenses:
duction of the statement contained in the report for General expenses, or overhead charges....... „
25,000
Operating expenses.
2,000,000
the year ended December 31,1913. It omits the de
Maintenance expenses, including repairs, replacement,.
and depreciation
1,500,000
tails by accounts or other classification and gives only
3,525,000
the
totals of the five funds covered by the printed
Water service income or net earnings
2,025,000
Revenues of incidental operating properties and enterprises
report:
and special funds»
„...7r7......7.
(100,000
. Expenses of incidental operating properties and enterprises
and special funds i
.7..™...™.
460,000
Income or net earnings of Incidental operating properties and enter
prises and special funds
Total income or net earnings of enterprise..
Interest on debt obligatlonsof enterprise
Netincomeof enterprise....*. . . . . . . . .
Disposition of net income:
,...;.....
140,000
.*..... 2,165,000
*
400,000
1,765,000
JFou
- e a m o u n t of municipal proprietary interests
our per cent' of" t h
of the d t y i n t h e enterprise.
1,400,000
Current surplus or profit •
365,000
' Proprietary interests of d t y i n the enterprise a t beginning of year *.. 35,000,000
N e t income of enterprise for year.
*
1,765,000
Proprietary interests of d t y i n t h e enterprise a t close of year*
36,765,000
1
The incidental operating properties and enterprises ,of
the system include its
—i-t.
*_,_._.*-.. . - r ^ i - *:__. **_._„.*
" - ' - 1 t — — * * — ,and doing
„ * Of the current surplus. 150.000. representing thetocsreaseduring the year on
the assets of sinking and depredation funds, was added to "reserves," and the
jemainder, $315,000. was added to the unreserved accumulated surplus, as was also
the $1,400,000 earnings of the munidpal proprietary interests at the beginning of
theyear.
jNostatemratlsinadeofaccnmulatediwrplusorprofi^
w the same are now available on the part of any d t y .
Unaudited Touchers January 1,1913
$6,176,446.18
Vouchers registered from January 1 to December 31,
1913.....?.
752,175,844.10
Auditing deductions from and cancellation of claims
by department of
finance
3,967,084.50
Vouchers liquidated by issue of warrants.
751,475,821.06
Balance unaudited vouchers December 31,1913.,
$758,352,290.2$
755,442,905.66
2,909,384.72
The foregoing summary presents a very important
fact concerning the administration of the comptroller's
office that is too frequently omitted from accounts as
well as reports of city auditing or comptrolling offices.
It is the fact that, by careful attention to the duties of
his office, the comptroller has eliminated in twelve
months a total of $3,967,084.50 of illegitimate or
exaggerated claims which constituted an aggregate of
over 0.5 per cent of the claims approved during the
same period and liquidated by the issue of warrants.
58
FINANCIAL STATISTICS O F CITIES.
These statements presented month by month show
the amounts of the claims that were unaudited at the
close of the several months, and thus indicate a measure
of the promptness with which the claims of creditors
of the municipality are acted upon.
Balance sheets in private "business.—The term
4
'balance sheet" is quite generally used by accountants
in private business as a designation of the statement
compiled from the books of a solvent concern which
lave been kept by double entry, showing on the one
side the assets and on the other the liabilities and
proprietary interests of the concern at a particular
moment of time. As stated by Lisle in his "Account
ing in Theory and Practice:" " I t is prepared for the
purpose of showing the financial condition of the con
cern at a particular moment of time, and should be so
classified and arranged as to give the clearest and
fullest idea of the financial condition of the concern."
In arranging the balance sheet all nominal assets and
liabilities should either be shown separately in a
supplemental statement, or, if given in the balance
sheet proper, should be so designated that their
character will be readily perceived. Offsets to assets
shown by credit balances in proprietary interest
accounts should be shown on the balance sheet on the
side of assets as deductions from the value of the
assets to which they relate and not given as "reserves"
or otherwise on the side of proprietary interests and
liabilities.
In arranging balance sheets accountants of the
United States, Scotland, and continental Europe place
the assets on the left-hand side and the liabilities and
proprietary interests on the right-hand, while the
English accountants place the assets on the righth,and side of the sheet. When comparative balance
sheets are prepared showing the condition of the busi
ness at the close of two or more fiscal periods, they
are generally arranged with the liabilities and proprie
tary interests below the assets and not as described.
The same form is also quite commonly employed in
presenting the balance sheets of a number of funds of
a given enterprise or government as is done on pages
51 and 52 of this report.
A special form balance sheet, known as "the double
account form," is used by many corporations, such as
railways, in presenting a statement of their financial
condition. This form is prescribed in Great Britain
for companies, such as railways, formed to undertake
public works under sanction of acts of Parliament.
Its distinct characteristic is that since the money
authorized to be spent is provided for a specific purpose,
such as the construction of a railway, the fixed assets
and the fixed liabilities and proprietary interests are
separated from the current assets and current lia
bilities and current proprietary interests of the
concern, the fixed assets, liabilities, and capital stock
being kept in an account and shown in a statement
called " receipts and expenditures on capital account,"
and the other assets, liabilities, and proprietary in
terests forming the "general balance sheet" of the
concern. An excess of the so-called capital receipts
over the amount expended for the fixed assets shows
the amount of those receipts which have not been
applied to the specific purpose for which they were
secured but are still available for such use, while any
excess of expenditures for fixed assets over capital
receipts measures the floating debt of the so-called
capital account. The balance of the capital account
is carried to the general balance sheet and represents
either the indebtedness of capital to revenue or that
of revenue to capital. Several modifications of the
double account form of balance sheet are employed by
municipalities, of which mention is made in later
paragraphs.
Municipal balance sheets*—Owing to the fact that
hitherto the Bureau of the Census has been unable, as
previously noted, to secure any trustworthy statistics
of the value of all municipal assets, properties, and
public Improvements, it makes no attempt to present
complete balance-sheet summaries for the cities cov
ered by this report. The fullest possible statements
of the value of actual assets other than uncollected
taxes and special assessments, and of the properties,
public improvements, and investments of the cities, and
of their actual liabilities are presented, however, but
* no comparative statement of assets, properties, pub
lic improvements, liabilities, and proprietary interests
for all cities will be prepared by the Bureau of the Cen
sus until such time as reliable data can bo obtained
for at least a majority of the cities concerned.
At the present time a number of cities annually
prepare what they call balance sheets, some of which
are more or less complete statements of assets, liabili
ties, and proprietary interests. Somo of these are
arranged in a single division, and others in two or more
divisions. Of the latter class of balance sheets some
embody a few of the characteristics of the double-form
balance sheet of corporations referred to above, and
still others present separate exhibits of the condition
of the various administrative funds or accounts of the
| city. The designation municipal balance sheet or
consolidated municipal balance sheet is used in this
report only in referring to a complete statement of the
financial condition of the municipality showing its
assets, liabilities, and proprietary interests as is done.
in the balance sheet of private corporations. Other
statements of municipal financial condition are given
other descriptive designations, some of which are set
forth in the paragraphs which follow.
Municipal current, Jund, or budget balance sheet*.—
Of the various statements of financial condition in
balance-sheet form that are being used by American
cities, none are of greater administrative value or
popular interest than statements of the current assets
and current and floating liabilities, appropriation
reserves, and surplus of the various current or budget
funds of a city, constituting what is here called a
J municipal current, fund, or budget balance sheet, cor-
ACCOUNTING TERMINOLOGY.
responding somewhat in their aggregate to that
division of the commercial double-form balance sheet
to which most accountants give the designation "gen
eral balance sheet." The summary for all current
funds differs, however, from the sheet referred to
because all the revenue accumulations or proprietary
interests of a city are derived from its current transac
tions, and the municipal current balance sheet must
be closed into the general balance sheet instead of the
reverse, as in the case of the double-form private
balance sheet.
In a properly prepared municipal current or fund
balance sheet, such as is here described, there should
be shown on the liability side or in the liability section
a detailed statement of the city's current debts, in
cluding those which arise from contracts and private
trusts, and public trusts for nonmunicipal uses, so
arranged as to exhibit (1) the outstanding warrants,
judgments, and other duo and demand debt liabilities
to be met from general revenues; (2) fiduciary debts
that constitute due and demand liabilities to be met
from the assets received when the liabilities were cre
ated or assumed; (3) claims awaiting audit that will
probably become due and demand liabilities within the
next few days; and (4) other current and floating debts
arranged in the order in which theyfyecomedue with
reference to the assets from which they are to be paid.
On the same side or same general section should be
shown after the liabilities a detailed exhibit of the
proprietary interests, or the excess of current assets
over the current liabilities. This should be so ar
ranged as to show the reserves for meeting current
appropriations (1) for expenses and interest, and (2)
for outlays—both classes of reserves being so subdi
vided as to state these reserves on account of (a)
contracts, (6) market orders, and (c) unincumbered
appropriations.
The assets should be given in detail on the left-hand
side of the summary or in a section for assets and
arranged in an order that corresponds in a general
way with the order of the liabilities, and one which
will most readily show the relations of the various
classes of liabilities and reserves and the assets avail
able or provided for meeting the same. For a city in
which the assets are less than the liabilities and re
serves there will be a balancing account on the lefthand side of the balance sheet, or in the section for
assets, showing the excess of the liabilities and re
serves over the assets, which is here referred to as a
current budget deficit. The current budget surplus of
such a sheet shows, if correct in its statement of assets,
liabilities, and reserves, the amount of unappropriated
resources, or resources that are available for future
appropriations; and the current budget deficit, if one
exists, shows the current liabilities accrued and ex
penditures which are authorized in excess of the assets
provided for meeting them.
The following is a summary current, fund, or budget
balance sheet for an average municipality having from
.59
300,000 to 500,000 inhabitants. The summary is pre
sented in f our sections or divisions, one each for the gen
eral fund, special assessment funds, bond funds, or funds
derived from ordinary revenue, special assessments,
and the proceeds of long-term bond issues other than
special assessment certificates. The totals for these
three funds are shown in a fourth division of the table,
but not one of the divisions of the summary includes
any assets, liabilities, or reserves of sinking funds or
public trust funds for municipal uses, which are
properly included in the general balance sheet to
which attention is called in a later paragraph.
CITY OF A. B.
SUMMARY CURRENT BALANCE SHEET AS OP JANUARY 1,1913.
All funds.
General
funds.
Special
ssessmen
funds.
Bond
funds.
ASSETS.
Cash
Revenues accrued but not
collected (estimated)
%
.
Revenues authorized but not
accrued (estimated)
Other accounts and bills re
ceivable.
,
Nominal and contingent
Bonds authorized but
not issued.
Due from other city
funds
Revenues and accounts
receivable In suspense..
Total assets
$5,000,000
$1,700,000
$400,000
* 3,000,000
12,900,000
100,000
*13,000,000
250,000
$2,900,000
12,000,000 11,000,000
250,000
3,000,000
100,000
3,500,000
210,000
10,000
200,000
500,000
500,000
25,500,000
17,350,000
1,610,000
6,600,000
400,000
850,000
250,000
725,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
50,000
525,000
525,000
100,000
100,000
1,550,000
850,000
3,600,000
210,000
210,000
tUBILITlES.
Due and demand:
Warrants (or audits)
Unaudited vouchers
Trust and agency liabili
ties
,
Other due and demand
liabilities
Revenue bonds and certifi
cates of current indebtedNominal and contingent
assets:
Bonds authorized but
not issued
_
Due to other city funds..
Revenues and accounts
receivable in suspense..
700,000
100,000
3,500,000
500,000
500,000
7,735,000
3,160,000
925,000
3,650,000
Excess of assets over liabili
ties
<
17,825,000
14,190,000
685,000
2,950,000
Budget reserves for expenses
and interest:
On contracts....
,
On market orders
Unincumbered appro
priations for expenses
and interest
125,000
400,000
100,000
400,000
25,000
8,000,000
8,000,000
Total budget reserves
for expenses and in
terest.............
8,525,000
8,500,000
25,000
Excess of current assets over
liabilities and budget re
serves for expenses and in*
terest*.
9,300,000
5,690,000
660,000
2,950,000
3,175,000
415,000
100,000
100,000
575,000
75,000
2,500,000
240,000
Total liabilities.
Budget reserves for outlays:
On contracts
On market orders....... .
Unincumbered appro
priations for outlays •.,
2,680,000
2,460,000
10,000
210,000
Total budget reserves
for outlays
6,270,000
2,660,000
660,000
2,950,000
Excess of assets over liabili
ties and all budget reserves
(budget surplus)
3,030,000
3,030,000
i Total revenues booked, less onsets for abatements and cancellations.
* Balance carried to balance sheet for receipts and expenditures on capital
account.
60
FINANCIAL STATTSTICS OF .CITIES.
The budget surplus or excess of current assets over fixed debt; (3) the assets of public trust funds for
current liabilities and cunent appropriations or budget municipal and nonmunicipal uses; (4) the assets of
reserves shown in the foregoing summary is the amount other funds with permanent investments; and (5) real
of unappropriated resources of the city, or the amount and other property held for investment purposes but
of these resources that is available for future appro not constituting assets of funds. On the samo side of •
priation. The-amount of this surplus as stated in the the balance sheet are shown the value of the property
summary differs but little from that of the uncollected and public improvements of the municipality.
On the right-hand Bide, or in the liability section,
revenues of previous years. It should always be as
large as, if not larger than, the amount of such assets of the same sheet or statement there is included under
or the city will be obliged from time to time to "make the general title "Liabilities" (1) the oxccss of current
undue use of public credit to finance the costs of the liabilities and reserves for expenses and interest over
common services to be rendered by it. This surplus current assets, if such there bo, shown on the current
is to be carefully differentiated from the proprietary balance sheet; and (2) the fixed debts of the munici
interests of the city, in the current assets as has been pality. On the same side or in the samo general sec
previously mentioned. In the present case, as in tion of the sheet are given under the heading "Pro
practically all other cases, the budget surplus consti prietary interests" (1) the budget reserves of the
tutes but a small part of the municipal proprietary in municipality for outlays given in detail on the current
balance sheet; (2) the reserves by reason of sinking
terests or excess of assets over liabilities.
The foregoing balance sheet shows an excess of cash fund provisions; (3) the municipal reserves for the con
over due and demand liabilities of $3,125,000. This tingencies of fire losses, depreciation, and kindred
excess cash is largely that which has been obtained purposes; (4) the municipal reserves by reason of
from the issue of long-term bonds tofinancenew prop public trust funds for municipal uses; (5) the pro
erties and public improvements. This large excess is prietary reserves created by the acceptance of dona
required in the case of many cities which are com tions for municipal library buildings and for similar
pelled to sell bonds before any contracts are awarded purposes; and (6) the free or unreserved proprie
for the construction or acquisition of properties and tary interests of the municipality, or the excess of
public improvements to befinancedby long-term bond the value of the assets, properties, and public improve
issues. The city of New York has demonstrated the ments over the liabilities and reserves of the munici
economy and wisdom of a procedure under which bonds pality. In stating the reserves on account of public
are sold only as the money derived from their sale is trusts, they should not only be segregated so as to
needed for paying for properties and public improve show the reserves for each class of trusts, but also to
ments. This procedure avoids useless interest pay show the reservation by reason of the assets for public
ments while awaiting the completion of costly munici trust funds, and those which are represented by the
pal properties and public improvements. The budget value of the properties which have been received by
reserves on account of operating, costs and losses, donation for specified purposes. In presenting a state
including expenses and interest, are stated separately ment of the reserves for contingencies care should be
from reserves for outlays—or cost of permanent proper taken to eliminate all offsets to assets such as those
ties and public improvements. The excess of current which are sometimes called "reserves," including
assets over current liabilities and these reserves for so-called reserves for depreciation and reserves for
operating costs measure the credit to the capital ac losses already suffered but not adjusted. These off
count after meeting the obligations of the municipality sets expressed by estimates should be shown, as previ
that have been authorized for the current year.
ously stated, on the side of assets and property as
Municipal general balance sheets.—The term " mudeductions from the reported book value of such assets
nicipal general balance sheets" is here applied to a and properties.
balance sheet that corresponds in its leading charac
The following is a summary or consolidated general
teristics to the section of a double account balance municipal balance sheet for an average municipality
sheet of a private enterprise which is generally referred having from 300,000 to 500,000 inhabitants. The
to as a "summary of receipts and expenditures on amount of the net current assets as given in this bal
capital account." It is a balance sheet which shows ance sheet is the excess of current assets over current
on the left-hand side, or in the asset section, (1) the liabilities and reserves for expenses and interest, as
excess of current assets over current liabilities and shown in the preceding current balance sheet* Such a
reserves for expenses and interest, if such there be, balance sheet should be accompanied with supplemen
shown on the current balance sheet; (2) the assets of tary statements in detail of all such funds as the sinking
sinking funds accumulated for the amortization of funds and public trust funds for municipal uses.
ACCOUNTING TERMINOLOGY.
61
CITY OF A. B .
SUMMARY GENERAL BALANCE SHEET AS OF JANUARY 1, 1913.
PEOPEIETAET INTERESTS.
Excess of current assets over current liabilities and budget reserves for
expenses and interest»
.-.
$9,300,000
Sinking fund assets
3,500,000
Investment fund assets
500,000
Investment properties not belonging to funds
100,000
Assets of public trust funds for municipal uses
600,000
Total assets
14,000,000
FBOFEBTIES AND PUBLIC IUPBOVEUENTS.
Properties of public service enterprises
Properties of municipal service enterprises
Properties of general departments
Total properties
,
Sewer and drainage systems..
Other public improvements..
Total assets, properties, and public Improvements
$16,000,000
200,000
26,000,000
, 42,200,000
. 8,000,000
. 25,000,000
89,200,000
Budget reserves for outlays.
Sinking fund reserves
Self insurance reserves
Depreciation reserves
Reserves for losses
Public trust fund reserves
Reserves for Carnegie Library buildings....
Total reserves
-.
*..
$6,270,000 •
3,500,000
400,000
1,000,000
100,000
600,000
1,000,000
12,870,000
Unreserved proprietary interests *
44,330,000
Total proprietary interests
57,200,000
FIXED LIABILITIES.
Funded debts
$32,000,000
Total proprietary interests and fixed liabilities
* Current assets not required for meeting current expenses, interest, and reserves therefor.'
General balance sheets such as the foregoing should
be accompanied with detailed fund balance sheets for
all speciaHunds, such as the sinking funds and public
trust funds, whose assets, liabilities, and reserves are
included in it. Further, the sheet should be accom
panied with detailed schedules of the properties and
public improvements and municipal funded indebted
ness whose aggregate values and amounts are sum
marized. The values of properties and public im
provements given in the summary or general balance
sheet should be net, by which is meant the value after
all offsets for depreciation have been deducted. If
the city keeps no depreciation account with each
piece of property and each public improvement, but
makes an estimate of the aggregate depreciation from
the cost of these properties and public improvements,
the amount of such estimated depreciation should be
shown as an offset deduction from the value on the
left-hand side of the sheet and not on the right-hand
side under any such misapplied designation as "re
serves for depreciation." The only amounts to be
included on the right-hand side under the titles " De
preciation reserves" and "Reserves for Josses" are
amounts set aside for future depreciation and future
losses—all accrued depreciation and losses being
charged by estimates to offset accounts which are de
ducted in the balance sheet from the value shown on
the left-hand side*
Municipal consolidated account halance sheets.—A
limited number of American cities have in recent years
introduced into their reports more or less complete
balance-sheet statements arranged in two or more
divisions, the same as are shown in the municipal cur
rent or fund balance sheet given on page 59, but with
divisions that differ from those shown in the summary
sheet referred to. The city of Philadelphia, which
presents one of these sheets in its printed reports, in
cludes in its first division, which is given under the
heading "General account," items that correspond in
their essential character with those which in the cur
rent balance sheet here shown are given under the
heading "General fund," omitting, however, from that
division the liabilities shown after the side heading
."
89,200,000
* Balancing account.
"Trust and agency liabilities" and the cash held for
meeting such liabilities. These assets and liabilities
are shown in a separate division of the Philadelphia
balance sheet under the heading "Special and trust
accounts." All other assets, liabilities, and proprie
tary interests shown in the current and general balance
sheets here presented are arranged in two divisions
under the generic heading "Capital account." In one
of these two divisions of the capital account are shown
under the subheading "Permanent funds, properties,
and improvements" the items included in the current
balance sheet of this report under the headings
"Special assessment funds" and "Bond funds," and
all the items of the general balance sheet here pre
sented, with the exception of those included on the
lines "Sinking fund assets" and "Sinking fund
reserves." The amounts thus included are presented
separately in a subdivision of the capital account under
the subtitle "Sinking funds."
This-form of summary balance sheets has its special
advantages for cities which make but a comparatively
small use of special assessments, and which finance
practically all their public properties and public im
provements from long-term bond issues. For cities,
however, which make large uses of special assessments
and raise ordinary revenues and special assessments
each year in excess of all expenses, interest, and out
lays, as do a large number of American cities, it is of
less administrative and popular value than are the
pro forma sheets here presented.
Summaries of debt-incurring power.—Balance sheets
such as the foregoing are not in the case of the larger
American cities the only, or even the most important,
summaries of municipal financial condition from an
administrative point of view. All of these cities are
administered subject to limitations with reference to
their powers to borrow money or otherwise incur
indebtedness. These limitations must be shown in the
summaries of municipal financial conditions, the same
as the limitations of the appropriation acts must be
shown in the summaries of budget transactions.
Such summaries of municipal financial condition are
given a number of different designations by our
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
62
American cities, such as "Summary of borrowing
power," "Summary of the margin of borrowing,"
"Summary of the right to borrow," and "Summary
of debt-incurring power." Preference is given here
to the designation "Summary of debt-incurring
power," since in most cities outside of New England
the constitutional and statutory provisions under
which summaries are prepared relate to the incurring
of indebtedness, and not merely to the making of loans
or the borrowing of money. In New York, N. Y., the
debts which are to be considered in the preparation of
such a summary include not alone the funded loans or
corporation stock, but contracts and open-market
orders for the construction of public works which
aggregate at the present time not far from $147,000,000.
La many other cities other classes of debt obligations
must be included in any summary of debt-incurring
power.
In like manner the word "power" is here recom
mended for use in connection with this summary rather
than the words "capacity," "right," or "margin,"
which are employed by some cities. The reason for
this preference is the fact that in the constitutions and
statutes of our states, so far as they relate to munici
palities, the authority granted to cities to borrow
money and otherwise incur debt is listed among its
"powers," but never as a part of the "capacity," and
only incidentally as a "right" of the municipality.
The submitted pro forma summary that follows,
which is based upon figures found in a recent report
of the comptroller of New York, N. Y., uses the terms
"inside the debt limit," "within the debt limit," and
"outside the debt limit," as descriptions or limitations
of the words "debts," "indebtedness," and "debtincurring power." These descriptive words are used
by many cities in their statements corresponding to
the submitted form.
All summaries of municipal debt-incurring power
such as the accompanying one should be followed by
detailed schedules of the funded and other debts classi
fied as inside and outside the debt limit. Further, the
statement contained in the principal summary, as in
all the supplementary schedules, should reflect the law
relating to the subject which is applicable in the case of
the individual city, which sometimes greatly differs
from that of other cities.
CITY OF NEW YORK, N. Y.
DEBT-INCURRING POWER AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1913 (P. M.).
TOTAL DEBT-INCUBBING POWEB WITHIN THE DEBT LIMIT (10 per cent of assessed valuation of taxable real estate)
$800,664,786.00
DEBTS INCURRED:
Total funded debts
$1,224,873,631.91
Funded debts outside of the debt limit (debts exempted from the operation
of the laws limiting public indebtedness):
Water bonds and notes issued subsequent to Jan. 1, 1904, and county
bonds
$183,877,030.11
Rapid-transit bonds—Manhattan-Bronx and Brooklyn-Manhattan
47,482,725.18
Dock bonds
69,943,053.55
301,302,808,84
Funded debts within the debt limit
1
Offsets to funded debts within the debt limit:
Sinking fund cash and investments and budget appropriations provided for the redemption
or amortization of funded debts
.•
923,570,823.07
Funded debts within the debt limit, less offsets
Debts other than funded within the debt limit:
Debts on account of land contracts, including interest to Dec. 31,1913
$12,591,044.30
Debts on account of other contracts:
For rapid transit
$117,581,200.44
For street improvements
7,552,524.53
For other purposes
17,663,761.09
142,797,486.06
Debts on account of open-market orders.
159,591.51
602,793,923.89
Total debts other than funded within the debt limit
Offsets to debts other than funded:
Cash balances available for meeting specified contract debts
320,776,899.18
155,548,12L 87
9,051,009.38
Debts other than funded within the debt limit, less offsets
146,497,112.49
Net indebtedness or used debt-incurring power within the debt limit
749,291,036.38
51,373,749,62
T J N U S U E D DEBT-INCtTBRING POWEB WITHIN THE DEBT LIMIT.
Voted for rapid transit
Voted for docks and ferries
Voted for other designated municipal purposes
Unreserved amount available for any purpose for which the board of estimate and apportionment
may determine.
2,103,679.42
10,641,248.46
22,049,187.73
16,579,634.01
51,373,749.62
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
NUMBER AND CHARACTER OF GENERAL TABLES.
The statistics of this report relate to 194 incorpo
rated cities and the incorporated town of West Hoboken, N. J., each of which had on July 1, 1912, an
estimated population of over 30,000. Of the 195 places
covered by the report, no statistics have previously
been included in census reports for Shreveport, La.,
and Colorado Springs, Colo., each of these cities having
an estimated population July 1, 1912, exceeding
30,000, but having an estimated population July 1,
1911, less than that number.
These statistics are presented in 42 general tables
and in the supplementary tables and statements con
tained in the accompanying text. General Table 1
gives certain statistics relating to the population anH
area of tho cities covered by the report. Table 2 pre
sents information relating to tho terms of service and
salaries of tho most important city officials. Tables 3
to 25 summarize and give in detail the receipts and
payments. Tablo 3 is a summary of all receipts clas
sified as revenue and nonrovonuo, and of all payments
classified as governmental cost and nongovernmental
cost payments; it also contains a statement of the
cash balances at tho beginning and close of the year.
Table 4 summarizes tho revenue receipts and govern
mental cost payments by divisions of the city govern
ment, and makes certain comparisons between thoso re
ceipts and payments. Table 5 presents per capita aver
ages, and Tablo 6 the percent distribution of the receipts
and payments shown in Table 4, Tables 12,15,16,17,
and 18 give similar detailed statistics of governmental
cost payments. Table 13 summarizes certain groups of
these payments and presents per capita averages there
for, and Tablo 14 gives the per cent distribution of these
payments. Tablo 19 summarizes the nonrevenue re
ceipts and nongovernmental cost payments, and Tables
20 to 22 present details of such receipts and payments.
Table 23 gives the date of the close of thefiscalyear of
every division and fund of the government of the
cities covered by the report, and also the receipts and
payments of thoso divisions and funds, and their
cash balances at the beginning and close of the year.
Tables 24 and 25 contain supplemental statistics of
receipts and payments of sinking and public trust
funds. Tables 26, 27, and 28 relate^ to municipal
assets and the value of municipal properties and pubHe improvements, and Tables 29 to 33 relate to
municipal indebtedness. Table 34 presents statistics
of the assessed valuation of property subject to taxa
tion, and of amounts and rates of tax levies. Tables35 to 42 contain detailed statistics relating to receipts,
properties, and payments for public schools.
Groups of cities.—The statistical data presented in
this report are arranged in five principal groups for
which totals are given as well as for the aggregate of
tho 195 cities. These groups include (I) cities having:
a population of 500,000 and over; (II) cities having a
population of over 300,000 and less than 500,000;.
(Ill) cities having a population of over 100,000 and
less than 300,000; (IV) cities having a population of
Over 50,000 and less than 100,000; and (V) cities,
having a population of over 30,000 and less than
50,000. The grouping is based in every case upon the
estimated population of the city for the middle of the
year 1912. In the text tables of this report these
five groups are referred to as Groups I, II, III, IV,.
and V, respectively.
TABLE 1.
Date of incorporation as a city.—In the first column
under the general heading "Date of incorporation as a
city," are given for 194 of the municipalities covered
by this report the dates on which they were organized,
as cities. In the same column is given for West
Hoboken, N. J., the date when it was organized as a*
town. In the second column under the general head
ing are given the dates of the latest complete reorgani
zation of the same municipalities. The date of the
first organization as reported is doubtless correct in
all instances, but the date of the latest reorganization is
correct only in most instances, owing to the difficulty in
distinguishing between the complete reorganization of
the city government which results from the enactment
of a city charter or a new municipal code, and the
minor governmental changes which result from the
enactment of amendments to the charter or to the
municipal code.
Popvlation.—In Table 1 are shown for each of the=
municipalities covered by the report its estimated
population as of July 1,1912, its population as shown
by the decennial census of April 15, 1910, and that of
June 1, 1900. The estimates of population shown in.
Table 1 for 1912 are, in the case of cities which have
the same territorial area as in 1900, based upon the
assumption that the increase in the population of a
municipality during the period Aj>ril 15, 1910, to
July 1, 1912, was the same as the average increase
during a similar period between the census enumera
tes)
64
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
tiori of June 1, 1900, and that of April 15, 1910, or by such cities are "aldermen" and "councilmen,"
53/237 of the increases between those dates, or a pro but with utter lack of uniformity, each of them des
portional part of the total increase shown by the ignating the members of the upper house in some
Federal census of 1910 as compared with the enumera cities and the lower house in other cities. Table 2
tion of a state census in 1904 or 1905. In computing also gives the number, term of office, method of elec
these estimates for cities whose territorial area has tion, and salaries of the members of the legislative
been enlarged or diminished during the decade or the body. The following statement shows for the 150
five-year or six-year period since the state census, the cities having over 30,000 inhabitants which have this
enumerated or estimated population of the annexed form of government, the manner in which the alder
or detached territory shown in the columns of the men or councilmen are elected—by wards, at large,
or by both methods:
table has been taken into consideration.
Area.—In Table 1 is shown for each of the munici
palities covered by the report the area of the city July
Elected Elected Elected Elected
by wards
LEGISLATIVE BODY.
by ail
1, 1912. The area given under this heading is subdi
at
methods. by wards, at large. and
large.
vided whenever possible into land area and water
area. The area of Pittsburgh as given in 1912 in Single chamber.
103
10
35
houses:
cludes the area of the former city of Allegheny, which TwoUpper
1
Lower
was consolidated with Pittsburgh in 1908. At the
time of the consolidation Allegheny had an area of
Cities governed by commission.—The term "com
5,126 acres, of which 4,726 acres were land and 400
mission form of government" is a generic one now em
acres water.
ployed in referring to the government of cities admin
TABLE 2.
istered by a small number of officials exercising both
Data included in table.—Table 2 presents data legislative and executive authority. This system of
relating to the organization of the cities covered by government has been given many distinctive forms in
this report at the close of the fiscal year 1912. It also individual cities, and those forms are frequently spoken
shows for each city the number of members and char of by such specific designations as the "Galveston
acter of its legislative body, however organized or plan " or " Dcs Moines plan/' according as they approx
designated, and the terms of office and salaries of its imate the forms adopted by one or the other of the two
legislative and general executive officers, and states cities mentioned. The Bureau of the Census has not
whether these executive officers are elected or ap collected data with reference to the specific plan in
pointed. The greater portion of the information force in all of the cities under the commission form of
presented in this table has never previously been given government, and hence presents no information with
in the census reports of statistics of cities.
reference thereto. Table 2 gives, under the heading
Descriptive terms used.—In referring to cities with "Commissioners," the most important facts relating
governments of the type which prevailed in the to the governmental organization of the 45 cities that
average American city prior to the year 1900, this at the close of the fiscal year 1912 had adopted and
report uses the generic designation cities governed by were being operated under the so-called commission
mayor and council. In like manner, in referring to form of government.
cities whose governments are such as in the last
Washington, D. C, was the first city in the United
decade have come to be spoken of as the "commis States to be governed for any number of years by a
sion form" or "manager plan/' they are here des commission, coming under that form of government
ignated as cities governed by commission, or cities by the terms of an act of Congress that became effective
governed by manager flan* The use of these terms as June 11,1878. The application of this form of govern
above defined should not, however, be allowed to ment to the capital of the United States grew out of the
obscure the fact that cities governed by commissions relation of the National Government to this particular
or those under the city manager plan may have city city, and the city was not considered as an example
"councils," and that cities of the first class generally to other municipalities with reference to its form of
give to the chief commissioner the title of "mayor." government.
Cities governed by mayor and council.—For a city
The great need of improving the sanitary condition
governed by a mayor and council Table 2 shows of Memphis, Tenn., following a severe visitation of
whether its legislative body consists of one or two cham yellow fever in 1878, combined with the fact that at
bers. The terms " upper house " and "lower house " as the time the city had incurred an indebtedness equal
employed in Table 2 are arbitrarily applied, the former to its authority for borrowing money, led the legisla
to the chamber having the smaller membership, and the ture of Tennessee in 1879 to put an end to the existence
latter to that having the larger membership in cities of the city as a municipal corporation and to create in
with a bicameral legislative body. The designation its stead a taxing district whose affairs were conducted
of the members of the legislative body usually adopted by a small body of officers having practically the au-
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
J
e
1
STATE AND CtTT.
Commission
plan
operative-
5
34
108
144
124
31
109
132
104
110
17
165
103
172i
62
HI
65
127
1011
180 !
16
103
126
43
61
Ctty number.
ALABAMA:
Birmingham.....
Mobile-TTTT.
CALIFORNIA:
Berkeley....
Oakland
TENNESSEE:
Colorado Springs. May 11,1009
Pueblo........!:. Nov. 20,1011
ILLINOIS:
June 11,1878
121
155
37
TEXAS:
188
63
EI Paso
131
IOWA:
1 69
Cedar ItapIdJ.... Apr. 1,1908 148
Des Moines
68
Apr. 1,1908
TJTAH:
Apr. 4,1910
KANSAS:
Salt Lake Ctty...
WASHINGTON:
Apr. 8,1910
Topeka
Apr. 8,1010
43
Wichita.. „ . . ; ; „ Apr. 12,1909
60
Decatur
KENTUCKY:
LOUISIANA:
I
Commission
plan
operative-
NEBRASKA:
Omaha,.T. . . . . . .
Apr. 10,1011 j 41
NEW JERSEY:
Aug. 14,1911
Apr. 10,1911 113
94
54
July 1,1909
OKLAHOMA:
July 1,1911
July 11912! 183
May 1,1909
72
Oklahoma City...
COLORADO:
DISTRICT COLUMBIA:
STATE AND CtTT.
May 1,1011
Apr. 17,1011
WEST VmorNLt:
1,1912
153
Deo. 2,1012
Nov. 14,1910
173
138
Jan.
WISCONSIN;
Oshkosh
May
1,1011
July 1«,1912
Sept. 26,1011
Aug. 22,1011
Apr. 11,1011
June 1,1911
Apr. 15,1011
Jan. 23,1912
Jan. 1,1010
Apr.
Apr.
Feb.
Mar.
Sept.
July
10,1909
30,1907
25,1907
8,1909
-,1001
1,1905
Jan.
1,1912
Mar. 14,1911
May 2,1910
June 1,1009
Apr. 15,1012
Apr. 8,1012
MASSACHUSETTS:
Haverhill
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
4,1000
1,1012
1,1011
In order to show the continued progress of the
movement toward the commission form of govern
ment in cities containing over 30,000 inhabitants, the
following statement is presented. It contains the
names of 24 cities that have adopted this form of gov
ernmental organization, or, as in the case of the Penn
sylvania cities of the third class, have been placed
28656°—H
5
STATE AND cirr.
Commission
plan
operative-
CALIFORNIA:
162
Pasadena........
May
1,1013 1 24
June
-,1913
Jan.
Jan.
1,1014
1,1013
Jan.
1,1013
COLORADO:
104
157
KENTUCKY:
May 13,1013
102
105
145
&4
83
05
118
134
150
57
83
180
122
June 17,1013
46
MASSACHUSETTS:
1?8
70
28
Salem
MINNESOTA:
Duluth
St. Paul
Apr. 4,1013
June 1,19H
MISSOURI;
181
1?9
Apr. 20,1014
NEBRASKA;
NEW
10
City number.
under it by act of the state legislature, the plan becom
ing operative since the close of the fiscal year 1912 or
yet to be put in operation. The date when the plan
became, or is to become, operative is shown for each
city. The list is mot presented as a complete one, the
information given being only such as was available at
the time the data for this report were secured.
City number. 1
thority of the commissioners in the cities now under
the commission form of government. After the re
covery of the city from the difficulties which made this
form of government necessary, Memphis was reincor
porated as a city with its earlier form of government,
and its experience was not deemed such as to encourage
the substitution of this form of government for that of
mayor and council*
A destructive storm having overwhelmed Galveston,
Tex., on September 8, 1900, and having left the city
prostratefinanciallyas Memphis had been in 1878, the
government of Galveston was placed in the hands of a
commission in 1901. The experience of Galveston
under this form of government was such that in 1905 it
was adopted by Houston, Tex. Two other cities having
30,000 inhabitants adopted it in 1907; two in 1908;
eight in 1909; six in 1910; fifteen in 1911; and nine in
1912. During the years from 1905 to 1912 the same
form of government was adopted by many cities of less
than 30,000 inhabitants to which the inquiry of the
census was not extended. The following statement
gives the names of 45 cities having over 30,000 in
habitants that had adopted the commission form of
government prior to the close of the fiscal year 1912,
together with the rank of each city in population, and
the date on which this new form of government became
effective:
65
JERSEY:
STATE AND CITY.
Commission
plan
operative-
OREGON:
July
1,1913
Dee.
Dec.
Altoona
Chester
Dec
Erie
Dec
Dec
Dec
Lancaster........ D e c
Dec
Dec
Heading.....
Dec
Wilkes-Baire...
Dec
Dec
York....:.
Dec
l f 1913
1,1913
1.1013
1,1913
1,1013
1,1913
1,1913
1,1913
1.1913
1,1913
1,1913
1,1913
1,1913
PENNSYLVANIA:
TENNESSEE:
Oct. 14,1913
Cities governed by {he manager plan.—An act of the
Ohio-Legislature, approved May 6, 1913, provided for
a form of municipal government to be known as the
"city manager plan," the council to consist of five
members in cities of less than 10,000 inhabitants, of
seven members in cities of from 10,000 to 25,000
inhabitants, and of nine members in cities having
over 25,000 inhabitants, the council being elected,
in all cases, for a term of four years. This council
is to constitute the governing body with power to
pass ordinances, adopt regulations, appoint a chief
administrative officer to be known as the city manager,
fix his salary, approve all appointments made by him
(except as otherwise provided), and appoint a civilservice commission and all boards or commissions
created by ordinance.
The duties of the city manager are set forth in
section 9 of Article IV, as follows: (a) To see that the
laws and ordinances are faithfully executed; (6) to
attend all meetings of the council at which his attend
ance may be required by that body; (c) to recommend
for adoption to the council such measures as he may
deem necessary or expedient; (d) to appoint all officers
and employees in the classified service of the munici
pality, subject to the provisions of this act and the
civil service law; (e) to prepare and submit to the
council such reports as may be required by that body,
or as he may deem advisable to submit; (f) to keep
the council fully advised of the financial condition of
the municipality and its future needs; (g) to prepare
and submit to the council a tentative budget for
the next fiscal year; (ft) and to perform such other
duties as the council may determine by ordinance or
resolution.
66
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES-
Assessors.—The data contained in the column with
So far as information has been received by the
Bureau of the Census, the only city of over 30,000 this heading reveal to some extent the differences in
inhabitants organized under the city manager plan organization of revenue forces. While most cities em
is Dayton, Ohio. Some of the smaller cities of that ploy assessors to fix the valuation of property for the
state have adopted this plan, and some of the smaller purposes of taxation, those of some states employ
cities of other states have adopted a plan somewhat no assessors, but report to the county the amount
similar, one or two having adopted it prior to the required to be raised for city purposes. The
county officials then extend the taxes against the
enactment of the g^ven statute.
Mayor.—In the columns under the designation county valuations of property within tiio city, col
"Mayor'' are shown the data pertaining to that office lect them, and pay them over to the city, usually re
for all cities. In the case of those operated under tho taining a percentage to cover tho costs of the serv
commission form of government, the mayor is also ices rendered.
City attorney or solicitor.—The two titles placed at
included in the number of commissioners in tho
column with that designation. In some of the com the head of this column are representative of the vari
mission cities the mayor is elected as such, while in ous designations applied to tho officials charged with
others he is chosen by the commissioners; and in somo the legal guidance and defense of tho city. Other
of them his salary is the same as that of the other designations applied to tho officials are "corporation
commissioners, while in others it is larger. In caso counsel," and "city counselor," the lack of uniformity
of a difference in salary the salary as shown for each being as conspicuous here, as in the titles discussed in
of the commissioners is that for those other than tho preceding paragraphs.
mayor. This form of presentation most conveniently
TABLE 3.
brings out the difference in salary and at the same timo
preserves the full membership reported for tho
Summary ofaU receipts and payments.—Table 3 pre
commission.
sents for the municipalities covered by this report a
City clerk.—In somer of the cities the city clerk, summary of their receipts classified as revenue and
besides having charge of the proceedings of the council nonrevenue, and of their payments classified as govern
and such other duties as are usually assigned to that mental cost and nongovernmental cost. In the column
office, is the principalfiscalofficer of the city. In such of receipts headed "Revenue" are summarized all
cities there is no comptroller, and the auditor exercises amounts that are recorded in tho books of the several
limited authority
municipalities as having been received on revenue
Comptroller and auditor.—One or the other of theseaccount other than receipts in error and accrued
terms is used by most cities as the designation of the interest received on the original issue of tho city debt
principalfiscalofficer of the city. When both officials obligations. In the second column for receipts are
are reported the comptroller exercises authority over summarized all other receipts under the heading
thefinancialtransactions of the city, and the auditor, "Nonrevenue." In the column of payments headed
who in many cities is appointed by the comptroller, "Governmental costs" are summarized all amounts
merely certifies to the correctness of claims presented. recorded in the books of the several cities as having
It is apparent that cities, although making much prog been paid on account of expenses, interest, and
ress toward uniformity in accounting and reporting, outlays other than payments in error, payments of ac
are making little progress toward uniformity of crued interest on investments purchased, and pay
official nomenclature, the designations "comptroller," ments for outlays balanced by amounts credited in
"controller/* and "auditor" all surviving, with little outlay accounts. In the second column for pay
question of thefitnessof one of them as compared with ments are summarized all other payments under the
heading "Nongovernmental costs." The receipts and
the other two, or the desirability of uniformity.
payments summarized as here stated are given
Treasurer or cTiamherlain, and collector of revenue.—
In some cities the treasurer receives all moneys di with considerable detail in Tables 4 and 19,' and
rectly; in others he directly receives the larger part with other details in text Tables VI and VII, on
of them, the minor parts being collected by the comp pages 67 and 69.
troller or auditor, the license collector, and the heads
Summary of cash balances.—The cash in the posses
of departments and enterprises; and in other cities the sion of the 195 municipalities increased during the
principal receipts come into the office of the tax collec fiscal year 1912 from $265,806,848 to $269,294,799,
tor, revenue collector, or an official with some such an increase of $3,487,951, or 1.3 per cent. Of the five
designation. The lack of uniformity here is as ap groups of cities, Groups I, II, and V show increases of
parent as in ihe case mentioned in the last paragraph. cash on hand. Of the 195 cities, 97, or about one-half
The remedy for this lack of uniformity in official of all the cities, reported an increase of cash on hand
designation must begin with such reorganization of during the year and 98 reported a decrease. Increases
the forces engaged in the conduct of municipal busi in cash on hand were shown by the cities having a
ness as will provide uniformity of duties.
i population of over 30,000, for which the Bureau of the
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
67
Census secured statistics, for the fiscal years 1908,1909,
TABLE 4.
1910, and 1911. The increase in 1911 was 829,115,741;
Summary of revenue receipts and governmental cost
in 1910, $20,571,175; in 1909, §17,784,932; and in
payments.—Table
4 is designed to present for each
1908, $52,742,336.
municipality
covered
by this report a summary of the
The increase in five years of nearly $124,000,000 in
results
or
outcome
of
its financial transactions, such
the cash balances represents in largo part the accumu
as
is
described
on
page
50, under the title "Summaries
lation of money obtained by the issue of long-term
of
the
outcome
of
municipal
business" so far as
debt obligations for the acquisition and construction
such
summaries
can
be
presented
in the form of
of municipal properties and public improvements.
exhibits
of
receipts
and
payments.
The classes of
This increase in cash on hand added at least $2,500,000
receipts
and
payments
included
in
the
table are those
to the current governmental costs of the cities covered
described
in
the
introduction
and
in
the
text of Table
by the census report, this amount being approximately
3
as
revenue
receipts
and
governmental
cost pay
the excess payments of interest on account of the idle
ments,
jbhe
revenue
receipts
being
classified
in the
money thus brought into the treasury. This munici
table
as
obtained
from
the
various
kinds
olf
taxes
and
pal expenditure must be spoken of as useless. I t
other
revenues,
and
the
governmental
cost
payments
results in most cities not so much from error or mis
management on the part of the city officials as from as paid for expenses, interest, and outlays.
Summary of net and transfer revenue receipts and
the operation of unwise laws relating to the borrowing
governmental
cost payments.—The totals of Table 4
of money to finance public improvements. These
include
both
actual
receipts and payments, or receipts
laws burden the cities with needless interest payments
from
and
payments
to the public, and nominal or
without accomplishing any good that may not be
transfer
receipts
and
payments,
or amounts received
secured in other ways. New York City has in recent
by
one
enterprise,
department,
fund,
or account from
years led in securing legislation relating to methods
another.
In
Table
VI
the
total
revenue
receipts of
of financing public improvements economically and
safely with a minimum of cash on hand derived from Table 4 are separated into net or actual and transfer
bond issues. The economical administration of city revenue receipts, and the payments of Table 4 are in
business calls for the general enactment of similar laws like manner separated into net and transfer govern
mental cost payments.
in all states.
Table VI
City
num
ber.
GOVERNMENTAL COST
PATUENT3.
EEVENUE RECEIPTS.
! City
num
ber.
1
exit.
Net
Transfer.
Net.
Net
Transfer.
$829,197,367 $19,639,737 $939,403,898 $19,829,362
Group I
Group III..
Group IV
.
426,273,955
104,858,661
150.479,315
S5t261,343
62,324,193
13,447,313! 468,339,432
2,224,681 126,391,217
2,224,092 178,205,044
96,451,0S3
1,192,340
70,017,123
751,311
7
8
9
Cleveland, Ohio
Baltimore, Md
nffiS?&f*
$196,690,547
74,215,080
39,946,197
21,277,941
32,329,834
14,965,470
13,415,189
20,895,080
12,618,617
$234,408,052
572,473 H67,242,708
42,552,673
759,275
21,522,194
-57,987
30,857,072
1,696,103
188,025
767,151
443,909
162,912
188,025
767,151
443^909
162,912
GBOUPXL—ctrmsHAviKOAroimjLTioN or 300,000 TO £00,000 IK 1912.
10
11
12
13
14
Buffalo, N . Y
San Francisco. Ctl
Milwaukee, Wis
Cincinnati/Ohio
15 Newark, N . J
16
17 Washington, D. C
18
$12,185,404
13,689,092
10,022,793
12,801,931
05,270,925
9,929.697
7,875,665
14,367,694
8,715,360
$224,294
2,200
84,357
357,585
976,106
13,600,962
354,894
8,856,872
21,298
45,949 i 12,875,916
157,998 1 11,014,171
Net.
Transfer.
Louisville, K y . . . . .
Rt. Paul, jtflTin
$76,884
10,947
73,308
8,464
17,972
$12,392,136
8,223,862
9,194,943
5,935,160
4,668,498
$76,884
10,947
73,308
8,464
17,972
29 Columbus. Ohio 4 ,
30 Toledo, Ohio
31 Oakland, Cal
32
33
4,494,000
3,973,815
5,288,662
3,573,748
3,844,909
174,244
86,669
7,000
91,586
194,213
5,172,780
4,754,488
6,251,155
3,566,522
4,182,512
174,244
86,669
7,000
91,586
194,213
34
35
36
37 Mft^aphtf, 1 > n n . . . . . . . . .
38 Scrariton,'Pa
,.„
2,057,310
3,510,345
2,606,180
3,311,342
1,818,245
50,093
490
535
3,748
32,336
2,435,523
3,602,289
2,638,233
4,251,611
1,934,363
50,093
490
535
3,748
32,336
39
40
3,412,622
1,953,204
3,696,670
2,338,019
4,047,079
140,536
12,180
8,338
11,360
24,342
3,699,133
2,210,817
10,777,184
2,387,207
6,004,671
137,536
12,180
8,338
11,360
24,342
12,724
40,204
18,391
18,671
14,455 1
2,584,374
3,119,156
2,395,432
1,788,385
2,113,169
12,724
"2,727,812
1,482,830
2,652,152
3,004,903
52,963
690
24,098
36,502
2,757,257
1,342,794
3,542,852
2,998,811
52,963
690
24,098
36,502
2,516,539
1,918,818
2,250,082
2,911,570
14,591
49,312
20,840
2,823!
3,305,288
2,099,076
3,146,394
2,711,616
14,591
49,312
20,840
2,823
"
j
.
$13,661,386
18,786,782
10,289,057
14,571,682
22,734,389
Transfer.
$9,550,089
I 6,341,508
6,226,457
5,588,557
4,489,079
24
25
26
27
28
$8,799,478
559,249 i
759,275 i
57,987!
1,696,103
18,366,849
17,323,748
22,392,262
13,672,974
GOVERNMENTAL COS*
PAYMENTS.
GROUP IIL—OTXES HAVING A POPULATION OF 100,000 TO 300,000 IN 1912—COntd. "
13,434,059
2,224,681
2,221,092
1,192,244
757,256
GROUP i - c r r a es HAV ENO A TOTUU TION or £00,000 AND OVER m 1912.
1 New York. N . Y
2 Chicago, Hi
a Philadelphia, Pa
4 St. Louis, Mo
5
REVENUE RECEIPTS.
CITY.
$224,294
2,200 r
84,357
357,585
976,106
354,894
21,298
45,949
157,998
_
!
Portland, Oreg
Rochester, N . Y
Paterson, N. J
42 Fall River, Mass
43 Spolrone, W a s h . . . . . . . . :
44 Dayton, Ohio
45 Grand Rapids, Mich
46 Nashville, Tenn
48 Lowell, Mass
49
50
51
52
53 Dallas, T e x . . . . .
64 Trenton. N. J
55 Albany. N . Y .
56 Salt Lake City, Utah....
2,193,872
2,237,405
2,067,312
1,850,900
2,100,199
is!391
18,671
14,455
GEOUP rv.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OP 50,000 TO 100,000 IN 1912.
19
20
21
22
23
Jersey City, N . J
Seattle, Wash
Kansas City, Mo
Indianapolis, Ind.
Providence, R . I
$5,881,298
11,095,279
9,762,566
6,845,932
5,858,006
$6,181,392
$241,884
12,925,734
308,742
39,403 1 10,348,854
660 1 5,424,364
5,137,109
301,894
$241,884
308,742
39,403
660
301 894 '
57
58
59
60
fi1
$1,256,334
1,436,401
3,006,162
3,700,761
2,013,437
$1,720|
29,065
91,939
182,912
25.874
$1,236,136
1,521,270
3,363,494
6,003,667
2,241 743
$1,720
29,065
91,939
182,912
">* VtA
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES:
68
T a b l e VI—Contd.
REVENUE RECEIPTS.
GOVERNMENTAL COST
PAYMENTS.
CITY.
Net.
Transfer.
Net.
$1,930,108
1,743,397
1,202,725
2,140,260
2,453,661
Youngstown, Ohio..
Houston, Tex
,
Fort Worth, Tex...
Duluth,Minn
Norfolk, Va
1,716,957
1855,345
2,044,008
2 443 764
i;720;05S
Oklahoma City, Okla.
Schenectady, N. Y . . . .
Somerville, Mass
St. Joseph, Mo
Utica,
Net.
Transfer.
GROUP IT.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OP 50,000 TO 100,000 IN 1912—COntd.
Des Moines, Iowa...
Lawrence, Mass
Wilmington, Del...,
Kansas City, Kans..
Yonkers,N.Y
REVENUE RECEIPTS.
City
nam*
ber.
27,783
$1,027,556
1,002,052
1,019,946
1,036,310
1,135,206
11,585
16,830
1,440
6,656
405
2,306,787
670,741
707,830
705,738
698,733
699,654
750,809
723,952
843,284
1,747,306
1,698
l,OSO
5,776
38,132
66,199
711,834
818,654
831,226
1,014,679
1,526,312
Butte, Mont
Woonsocket,R.I.
Montgomery, Ala.
Chester, Pa
Fitchborg,Mass..
870,480
597,441
721,350
442,776
850,590
1,436
49,164
8,322
3,650
16,197
821,900
605,225
808,945
741,649
1,067,774
147
148
149
150
151
Dubuque, I o w a . . . . . .
Galveston, Tex
West Hoboken, N. J .
New Castle. Pa
Roanoke, Va.
679,104
883,573
375,318
382,331
607,122
711
12,253
626,608
869,191
525,833
615,707
624,976
83,180
152
153
154
155
156
Elmlra,N.Y
Huntington, W. Va.
East Orange. N. J . . .
Knorvtlie, T e n n . . . .
Hamilton, Ohio
612,918
572.691
083,040
834,670
697,780
430
4,350
19,333
267
14,945
677,486
663,965
1,307,522
762,476
728,247
2,331
8,262
15,864
157
158
150
160
161
Lexington. Ky.
Springfield, Mo
Quincy,HL
Charlotte, N . C
Joliet,HL
651,390
616,832
550,070
421,803
694,983
1,700
16,137
23,791
37,786
50,712
28,298
162
163
164
165
166
Pasadena. Gal
AubtirnTN.Y
Everett, Mass
Decatur, 111
Portsmouth, V a . . . .
1,516,793
593,230
756,894
£03,891
343,464
15,232
15,170
1,013
1,786,524
750,416
761,339
610,160
546,333
595,912
1,134,205
877,214
864,800
4,541
3,740
167
168
169
170
171
Perth Amboy, N . J .
Taunton, Mass......
QuincytMass
J.ansinfrMich
PlttsfieldjMass
£35,674
817,560
898,583
723,017
> 736,847
l,3SO
14,210
1,492
48,343
1,953
661,707
779,570
1,018,940
581,010
1,086,371
62,831
4,182
11,746
1,267,009
1,014,123
979,936
1,923,632
62,831
4,182
11 746
1,004,109
1,042,279
845,578
2,588,118
9,409
1,524
2,891
Cedar Rapids, Iowa..
Oshkosb,lYis.
San Jose, Cal
Amsterdam, N. Y . . .
Jamestown, N . Y . . . .
909,133
484,229
724,2S7
449,990
665,737
1,209
3,320
9,409
1,524
2,891
172
173
174
175
176
975,869
452,771
772,706
401,120
792,004
177
178
179
180
181
Mount Vernon, N. Y.,
Niagara Falls, N . Y . . .
Jackson, Mich.
Wffliamsport, Pa
JopUn,Mo
1,066,851
1,193,294
550,733
415,862
612,187
7,803
16,060
182
183
184
185
186
Lima, Ohio
Muskogee, Okla.
Chelsea, M a s s . . . . . . . .
NewRocheUe,N.Y.
Aurora, III
476,431
786,255
879,282
1,063,474
602) 128
7,767
6,500
23,053
1,103
4,252
393,338
1,666,233
917,250
1,186,031
778,113
187
188
189
190
191
Lorain, Ohio...,
Austin, Tex....,
Newport, K y . . ,
550,709
679,442
461,892
590,703
550,123
3,288
24,971
730,133
633,177
473,948
624,991
559,612
$8,759
917
51,461
9,314
$2,486,640
1,563,962
1237,990
2377,099
3,325,764
$8,759
917
51,461.
9,314
127
128
129
130
131
Topeka,Kans
Salem, M a s s . . . . . . ,
Lincoln, Nebr
,
Davenport, Iowa..,
El Paso, Tex.
San Diego, Cal....
Tampa, Tla
McKeesport, Pa...
Flint, Mich
Kalamazoo, Mich.
26,734
53,097
44,872
26,734
53,097
44,872
132
133
134
135
136
2,930,928
1,664,810
1,774,656
1,330,265
1,542,312
10,779
32,311
511
170
3,174
3,089,664
1,693,031
1,788,423
1,265,485
1,343,850
10,779
32,311
511
170
3,174
137
133
139
140
141
Racine, Wb
Superior, Wis
Wheeling, W. Va.
Macon, Ga
Newton, Mass
Elizabeth, N . J . . . . .
WoterburyjConn..
Troy,N.Y.
,
Akron, Ohio
Manchester, N . H.,
1,157,315
1,374,306
1,920,020
1,316,965
1,198,191
11,345
3,557
5,356
4,763
46,734
1,110,675
1,608,084
1,954,313
3,102,463
1,316,761
11,345
3,557
5,356
4,763
46,734
142
143
144
145
146
Hoboken,N.J....
WIlkes-Barre, P a .
Erie, Pa
Evansville,Ind...
Peoria, HI
1,296,222
896,272
1,138,499
1,375,524
1,466,455
10,870
440
13,971
3,360
3,540
1,565,653
1,219,619
1,102,459
1,349,373
1,535,391
10,870
440
13,971
3,360
3,540
Fort Wayne, Ind..
Harrisburg, Pa....
Savannah, Ga
East St. Louis, HI.
Jacksonville, Fla„
1,441,258
1 457,597
139i;583
1,063,280
1,746,992
57,196
6,307
57,100
6,307
83,180
1,333,197
1,583,943
1,349,071
1,522,713
2,416,680
South Bend, Ind..
Terre Haute, Ind..
Passaic, N . J .
Johnstown, Pa
Bayonne,N.J....
1,077,409
885,549
638,457
588,277
1,516,394
2,331
8,262
15,864
1,047,171
953,094
910,840
567,852
1,437,521
Brockton, Mass...
Portland, Me
Holy okeT Mass....
Charleston, S . C . ,
Witchita,Kans....
1,330,186
1,916,795
1,698,617
889,041
1,411,319
23,791
37,786
50,712
28,298
1,366,113
2,003,133
1,709,248
839,246
1,451,541
Allentown.Pa
Springfield, 111
Covington. Ky
Altoona, Pa
676,430
1,075,399
796,544
795,761
4,541
3,740
Pawtucket,R.I...
Canton, Ohio
Mobile, Ala
Sacramento, Cal....
1,177,834
896,858
1,110,552
1,831,580
Saginaw, Mich
,
Sioux City, Iowa....
Binghamton, N. Y .
Atlantic City, N. J..
1,076,288
1,082,810
824,603
1,817,812
8,025
9,140
8,025
9,140
GROUP V.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912.
Pueblo, Colo
,
N e w Britain, Conn..,
Chattanooga, Tenn...
York, Pa?...
Maiden, Mass
Berkeley, Cal
B a y City. Mich
Haverhill, Mass
$930,855
976,477
916,586
802,736
591,574
$50
11,098
12,483
12,300
2,870
$1,101,206
1,304,610
1,196,235
914,611
629,072
$50
11,098
12,483
12,300
2,870
988,176
864,577
765,128
414,218
38,478
3,080
3,714
4,430
932,897
. 882,349
1,005,681
536,431
38,478
3,080
3,714
4,430
1,015,405
918,813
687,544
1,023,689
4,513
30,051
7,270
980,481
828,481
638,932
980,064
4,513
30,051
7,270
The amounts shown in the foregoing table as trans
fer revenue receipts and transfer governmental cost
payments are what on page 43 have been described
as service and interest transfer receipts and payments.
These receipts and payments are included with other
Net
Transfer,
GROUP V.—CITIES HA VINO A POPULATION OP 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912—Contd.
1,946,413
2,110,920
2,989,350
2,539,496
1^833,612
Rockford,JJl
Little Rock, A r k . .
Augusta, Oa
Spnngfield,Ohk»..
Lancaster, P a
Transfer.
GOVERNMENTAL COST
PAYMENTS.
192
193
194
195
?**$&>"'£'"
L a Crosse, W i s . ,
Lynchburg, V a .
Shreveport,'La.
Shreveport, I
ColonidoJ3prtags, Colo.
$1,015,020
894,169.
991,524
927,077
1,037,917
730,379J
709,402'
552,229
613,686
734,678
535,749
861,800
759,064
$4,729
1,500
7,075
38,385
078
9,810
11,680
12,560
"o'iii"
711,242
620,467
407,949
723,495
729,937
1,360,180
1,420,827
655,739
336,506
457,544
793,624
1,008,201
958,423
1,311,125
revenue receipts and governmental cost payments in
Tables 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17", and 18. The amount of
each of these classes of transfers is shown in Table
VII, which follows*
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
CLASS OP EECE1PTS.
Table
in
which
in
cluded.
4
Amount
included.
419,839,737
4
3,934,390 1 Service transfer payments
Receipts from services by general departments
Receipts from services of public service enterprises
9
10
11
10
The aggregate service transfer receipts are not iden
tical in amount with the total service transfer pay
ments. The differences to be noted arise principally
from the different fiscal years of the departments,
enterprises, and funds between which the transfers
take, place, which cause some of the transfer receipts
given in the tables to be balanced by transfer pay
ments reported in 1911 or by those to be reported in
1913. Differences of this kind relating to service
transfers are reported by Chicago, HI., Fort Wayne,
Ind., Flint, Mich., Hamilton, Ohio, Auburn, N. Y.,
Lansing, Mich., and Jamestown, N. Y.
Divisions of (he governments of cities.—As stated in
the introduction to this report,1 American cities are
very differently organized for purposes of local selfgovernment. The governmental units of each city
which have power to levy taxes and incur indebted
ness are shown in Table 4 tinder the heading "City
and division of city's government." When the city
corporation is the only governmental unit having such
powfir, only one line is devote4 to the city, the revenue
receipts and governmental cost payments of all funds
and accounts of that city, whether under the accounts
ing control of the auditor or comptroller or not, being
shown on that line. For 84 ol^the 195 municipalities
covered by this report the city corporation was the
only local governmental unit. When there were addi
tional governmental units the revenue receipts and
the governmental cost payments of each unit, includ
ing all revenue receipts and governmental cost pay
ments of the funds and accounts belonging to such
units, are shown after descriptive titles. The govern
mental units shown in the table, with the possible
exception of some of the counties referred to in the
following paragraph, all exercise municipal functions.
For 10 of the 18 cities of over 300,000 inhabitants a
percentage of the receipts and payments of the counties
in which the respective cities are located, based on the
ratio between the assessed valuation of the city and
that of the county, has been included with the figures
for the city corporation and other units of local govern
ment. This treatment seems desirable because of the
fact that in the remaining 8 cities of Groups I and II
the original county organization has been merged with
1
See "Difficulties arising from differences in governmental or
ganizations," page 21.
Table
in
which
in
cluded.
CLASS OF PAYMENTS.
1 ml
Table VII
69.
,
Payments for experispg o f general departments
Payments for expenses of public service enterprises
Payments for outlays
Interest transfer payments...
Payments for expenses of municipal service enterprises.
Payments to sinking, trust, and investment funds
Amount
included.
$19,829,362
3,924,015
12
15
IS
2,511,395
301,149
1 111 471
15,905,347
12
17
76,544
15,828,803
that of the city. The addition of the county figures
places the cities of Groups I and II on a more complete
ly comparable basis than would otherwise be the case.
The cities of Group3 I and I I for which a percentage
of the county receipts and payments has thus been
added to the city figures are: Chicago, HI., Cleveland,
Ohio, Pittsburgh, Pa., Detroit; Mich., Buffalo, N. Y.,
Milwaukee, Wis., Cincinnati, Ohio, Newark, N. J., Los
Angeles, Cal., and Minneapolis, Minn. Special atten
tion is here called to the figures for Denver, Colo., a
city of Group III. Thesefiguresare for a municipality
like that of New York, N.. Y., and seven others of
Groups I and II, in which the county organization is
merged with that of the city, which makes the figures
for this city comparable with those of the cities of
Groups I and II, but not with those of the other cities
of Groups i n , IV, and V.
In 3 of the 10 cities with county payments merged
with those of the city as mentioned in the last para
graph, the city corporation and other divisions of the
government of the city collected all taxes, licenses, and
similar revenues accruing to the benefit of those di
visions. These cities were Pittsburgh, Pa., Milwaukee,
Wis., and Newark, N. J. In the other 7 cities the
county government collected revenues for the city cor
poration and other divisions of the government of the
city as follows: General property taxes and part of the
special assessments in Chicago, 111., Cleveland and
Cincinnati, Ohio, and Los Angeles, Cal.; liquor licenses
in Detroit, Mich., and Cleveland and Cincinnati, Ohio;
cigarette licenses in Cleveland and Cincinnati, Ohio;
and mortgage and bank taxes in Buffalo, N. Y.
For three cities for which county receipts and pay
ments are included, namely, Pittsburgh, Pa., Milwau
kee, Wis*; and Newark, N. J., and for most other cities,
Table 4 presents a correct statement, not only of the
city revenue receipts collected by the various divisions
of the government of the city, but also of all those
that were collected for the use of such divisions. For
seven cities, namely, Chicago, HI., Cleveland, Ohio,
Detroit, Mich., Buffalo, N. Y., Cincinnati, Ohio, Los
Angeles, Cal., and Minneapolis, Minn., the table shows
the revenues collected for the several divisions of the
government of the city, but does not show the revenues
collected for those divisions by the county. For a
number of cities where the city corporation collects
70
FINANCIAL STAT1STICS OF CITIES-
taxes and other revenues for other divisions of the gov
ernment of the city as well as for its own use and bene
fit, the table shows the amounts as collected by the city
corporation, and not as collected for the divisions
which may eventually use the money in meeting their
governmental costs.
Of the independent local governmental units re
ported, the school districts are the most important and
numerous, being reported in 102 cities; park districts
are found in 6 cities; sanitary districts and boroughs
or towns, each in 2 cities; a poor district, a naviga
tion district, a water district, a bridge district, a dis
trict for township expenses, and a district for borough
expenses each in 1 city. In addition, for 3 cities,
namely, Rochester, Syracuse, and Troy, N. Y., some
expenses were paid through a special fund of the county
government. In the case of each of these cities the
comity levied and collected taxes to reimburse itself for
payments for the poor and the delinquent and for elec-.
tion and other expenses of the city. In certain other
citiesofNewYork,namely,Yonkers,Schenectady,Binghamton, Elmira, Auburn, Jamestown, Amsterdam,
and Niagara Falls, in which the county performs simi
lar services for the city, the cities reimbursed the comi
ties for these expenses by warrant payments.
Where there were several independent school dis
tricts or other districts within the limits of a given
city, a report was secured for each district, but the
figures for the several classes of districts in each city
are consolidated into a single total in Table 4. In
some cities the school district maintains only a part
of the public schools, the city corporation main
taining the rest. The city corporation sometimes
expends money for sanitation, parks, poor relief, port
improvements, bridge construction, or water supply,
in addition to the payments made for the same pur
poses by the independent districts having these objects
particularly in charge. The transactions of all the
independent governmental units shown in Table 4 are
analyzed and their receipts and payments added to
the corresponding receipts and payments of the city
corporation in making up the other financial tables
of this report. Thus payments of an independent
school district and of the city corporation for school
expenses are consolidated in Division VII of Table 12,
and all payments for school outlays are combined and
appear under the appropriate heading in Table 18.
Revenue receipts of the divisions of the city govern
ments.—In the case of cities having governments
which consist of two or more separate and independent
divisions, such as have been considered under the last
heading, the revenues of the divisions are seldom
derived in like proportion from the same source and
those of no one division are drawn in like proportion
from the sources from which the. cities having a single
division of government derive their income, as is
shown in detail by thefiguresof Table 4. A summary
of the revenue receipts of the 193 cities covered by the
census report for 1911 was given in Table VII of that
report, and a comparative exhibit of the per cent dis
tribution of those receipts from the various revenues
was given in Table XIII of the same volume.
Differences in revenue systems of {he different stoics.—
The revenues of the 195 cities covered by this report
are obtained under the constitutional and statutory
provisions of 39 different states and those of the Dis
trict of Columbia. Under those provisions the cities
of one state seldom derive their revenue receipts in the
same proportion from the several sources as do the
cities of other states. This fact may readily be demon
strated by a study of thefiguresof Table 4. To assist
in showing the differences in the revenue systems
under which the several cities of the Nation are
operated, the Bureau of the Census in its Financial
Statistics of Cities for 1911 presented a summary by
states, and also exhibited a per cent distribution, of
the revenue receipts of cities of those states. These
summaries constituted Tables Vlli and XTV of the
1911 report, and the reader desirous of using such
data as are here referred to is respectfully referred to
that report.
Comparison between revenue receipts and aU govern
mental cost payments.—Comparisons between "revenue
receipts and governmental cost payments are of the
greatest significance in municipal finance. If a city is
realizing more money from revenues than it is paying
for expenses, interest, and outlays, it has a balance
which may be applied to reducing indebtedness; while
if its payments for expenses, interest, and outlays are
greater than its revenue receipts, tho city is increas
ing its indebtedness. If it is realizing from revenues
enough money to pay for expenses and interest, but
only a portion of its outlays, it is shifting a part of
the burden of paying for its permanent properties
and public improvements upon the future.
In the last three columns of Table 4 are shown the
results of comparisons between revenue receipts and
governmental cost payments. In the first of these
columns is shown the excess of governmental cost
payments over revenue receipts for the cities in which
such payments were in excess of revenue receipts, and
in the second column is shown the excess of revenue
receipts over governmental cost payments for cities
in which revenue receipts were greater. Of the 195
cities covered by this report, 49 realized enough from
revenues to meet aU their payments for expenses,
interest, and outlays, and to have a balance available
for paying off debt. The excess of revenue receipts of
these 49 cities over their governmental cost payments
amounted to $14,145,083, an average of $288,675.
Chicago, HI., reported the greatest excess, $6,985,596.
The excess of governmental cost payments over*
revenue receipts by the 146 cities reporting such
excess was $124,341,240, an average of $851,652.
DESCRIPTION OF
lENERAL TABLES.
71
This excess varied from $37,728,405 for New York, a portion of its outlays. The excess of payments for
N. Y., to $3,635 for Springfield, Mo., and the excess expenses, interest, and outlays over revenue receipts
of governmental cost payments of the 195 munici varied greatly among the different cities, and the
palities over the revenue receipts was $110,196,157,
figures have little significance except as the amounts
Comparison between revenue receipts and paymentsof the outlays are also taken into consideration. The
for expenses and interest—Thefinalcolumn of Table 4 excess of revenue receipts over expenses and interest
shows the excess of revenue receipts over payments for all cities was equal to 63.7 per cent of the total net
for expenses and interest. These payments for payments for outlays. The corresponding percentages
expenses and interest correspond approximately to for 1911, 1910, 1909, and 1908 were 61.2, 65.7, 61.5,
the charges of a business corporation for maintenance, and 49.2, respectively.
operating expenses, and interest, except that no
In Table VIII there is presented a summary of the
allowances have been made for depreciation. The revenue receipts and the payments for expenses and
195 municipalities together collected $193,285,310 interest, and for outlays, for groups of cities classified by
more from revenue than they paid out for expenses the percentage of their revenue receipts for 1912 that
and interest, and each city, except Hoboken, Passaic, were in excess of their payments for expenses and
and West Hoboken, N. J., received enough from interest.
revenues to meet its expenses and interest and to pay
Table VIII
BBVEXUE BECBtFTS.
OKOUP OF crrrjts WITH SFECITIED EXCESS Or KKVEXUE BECEIFTS OVER FAYMEXTS t o *
EXFEX8ES UH> tHTKBE9T.
Num
ber of
cities.
Total.
More than 40 per cent
From 30 to 40 per cent
From 20 to 30 per cent
From 10 to 20 per cent.
EXCESS OF BEVENUK
PAYMENTS
BBCEXPT3 OTEB [ FEE CENT OF REV-1
PAYMENTS
FOB EXPENSES AND j
ENUB
BECEIFT3—
FOB EXPENSES AND
1XTEBEST.
INTEREST.
105
£349,037,104
18
33
69
62
13
59,553,223
151,199,251
177,943,230
440,900,812
19,440,688
Per
capita.
TotaL
$28.96 j $655,751,794
33.42
29.90
25.10
30.51
20.27
Per
capita.
$22.36
32,347,485
99,637,874
133,241,503
371,798,387
18,726,540
Of the 195 municipalities covered by this report
18, namely, Los Angeles, Cal.j Kansas City, Mo.,
Portland, Oreg., Oakland, Gal, Kansas City, Kans.,
Oklahoma City, Okla., Fort Wayne, Ind., Harrisburg, Pa., South Bend, Ind., Wichita, Kans., Little
Rock, Ark., San Diego, Cal., Huntington, W. Va.,
Springfield, Mo., Pasadena, Cal., Cedar Rapids,
Iowa, Joplin, Mo., and Council Bluffs, Iowa, reported
an excess of revenue receipts over their payments
for expenses and interest equal to or greater than 40
por cent of their revenue receipts. The greater
number of these are rapidly growing cities and all of
them had a comparatively large percentage of their
revenue receipts from special assessments, as may be
seen by reference to Table 6. Of the $59,553,223
total revenue receipts of- these cities, $17,120,303,
or 28.8 per cent, was obtained from special assess
ments, as compared with a percentage of only 8.4
for the 195 cities, or 6.9 for the cities other than
those of the special group hero under consideration.
All of the 18 cities of this group had payments for
expenses and interest which constituted less than 60
per cent of their revenue receipts, and the total pay
ments of the group for expenses and interest con
stituted but 54.3 per cent of all their revenue receipts.
18.15!
19.71
18.84
25.73
19.53
Re
quired
for
meeting
ex
penses
and
interest.
Avail
able
for
outlays
and for
other
pur
poses.
77.2
22.8
5T3-
45.7 1
34.1
25.1
15.7 .
3.7
65.9
74.9
84.3
96.3
Total.
$193,285,310
27,205,738
51,561,377
44,701,722
69,102,425
714,048
Per
capita.
Percent
ofpay: ments for
outlays
repre
sented
by excess
ofrevenue re
ceipts
overpay
Per
ments
capita.
forex1 penses
and
interest.
PAYMENTS FOB
OUTLAYS. ;
TotaL
$6.59 j $303,481,467
$10.35 j
63.7
40^941^837
51,442,709
67,835,474
137,121,329
6,140,118
22.98 1
10.17
9.59
9.49
6.40
66^9
100.2
65.9
50.4
11.6
15.27
10.20
6.32 j
4.78
0.74 !
It is quite noteworthy that if the other revenues of
these cities had been as they were in 1912 and the
cities had collected.no special assessments, their reve
nue receipts would have exceeded their payments
for expenses and interest by only 23.8 per cent of their
revenue receipts, which is about the same as that
of the group of 69 cities to which the figures of the
third group of the table relate. The per capita
revenue receipts of these 18 cities were greater than
those of any other group, and the per capita payments
for outlays were more than twice the corresponding
average of the 195 cities and of the cities of the second,
third, and fourth groups, and were approximately three
and one-half times those for the fifth group of cities
shown in the table. This group of 18 cities included
only one of the larger and but few of the smaller
cities, the average population of the group being
98,997, as compared with the average of 150,362 for
the 195 cities. The significance of the facts to which
attention is called above, as well as those shown in
Table 4, can not readily be grasped unless they are
considered in connection with the figures of Table
21, which shows the receipts of several cities which
increased their debt obligations and the payments
which decreased such obligations.
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
72
The per capita revenue receipts of the second group these cities is a governmental administration which,
shown in Table "VIII is about one-fifth greater than while taxing them relatively much less than is done
that of the third group, although their per capita by the other cities, is accomplishing much less for their
payments for expenses and interest differ but slightly. citizens in the way of public improvements or ex
The per capita revenue receipts of the second group penditure for the public welfare. Diagram 7, which
slightly exceed, and those of the third group are con follows^ represents graphically for the 195 cities and
siderably less than the average for the 195 cities, for the five groups shown in Table VJil the per capita
while the per capita payments for expenses and interest, revenue receipts and per capita payments for ex
and for outlays for each of these groups are less than the penses and interest, and for outlays.
average- The revenue receipts of the second group DIAGRAM 7.—PER CAPITA. REVENUE RECEIPTS, AND PER CAPITA
from special assessments constituted 12.2 per cent
PAYMENTS FOR EXPENSES ANI> JNTEREST, AND POR OUTLAYS, IN
of all revenue receipts, and the corresponding per
GROUPS OF CmEa WITH SPECIFIED EXCESS OF REVENUE R E
CEIPTS OVER PAYMENTS FOR EXPENSES AND INTEREST.
centage for the third group was 8.4, showing that
the second group utilized this revenue to a greater
GROUPS OF ernes
extent than, and the third group to a same extent asi
the 195 cities as a whole, but both markedly less than MORE THAN 40 PER CENT Yss/ssssss/s/s/ss/A
the cities of the first group.
The per capita revenue receipts and the per capita
payments for expenses and interest of the fourth
WSMSMM#M%
group are greater than those for the 195 cities taken 30 TO 40 PER CENT
together, and the per capita payments for expenses
and interest are greater than those of any other group.
The percentage of the revenue receipts of this group 20 TO 30 PER CENT
2SZ
w/s/f//{////2?m
from special assessments was 5.5, which was less than
that of the 195 cities as a whole, and less than the
corresponding percentages of the first, second, and
10 TO 20 PER CENT
third groups.
The last group includes 13 cities, as follows: New
ark, Camden, Hoboken, Passaic, West Hoboken, and
Orange, N. J., Charleston, S. C, McKeesport and New LESS. THAN 10 PER CENT
Castle, Pa., Wheeling, W. Va., Auburn and Mount Ver
non, N.Y., and Portsmouth, Va. These cities had an
tCVCNUt RCCCVTS V ^ y J t X M N H a AND INTCftCtT
average population of 73,767, which was slightly less
ixeua ittvftHui ntctirrs
than one-half of the average of the 195 cities, and as a
group had the smallest per capita revenue receipts of
Comparative summary of the revenue receipts and
any group, as well as very small per capita payments g&vernmental cost payments of lJfi cities: 1902-1912.—
for outlays. The percentage of revenue receipts rep Table IX shows, for the 146 cities for which statistics
resented by the receipts from special assessments was throughout the entire period 1902 to 1912 are available,
7.3. This fact taken in connection with the other facts the aggregate net revenue receipts and the aggregate
mentioned indicates that the chief characteristic of net payments for expenses, interest, and outlays.
r
NET REVENUE RECEIPTS.
Table I X
NET GOVEBXtfZNTAL COST TATVXStn.
Total.
Percent
of inAmount.
over
1902.
1911
1910
1909
1908
1907
1906
1905
1904
1903
1902
>.*..
788,366,743
750,335,552
717,882,232
663,379,686
624,833,065
568,756,856
526,934,945
500,960,415
469,131,231
441,116,189
419,891,211
Percent
of in
crease
over
1902.
$7,521,929,978
Eleven years $6,471,588,125
1912
Amount*
For expenses.
87.8
78.7
71.0
58.0
48.8
35.5
25.5
19.5
11.7
5.1
906,997,327
862,229,808
807,224,695
761,562,037
761,527,311
691,049,439
600,383,766
583,646,656
566,509,115
518,225,379
462,574,445
Amount.
621,627,960
485,307,642
464,148,789
434,008,861
423,754,758
393,000,355
352,817,373
346,162,500
335,383,907
302,078,202
292,447,718
As shown in the foregoing table, the net revenue
receipts increased in the period 1902-1912 from
For Interest.
Percent]
of in
crease
over
1902.
$4,350,738,065
96.1
86.4
74.5
64.6
64.6
49.4
29.8
26.2
22.5
12.0
rra CINT or—
Amount.
For outlays.
Percent!
of inover
1902.
Amount.
Revenue
Govern receipts
mental , repre
cost pay sented by
Percent
ments [payments
of In- , repre- 1 forexRented by penses
over
revenue
and
receipts. interest.
1902.
$686,490,689
78.4
65.9
68.7
48.4
44.9
34.4
20.6
IS. 4
14.7
3*3
87,188,295
82,648,372
76,832,300
71,857,250
68,739,679
59,199,783
55.131,582
51,902,051
47,760,974
43,054,769
42,175,625
106.7
96.0
82.2
70.4
63.0
4a 4
30.7
23.1
13.2
2.1
298,181,
294.273,
266,243,
255,695,
269,032,
233,849,
192,434,
185,582,
183,364,
173,092,
127,951,
133.1
130.0
108.1
99.8
110.3
86.7
50.4
45.0
43.3
35.2
86.0
77*8
86.9
87.0
83.9
87.1
82.1
82.3
87.8
85.8
82.8
85.1
00.8
"77T5
75.7
75.4
76.3
78.S
79.5
77.4
79.5
81.7
78.2
79.7
$419,891,211 to $788,366,743, or 87.8 per cent*
During the corresponding period the percentage of
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
increase was, for expenses, 78.4; for interest, 106.7;
and for outlays, 133.1. The revenue receipts and the
payments for expenses and interest for the 11 years
make an unbroken series of increases, the receipts and
payments of each year being greater than the corre
sponding ones for the preceding year. The payments
for outlays make a like unbroken series of increases
with the exception of the years 1908 and 1909. The
total governmental cost payments increased from
$462,574,445 in 1902 to $906,997,327 in 1912, or 96.1
per cent. This is a slightly greater percentage of
increase than that of revenue, showing with the
markedly greater increase of payments for outlays
a small tendency to increase the proportion of out
lay payments to be met from the issue of debt
obligations.
DIAGRAM 8.—NET REVENUE RECEIPTS AXD NET GOVERNMENTAL
COST PAYMENTS OP 146 CITIES: 1902-1912.
; MILLIONS OF DOLLARS .
500
1912
400'
eoo
/eoo
r///jy#y///////sYjmyjysy/^^^
tl&MwyssSyssssssA
1911
wmws/jV//A&Y////////w^^
)9I0
*S:>?X//S///SS////
Y/S///S//;'////////SSSM^^^
<&s&*fs//sss/s/s/
w/////AV/Ar////,wm%w?//^^^^
1909
wm^jrjmhsssJifM
1908
V///SS//S//////SAY///////W^^^
)\
1907
)
1906
)
r///r///sy//y//j?/:%^^^
%&:<://///////
?////////:w/////Ay/^^^^
1905
VSSS///AY//////#:V//S/W^^
\
.1904
i•
Y////////S///////AV//S^^^^
m'/////s/s*
t
1903
1902
£%vy>vvvv>
Yy///yy^y//y//A9yAW///yAvyy/////jy//j
Y/////////////////AV//////j%r^^^^
I
I
I
1
NET REVENUE RECEIPT8
I
NET GOVERNMENTAL COST PAYMENTS
EXPKRStS IMTEtCftT OUTLAYS
73
Diagram 8 presents graphically the relative in
crease in 11 years of the net revenues, governmental
costs, expenses, interest, and outlays of the 146 cities,
as shown by the figures of Table IX.
TABLE 5.
Per capita revenue receipts and governmental cost pay
ments.—The per capita receipts and payments of Table
5 are based on the absolute amounts shown in Table 4
which include certain transfers between enterprises,
departments, and funds, but exclude receipts and pay
ments in error and all other counterbalancing receipts
and payments.
Per capita net revenue receipts and governmental cost
payments.—The per capita figures of Table 5 exhibit
with a fair degree of accuracy the relative amounts of
revenue exacted by the several cities from specified
sources, and also exhibit the relative governmental
costs for expenses, interest, and outlays. The totals
of the revenue receipts as given in the table are not,
however, in all cases correct statements of the actual
average contribution of the citizens of the several
cities to the costs of government, since they include
the transfers between departments and funds above
referred to. For a like reason the total governmental
costs of the table slightly exaggerate the actual current
costs of the city governments. Further, as the
amounts of these transfer receipts and payments includedin the totals of the table vary with the different
cities, the averages of the table are not absolutely
correct measures of the relative costs of government as
between different cities. The amounts of these trans
fer receipts and payments for the several cities have
been given in Table VI, which also exhibits the net
revenue receipts and governmental cost payments for
every city. As presenting the most comparable figures
practicable of the relative contributions to the support
of city governments by the citizens of the several cities
and of the relative governmental costs of those cities, the
per capita net revenue receipts and governmental'cost
payments of the several cities are given in Table X ,
which follows on page 74. The per capita figures are in
all cases based upon the absolute amounts of Table VI.
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
74
PEB CAPITA NET—
PEB CAPITA NET—
Table X
City
num
ber.
Revenue
receipts.
Grand total,
Group I
Group II
Group IH
Group IV
Group V
Govern*
mental
cost
payments.
$28.28
$32.04
33.81
30.54
24.86
20.96
19.74
37.14
36.81
29.44
23.72
22.17
City
num
ber.
6
7
8
9
N e w York. N . Y
Chicago, 111
Philadelphia, P a
Boston, J i a s s . . . . . . .
Pittsburgh, P a
$38.84
32.34
24.87
29.83
45.46
$46.29
29.30
26.49
30.23
43.39
25.07
23.55
37.95
24,93
30.77
30.42
40.66
27.16
$28.23
19.84
21.49
24.21
29.03
2a 61
$38.26
22.49
24.46
35.41
30.17
21.97
Oklahoma City, Okla..
Schenectady, N. Y
Somerville, Mass
St, Joseph, Mo.
,
Utica,N.Y
,
35.23
20.28
21.98
16.59
19.67
37.14
20.62
22.16
15.78
17.13
Elizabeth, N. J . . . .
Waterbury, Conn..
Troy, N . Y .
Akron, Ohio.
,
Manchester, N. H . .
14.81
17.61
24.87
17.67
16.42
14.21
20.60
25.31
41.39
18.04
Hoboken,N.J....
wnkes~Barre,Pa..
Erie, Pa
'.
E vansvUle, Ind...,
Peoria, Hi;.
17.81
12.71
16.36
19.76
21.39
21.51
17.29
15.84
19.39
22.40
87
88
89
90
91
Fort Wayne.Ind..
Harrisburg, P a . . . .
Savannah, Qa
East S t Louis, HI.
Jacksonville, F l a „
21.23
21.76
21.08
16.64
27.19
19.04
23.65
20.43
23.68
37.62
92
03
94
95
96
South Bend, I n d . .
Terre Haute, Ind..
Passaic, N . J
Johnstown, P a . . . .
Bayonne, N. J
17.58
14.52
10.50
9.68
25.00
17. OB
15.63
14.98
9.35
23.70
97
93
99
100
101
Brockton, Mass....
Portland, Me
Holyoke, Mass
Charleston, S . C . . .
Wichita, Kans.....
21.94
81.71
23.11
14.94
23.83
22.53
33.13
28.29
14.10
24.51
102
103
104
105
Allentown.Fa
Springfield7, 111..
Covington, Ky.
Altoona, P a . . _ .
,
11.85
19.66
14.53
14.61
10.44
20.63
16.05
15.88
106
107
108
109
Pawtucket,R.I....
Canton, Ohio
Mobile, Ala,
Sacramento, Cal....
21.65
16.61
20.70
34.34
23.29
18.78
18.27
36.06
110
111
112
113
Saginaw, Mich.
Sioux City, Iowa...
Binghamton, N. Y .
Atlantic City, N . J :
20.57
21.18
1136
36.18
19.19
20.39
' 16.77
51.61
Yonkers f N.Y
Youngstown, Ohio.
Houston, Tex
Fort Worth, T e x . . .
Duluth, Minn
Norfolk^ Va
GEOUP n.—cxnE3 HAVING X POPULATION OP 300,000 TO 500,000 I N 1912.
10 Buffalo, N . Y
11 San Francisco, Cal.. L
12 Milwaukee, Wis
13 .Cincinnati/ OhIoT T , T . . . . . .
14 TXXTAngplesjOi
::
15
16
17
18
Washington, D . C
MfnTv^ftpclis,Minn...
,,
^
$27.73
31.58
25.04
33.03
39.56
$31.07
43.34
25.70
37.60
53.90
.....a,..a.*.*..**
26.89
22.46
41.92
26.94
36.83
25.26
37.56
34.05
. L. ,
A14.,,...,
XLI
,
GROUP jn.—CITIES HATTNO A POPULATION OT 100,000 TO 300,000 is 1912.
Jersey City, N . J . . . .
Seattle, Wash
Kansas City, Mo
Indianapolis, I n d . . . .
Providence, R . I . . . .
37
$20.89
39.99
36.70
23.67
24.90
$21.96
46.59
38.91
21.97
21.84
Portland, Oreg
Rochester. N . Y
Denver. Colo
Louisville, K y
S t . Paul, Minn
40.72
27.52
27.04
24.37
19.84
52.83
35.69
39.93
25.88
20.63
Columbus. Ohio
Toledo, Ohio
Oakland, Cal
Atlanta, Ga
Worcester, Mass
23.19
22.49
31.59
21.39
25.27
26.69
26.91
37.34
21.35
27.49
Birmingham, A l a . . . .
Syracuse, N . Y
N e w Haven, C o n n . . .
Memphis, Tenn
Scran ton, P a
13.60
24.44
18.71
24.09
13.38
16.21
25.09
18.94
30.93
14.23
Richmond, V a
Paterson.N. J
Omaha, Nebr
Fall River, Mass
Spokane, Wash
25.96
15.01
28.68
19.08
33.45
28.14
16.98
83.60
19.48
49.63
D a y t o n , Ohio
Grand Rapids, Mich.
Nashville, Tenn
Bridgeport, Conn
Lowell, Mass
18.23
18.93
18.33
16.99
19.31
21.47
26.40
21.25
19.39
19.43
Cambridge, Mass
San Antonio, T e x . . .
N e w Bedford, Mass..
Hartford, Conn
25.32
13.95
25.43
29.12
25.59
12.63
33.97
29.06
Dallas, T e x .
Trenton,N. J
Albany, N . Y
Salt Lake City, U t a h
24.51
18.80
22.12
28.77
32.19
20.66
30.03
26.79
BROUP rv.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OP 50,000 TO 100,000 Iff 1912,
m
58
59
60
61
6?
63
64
65
Lynn, M*99
Wilmington, Twri
n
n
,
$12.58
14.55
31.67
39.34
21.42
$12.37
15.41
35.43
63.82
23 85
21.03
19.14
13.39
24.05
27 09
17.17
13.78
26.71
Govern
mental
cost
payments.
GSOUP rv.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION or 50,000 TO 100,000 IN 1912—continued.
GBOUP I.—CITIES HAYING A POPULATION OT 500,000 AND OVEB IN 1912.
1
2
3
4
5
Revenue
receipts.
Gftoup v.—crrrcs BAvma A POPULATION o r 30,000 T O 50,000 W 1912.
114
115
116
117
118
Rockford,m
Little Rock, A r k . .
Augusta, Oa
Springfield, O h i o . .
Lancaster, P a
118.81
20.05
18.84
16.53
1119
$22.25
26.78
24.58
18.83
12.97
119
120
121
122
123
Pueblo, Colo
N e w Britain, Conn
Chattanooga, Tenn
York, P a . . . '
Maiden, Mass
20.60
18.23
16.16
8.77
21.69
19.45
18.60
2L24
1L36
20.95
124
125
126
127
128
Berkeley, Cal
B a y City, M i c h . . . .
HaverhflLMass....
Topeka.Kans
Salem, Mass
19.73
14.00
22.42
22.32
19.68
17.79
13.84
21.46
22.59
22.06
129
130
131
132
133
Lincoln, Nebr
Davenport, I o w a . .
E l Paso, Tex.'
San Diego. Cal
Tampa, F l a
22.10
20.71
23.25
47.37
16.44
22.73
23.15
25.43
51.87
15.10
134
135
136
137
138
McKeesporLFa...
Flint, Mteh
Kalamazoo, M i c h . .
Racine, W i s
Superior, W b .
15.97
1Z46
14.34
16.43
17.68
15.94
15.92
16.33
16.72
19.28
139
140
141
142
143
Wheeling, W . V a . .
Macon, Oa
N e w t o n , Mass
B u t t e , Mont
Woonsocket,R.L.
17.13
2 a 39
42.42
21.47
14.81
19.67
24.53
37.05
20.27
14.75
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
T a b l e X—Continued.
* E R CAPUA N E T —
City
num*
ber.
Revenue
receipts.
Govern
mental
cost
payments.
GROUP V.—CITIES HAVINO JL FOfTJLATlOX Of 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912—continued.
* E R CAPITA N E T —
City I
num
ber.
SIS. 14
11.19
21.68
17.42
22.82
$20.34
18.75
27.22
16.07
22.45
169
170
171
172
173
West Hobolcen, N. J.
Newcastle. Pa
Koanoke.va
Elmira,N.Y„.......
9.84
l a 06
16.03
16.34
13.78
16.20
16.51
18.06
174
175
176
177
178
153 Huntmgton,W.Va.
154 East Orange, N . J . . .
155 Knoxville, Tenn
156 Hamilton, Ohio
15.31
26.39
22.45
18.79
17.75
35.11
2a 51
19.61
157 Lexington, K y
158 Springfield, Mo
159 Qumcy,Ill
160 Charlotte, N . C
17.58
16.66
15.00
1L69
19.20
16.76
1L13
2a 05
19.38
42.31
16.65
2L30
2a 36
49,84
21.06
21.43
16.72
9,68
15.16
2X37
17.18
161 JoUet.Hl
162 Pasadena, Cat
163 Auburn, N. Y
,164 Everett, Mass
165 Decatur, m
166 Portsmouth, Va
167 P e r t a A m b o y , N . J . .
168 Taunton, Mass
15.40
18.72
22.20
Revenues and governmental costs increasing with the
size of cities.—The most significant figures of Table X,
as well as those of Table 5, are those for the five groups
of cities arranged according to population. The
averages for both tables are largest for the first group,
and decrease successively from group to group, show
ing in general that the revenue receipts and govern
mental cost payments increase with the size of the
cities from those having 30,000 to those with over
500,000 inhabitants. This general tendency is illus
trated by Diagram 9, which follows.
DIAGRAM 9*—PES CAPITA NET REVENUE RECEIPTS AND GOV
ERNMENTAL COST PAYMENTS FOE GROUPS OF CITIES WITH
SPECIFIED POPULATION: 1912*
CROUDS OF CITIES WITH
♦ BPf O n t o POPULATION O
OVER 500000
40.
YS//ksfzJfZfS±M/S/JJ>*ZJLlllZA
BHZ
300000 TO 500000!
//s/ssss.
Revenue
receipts.
Govern
mental
cost
payments.
GBOVF v.—CITIES HAVXXO A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912—continued.
144 Montgomery, Ala....
145 Chester, Pa
146 Fitchburg, Mass.
147 Dubuque, Iowa
148 Galveston, Tex
149
150
151
152
75
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
191
195
Qoincy, Mass
Lansing, Mich
Pittsfield, Mass
Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
Oshkosh,Wis
Ban Jose, Cal
Amsterdam, N. Y . . . .
Jamestown, N. Y
Mount Vemon, N. Y .
Niagara Falls, N . Y . .
Jackson, Mich
W illiamsport, Pa
Joplin,Mo...
Lima, Ohio..
Muskogee, O k l a . . . . :
Chelsea, Mass...
New Rochelle, N. Y.
Aurora, 111.
Lorain, Ohio
Austin, Tex
Newport, K y
Orange, N . J
La Crosse, Wis
Lynchburg, Va
Shreveport, La
Colorado Springs, Colo..
Council BlufEs, Iowa....
$25.97
2a 94
2L40
26.39
14.19
21.65
13.50
2a 07
32.25
3a 27
16.77
1Z77
15.77
14.69
24.43
S29.45
16.83
31.55
13.27
23.10
12.03
23.87
4L11
43*18
19.97
l a 34
14.09
12.13
6L77
27.40
37.03
24.44
22.99
20.02
15.26
2a 25
18.19
25.83
32.97
31.46
43.60
18.91
17.34
2L49
14.87
19.14
17.89
23.92
17.52
25.24
revenue receipts and governmental cost payments of
each of the two cities of the five groups, having the
highest and lowest net per capita as shown by
Table X :
GROUP.
IV
v
Highest city.
Per
Per capita
net
capita gov
net
ern
reve
nue re mental
cost
ceipts. pay
ments.
NewYork,N.Y
138. U
Los Angeles, C a l . . . . 39,56
28.68
39.54
47.37
$46.2d
53.90
83.60
63.82
51. S7
Lowest city*
Per
Per capita
net
capita gov
net
ern
reve
nue re mental
cost
ceipts. pay
ments
Philadelphia, P a . . . . 124.87 $26.49
New Orleans,La.... 22.46 25.26
San Antonio, T e x . . . 13.95 12.63
9.35
9.63
York,Pa.„
8*77 11.36
The variations shown by the foregoing figures are
illustrated by Diagram 10, which follows.
DIAGRAM 10.—PER CAPITA NET REVENUE RECEIPTS AND GOV
ERNMENTAL COST PAYMENTS FOR CLTIES WITH HIGHEST AND
LOWEST PER CAPITA GOVERNMENTAL COST PAYMENTS IN
GROUPS OP CITIES WITH SPECIFIED POPULATION: 1912.
100000 TO 300000,
mtMfjsffmMifm
50000
30000
TO lOOOOO
TO 60000
WMfMf&MUiA
YMSfSSSfSSSySSSA
■ ■ ■ I HIT OOVEftNMENTAL COST PAYMENTS
TZ771
NCT REVENUE ftECElPTt
To the general rule set forth above and illustrated
t>y Diagram 9 there are many individual exceptions,
as may be seen by a study of Table X, and also by the
following statement which gives the net per capita
\ OVER 500O00
NEW YORK
PHILADELPHIA
300000 TO 300000
LOS ANGELES
NEW ORLEANS:
Ell
n
'/AWW*fW$
mLm
■^^H
WZ B
\
wmKT
"afflM
V/t %2m 'WA
f/tfMt
OMAHA
SAN ANTONIO
60000 TO 100000
TACOMA
JOHNSTOWN
90000 TO 00000
SANOICGO
pOlNCY
■ H W//J^Y^A
■ H w%z\
^^
I
%&%&
?SS,j r/S/////.
_
W////.
'///////,
W////A
m&yuffiflZt./m&v*Wrf$t Wz%> 1
HCT QOVtUHMtHTM, COtT PATMCHT* ,
HCT *<VCMU« M C C l T T *
76
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
on the basis of the amounts included in Table 4, while
the figures of Table XI are computed after excluding
the service and interest transfers to make them fully
comparable with the figures of prior years, as are those
of Table X.
The summary gives the per capita figures for all
revenue receipts and also for those (1) from revenues
other than of public service enterprises and (2) from
revenues of public service enterprises. I t also gives
the per capita figures for all governmental costs and
(1) for expenses of general departments, (2) for ex
penses of public service enterprises, (3) for interest,
and (4) for outlays. The number of cities for which
the census report presents statistics has materially in
creased since 1902, but these changes have not been of
such a character as seriously to affect the comparabil
ity of the per capita figures.
Changes in per capita net revenue receipts: 19021912.—The per capita net revenue receipts for all the
cities combined increased from S20.12 in 1902 to $28.28
in 1912, a gain of 40.6 per cent. The per capita net reve
nue receipts other than of public service enterprises in
creased from $17.76 in 1902 to S25.38 in 1912, a gain of
42.9 per cent, while those of public service enterprises
increased during the same period from $2.36 to $2.90,
Pay
Pay
GOVERNMENTAL COSTS.
a gain of only 22.9 per cent. The net revenue receipts
Highest city. ments.
Lowest city.
ments.
of public service enterprises have therefore increased
Expenses of general depart Boston, Mass.... $28.06 Charlotte, N . C . . . . $6.44
somewhat less rapidly than other revenue receipts, and
ments.
Bolyoke, Mass..
6.53. York, Pa>
0.00
as a result the percentage which the revenue receipts
enterprises.
Boston, Mass
8.40 Springfield, Mo.... 0.08
of
public service enterprises constituted of all revenue
0.65
Omaha, Nebr... 60.43 Charleston, S. C...
receipts decreased from 11.7 in 1902 to 10.3 in 1912. '■*&
i Less than one-half of 1 cent.
• Changes in per capita net governmental cost payments':^
1902-1912.—The
per capita total net governmentalv
Comparative summary of per capita net revenue re
ceipts and net governmental cost payments: 1902-1912.— cost payments increased from $22.50 in 1902 to $32.56 *
In Table XI, which follows, is presented a summary of in 1912, a gain of 44.7 per cent. The corresponding &r
the per capita net revenue receipts and per capita net percentages of increase for the various classes of per'
governmental cost payments for the aggregate of all capita net governmental cost payments for the same
cities covered by the several census reports from 1902 period were as follows: Expenses of general depart
ments, 28.9; expenses of public service enterprises,
to 1912.
40.6; interest, 54.7; and outlays, 76.5. The per capita
Table X I
PER CAPITA N E T
net payments for both classes of expenses shown in the
P E E CAPITA NET GOVERNMENTAL
B E V E N U E EECEIPTS.
COST PAYMENTS.
table increased less rapidly than did the per capita net
revenue
receipts, but the per capita payments for out
ex
Other
Forex- For
0f
penses'
than of
,
lays
show
a much greater relative increase than the per
of
For
For
public . public
of
Total. service
Total. general,
publicl inter out
capita
revenue
receipts. This condition comports
[service
I
est.
lays.
enter enter
depart |service|
prises. prises.!
ments. enter^
with
the
great
increase
in public indebtedness recorded
prises.
in other tables of this report, and is reflected in the in
1912.
$28.28 925.38 $Z90 $32.56 117.25 51.35 $3.14 $10.82
crease of per capita payments for interest on munici
27.57
1911.
24.65 2.92
31.86
16.53 1.26 3.04 11.03
1910.
27.24
30.74
24.26 2.97
16.37 1.25 2.91 10.21
pal
debt shown in Table XI. The increasing relative
26.21
1909.
23.34 2.87
30.12
15.92 1.22 2.84 10.14
1908.
26.28
32.02
23.47 2.81
16.53 1.28 2.89 11.32
magnitude
of outlay payments is also shown by a
24.50
1907.
21.74 2.76
29.73
15.72 1.18 2.55 10.28
1906.
23.18
26.29
20.41 2.77
14.37 1.14
2.43
8.35
comparison
of the payments for 1902 with those for
22,61
1905.
2.58
20.03
25.59
13.85 1.09
2.36
8.29
1904.
21.92
25.72
19.39 2.53
13.76 1.21
2.22
8.53
1912,
whereby
it is found that in 1902, 59.5 per cent
20.89
1903.
18.43 2.46
24.79
13.49 1.12
2.05
8.13
1902..
20.12
22.50
17.76 2.36
13.38 0.96 2.03
6,13
of the payments for governmental costs were for ex
penses of general departments, 4.3 for expenses of pub
The receipts and payments in this table are on the lic service enterprises, 9 for interest, and 27.2 for out
same basis as those of Table X, but on a different one lays. The corresponding percentages for 1912 were
from those included in Table 5, which are computed 53, 4.1, 9.6, and 33.2.
On the receipt side of Table 5 the per capita figures
for the five groups for all columns exhibit the general
tendency illustrated by Diagram 9 for all revenue
receipts to decrease from Group I to Group V, and
yet no one of the nine columns presents an unbroken
series from the highest to the lowest, the nearest
approach being in the column for property taxes, in
which the series is broken only because the receipts
were slightly less for Group IV than for Group V. The
per capita receipts from special assessments were
larger for Group III than for any other group, being
notably large for the following cities of that group:
Seattle, Wash., Kansas City, Mo., Portland, Oreg.,
Oakland, CaL, and Spokane, Wash.
Oh the payment side the per capita figures for three
of the five columns, other than that headed "All
governmental cost payments" were largest for Group
I, and decreased successively from group to group.
The exceptions to be noted are in the columns "Ex
penses of public service enterprises" and "Outlays,"
in which the largest averages are found in Groups IV
and II, respectively. The cities with the highest and
lowest per capita payments for the principal classes
of governmental costs were as follows:
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
The gradual but marked increase in 11 years of the
per capita payments for governmental costs, which
include expenses, interest, and outlays, shown by the
figures of Table XI, are illustrated lor the aggregate of
all citiesxovercd by the census report by Diagram 11,
which follows.
77
DIAGEAM 12«—PEE CAPITA NET RECEIPTS FROM THE PRINCIPAL
REVENUES: 1902-1912.
DIAGRAM 11.—PEE CAPITA NET PAYMENTS FOB THE PRINCIPAL
GOVERNMENTAL COSTS OF 146 CITIES: 1902-1912.
DOLLARS
is'
34
30
J0I2I
1011 [
1910)
10
18081
10071
(GOBI
IG
10
1004
16
3GEN£RAl PROPERTY TAX
Y/MmmMmwmmmmym
v/mmmmmmmm
*/ mm WMm>////jW//,w/j.
J55552SPfiClAL ASSESSMENT*
K + » > J TAXES ON UQUOR TRAFFIC
SUBVENTIONS, GRANTS, GIFTS. € T C
■ ■ ■ u C E N f t E TAXES OTHER THAN
PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISES
MOTHER TAXES
[OTHER REVENUES
TABLE 6.
Character of table.—Table 6 shows for the several
cities and for the five groups of cities the per cent
which the receipts from each principal class of revenues
■ ■ ■ EXPENSES OP GENERAL DEPARTMENTS
constitute of the total revenue receipts, and the per
ZSSSSA EXPENSES OF P U 8 U C SERVICE ENTCRPfUSE*
ffiffBBjBB INTEREST
cent which the payments for each of the principal
W//////A OUTLAYS
classes of governmental costs constitute of the total
/
of such payments. The percentages are in all cases
Comparative summary of per capita net receipts from computed upon the basis of the receipts and payments
principal revenues oflJfi cities: 1902-1912.—In Table shown in Table 4.
XTT, which follows, are shown the per capita averages
Per cent distribution of revenue receipts, by cities.—
of all net revenue receipts, and those of a number of Of the total receipts from revenues in 1912, 68.6 per
principal classes of such receipts* The summary is cent was from property and other taxes. The per
for all cities covered continuously by the census re centages from this source of revenue for the different
ports from 1902 to 1912. The revenue receipts groups of cities varied from 62.1 for Group I I I to 72.8
which are included in the column headed "Other for Group I. The only cities of over 100,000 inhabit
revenues" are those from special assessments, depart ants that realized less than 50 per cent of their
mental fees, charges, sales, interest, rents privileges, revenues from property and other taxes were Wash
lines, penalties, and escheats. The per capita receipts ington, D. C , 46.5 per cent; Seattle, Wash., 37.8 per
from the general property tax and all other groups of cent; Kansas City, Mo., 45.4 per cent; Portland,
taxes show an increase from 1902 to 1912. The per Oreg., 48.4 per cent; and Spokane, Wash., 42.1 per
capita receipts from taxes on the liquor traffic and cent. Washington has a very high percentage of
other license taxes have shown great fluctuations, those subventions and the other cities mentioned have veryfor tax on the liquor traffic being greatest in 1908.
high percentages of special assessments.
Of the municipalities having between 30,000 and
Sub
Table Xll]
100,000
inhabitants, 11 realized less than 50 per cent
ven
tions, Earn
Li
of
their
net revenue receipts from these taxes, the
oil
1ings
The Taxes cense
taxes
one
showing
the smallest percentage, Oklahoma City,
public]
Other
general on other Other cialaV]
serv- reve
Total. prop liquor
txi&.
taxes.
than
Okla.,
having
a percentage of only 32.1 and very
Ice
nues.
erty traffic. on
ments.1 aona**
tions, enter
tax.
large
relative
receipts
from special assessments.
liquor
prises.
and
tnfficJ
pen
All
cities
had
receipts
fromtaxes other than property,
sion
ments.
including liquor and other business license taxes.
The percentage of receipts from this class of revenue
1912.
$28.28 S17.47 SI. 40 10.43 10.57 $2.44 $1/32 $2.81 $1.84
1.60
1011,
27.57
16.98 1.41 0.42 0.53 2.40 1.31 2.92
varies from 25.4 for Birmingham, Ala., to 0.1 for
1.40
1910,
27.24
16.77 1.43 0.41 0.60 2.45 1.22 2.97
1.40
1909,
25.21
15.99 1.46 0.39 0.59 2.23 1.28 2.87
Newton, Mass. In addition to Birmingham, Ala., the
1.68
1908,
1.31 2.81
15.78 1.64 0.39 0.56 Z l l
26.28
1.41
1907,
14.54 1.61 0.38 0.6S 2.02 1.18 2.76
24.50
following cities received more than 20 per cent of their
1.15
1906,
13.92 1.62 0.37 0.58 1.68 1.09 2.79
23.18
1.13
1905,
13.94 4.33 0.33 0.49 1.73 1.08 Z58
22.61
net revenue, from such taxes: Norfolk, Va., Joliet,
1.15
1904,
13.38 1.34 0.30 0.48 1.67 1.07 2.53
21.92
1.23
1903,
2.46
0.91
12.69 1.31 0.27 0.46 1.56
20.89
HI., and Lynchburg, Va.
1.07
1903,
12.65 1.27 0.28 0.39 1.24 0.86 2.36
20.12
Of the 195 cities covered by this report, 190 had
receipts
from special assessments and the following
The relations brought out in Table XII are shown
cities derived more than a third of their revenue
graphically in Diagram 12.
10031
I802|
wmmmmfflffimm
W
/
78
FINANCIAL STAT]ISTICS OF CITIES.
from this source: Seattle, Wash., 35.2 per cent; I
Kansas City, Mo., 35 per cent; Portland, Oreg., 34.9
percent; OHahomaCity,Okla., 57.2 per cent; Wichita,
Kans., 38.9 per cent; Springfield, Mo., 37.7 per cent;
Muskogee, Okla., 37.1 per cent; Little Rock, Ark., 35
per cent; and Huntington, W. Va., 38.5 per cent.
Washington, D. C, derived almost as large a per
centage of its revenues from subventions, grants,
gifts, and donations as from taxes. Most of this
revenue was from a grant by the United States Gov
ernment to defray a part of the costs of maintaining
the city government. The entire subvention for
West Hoboken, N. J., constituting 295 per cent of all
revenues, was received from the state and county for
educational purposes.
The following cities derived more than a fourth of
their revenue from public service enterprises: Tacoma,
Wash., 25.3 per cent; Jacksonville, Fla., 39.5 per
cent; Holyoke, Mass., 35.8 per cent; Lancaster, Pa.,
27.2 per cent; Wheeling, W. Va., 27.8 per cent;
Hamilton,7'Ohio, 27 per cent; Lansing, Mich., 31.3
per cent; and Austin, Tex., 38.9 per cent.
Proportional distribution of revenue receipts, by divi
sions of the government of cities.—An examination of
Table 4 will disclose the fact that the proportion of all
revenues received from property taxes is much greater
as a rule for city corporations in cities having a single
division of government than in those having two or
more divisions, while the relative contributions by
special assessments are larger in the case of the city
corporations last referred to. Such divisions of the
city government as school districts and sanitary dis
tricts are very largely supported by property taxes,
and, with the exception of park districts, receive no
revenue from special assessments. The school dis
tricts receive a larger proportion of all revenues from
subventions than any other division reporting such
revenues.
Proportional distribution of revenue receipts, by
states.—A careful examination of Table 4 will further
disclose the fact that the relative proportion of all
revenues received by cities from property taxes varies
by states, being somewhat above the average in Mas
sachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Iowa, and Louisi
ana, and very much below the average in the District
of Columbia, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Arkansas,
Oklahoma, Washington, and Oregon. The cities of
Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Arkansas receive large
relative revenues in the form of business taxes and non
business license taxes; those of Georgia, Alabama, Ar
kansas, Oklahoma, Washington, and Oregon, large
revenues from special assessments; and the District of
Columbia, large revenues from subventions and grants
by the United States Government. The per cent dis
tribution of revenue receipts by division of city gov- |
emment as well as by states was given for 1911 in the
census report on financial statistics of cities for that
year.
Comparative summary of per cent distribution of net
revenue receipts: 1902-1912.—Table XIII, which fol
lows, presents a per cent distribution of the net revenue
receipts of the cities covered continuously by the consus
reports for thoyears 1902 to 1912, inclusive. Thoheadings of the columns differ somewhat from thoso of Table
6, owing to slight differences in tho tables for net reve
nues in the earlier and later reports. The percentages
are based upon the absolute amounts of not revenue
receipts tabulated in the reports for the soveral yoars,
and that basis differs somewhat from the basis for the
percentages of Table 6, by being exclusive of service
and interest transfers. Tho figures for tho soveral
years are not in all cases strictly comparable, since
those for the years 1902 to 1908 are computed upon
the basis of reports which in some columns include
amounts received in error that woro lator refunded.
A careful investigation shows that this noncomparability exaggerates for the years 1902 to 1908 tho per
centages for general property taxes to the extent of a
fraction of 1 per cent. This exaggeration roduces the
percentages of most of tho other columns; tho total
exaggeration and roduction being for any given year
not far from one-half of 1 per cont.
Tabic X I I I
TSA*.
1912
1910
1907
1904
1S03
1C02
Sub
ven
Li
tions,
cense
Earn
The
grants, ings
taxes
of Other
Taxes
general
other Other Special
public
on
«!*»•,
prop liqnor
reve
assess*
than
service
taxes.
dona*
erty traffic.
nues.
menu*
on
tions, enter
tax.
liqnor
and prises.
traffic.
pension
assess ments.
61.9
61.6
61.6
61.0
60.0
59.2
69.8
61.4
61.3
61.6
63.6
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.6
6.4
6.6
6.9
6.9
6.1
6.2
6.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.2
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.1
L9
8.6
8.7
8.9
8.5
8.0
8.2
7.0
7.7
7.7
7.7
6.3
4.7
4.7
4.5
4.9
6.0
4.8
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.4
4.3
10.2
10.6
10.9
10.9
10.7
11.2
11.9
11.4
11.3
11.5
11.6
6.1
5.7
5.1
5.3
6.1
6.0
5.S
5.2
6.1
6.2
4.7
The figures of Table ^TTT disclose a number of minor
variations in the proportion of receipts obtained from
year to year from the several revenues. No class of
receipts show, however, a marked tendency to increase
or decrease relatively, although those for public service
enterprises, the general property tax, and license taxes
have slightly smaller percentages in 1912 than in 1902,
and the receipts from special assessments, subventions,
grants, gifts, and pension assessments show somewhat
greater percentages in the later than in the earlier
years.
Per cent distribution of governmental cost payments
in 1912$ by cities.—Payments for outlays constituted
31.6 per cent of the total payments for governmental
costs. Twenty cities had larger percentages of gov
ernmental cost payments for outlays than for expenses
and interest. The percentages of the governmental
cost payments of these cities represented by their pay
ments for outlays are as follows: Los Angeles, Cal.,
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
60.3; Portland, Oreg., 62.3; Oakland, CaL, 56.6;
Omaha, Nebr., 72.2; Spokane, Wash., 57.2; Dallas,
Tex., 53.8; Tacoma, Wash., 59.1; Port Worth, Tex.,
56.8; Oklahoma City, Okla., 54.2; Akron, Ohio, 67.3;
Little Rock, Ark., 60.5; Chester, Pa., 53.5; Huntington,
W. Va., 53.2; Springfield, Mo., 52.7; Charlotte, N. C.,
52.5; Pasadena, Cal., 54; Muskogee, Okla., 63.8; Au
rora, HI., 50.9; Shreveport, La., 62.5; and Council
Bluffs, Iowa, 65.8.
The cities with the highest and lowest percentages of
governmental cost payments for interest for the respec
tive groups of cities were as follows:
GEOFF.
Highest city.
I
Per
cent.
Lowest city.
IS. 3 Detroit, Mich
20.7 Washington, I), C
20.1
21.2
21.5
Per
cent.
4.1
2.8
3.4
2.6
05
79
for outlays and for other purposes. The cities with
the highest and lowest percentage of their revenue
receipts required for meeting their governmental cost
payments for the respective groups of cities are given
in the statement which follows, together with the per
centages of each for expenses and interest.
PEB CENT
FOR—
GROUP.
I
II. , ,
III. .
IV.,
v..
Highest city.
Buffalo,**. Y
Albany.N.Y
Hoboken,N.J
WestHoboten,N.J..
Ex In- i
pen terses. est.
77.8 10.3
80.5 8.9
78.0 9.8
97.7 8.9
100.6 13.2
PEE CENT
FOR—
Lowest city.
Ex Inpen terses. est.
61.5
49.8
35.4
Oklahoma City, Okla.. 32.3
Huntington, W. Va.... 45.8
5.3
8.1
13.5
16.0
8.4
The last column of Table 6 shows for the several
cities the percentage of governmental co3t payments
represented by their revenue receipts. For 49 of the
Comparative summary of the per cent distribution of 195 cities of the table there is shown a percentage in
net governmental cod payments: 1902-1912.—Table excess of 100, as follows: Chicago and Quincy, HI.,
XIV, which follows, gives the per cent distribution of Washington, D. C, Indianapolis, Evansville, Fort
Wayne, and South Bend, Ind., Boston, Lawrence,
the net governmental cost payments of 146 cities given
Maiden, Haverhill, Newton, and Taunton, Mass.,
in Table IX for the yeare 1902 to 1912, inclusive. The
Saginaw, Bay City, and Lansing, Mich., Butte, Mont.,
table discloses a general relative increase in the pay
Mobile, Ala., Bridgeport and Hartford, Conn., Pueblo,
ments for outlays and a relative decrease in the pay
Colo., Berkeley, Cal., Tampa, Fla., Atlanta and Sa
ments for expenses, while the percentages of the table
vannah, Ga., Providence and Woonsocket, R. I., St.
for interest payments fluctuate sb'ghtly with the years; Joseph and Joplin, Mo., Utica and Amsterdam, N. Y.,
and iho percentage for governmental costs for 1912 Elizabeth and Bayonne, N. J., Lima, Ohio, Reading,
differs but little from that of 1902. An examination Erie, Johnstown, Allentown, McKeesport, and Wilof the basic figures of Table IX clearly discloses the liamsport, Pa., Sioux City and Dubuque, Iowa,
fact that the principal factor of the minor variations in Charleston, S. C, Knoxville, Tenn., San Antonio, Gal
the percentages for all three columns is the great fluc veston, and Austin, Tex., Salt Lake City, Utah, and
tuation in the aggregate payments for outlays, which
have varied much more than those for expenses or Oshkosh, Wis.
TABLE 7.
interest. The payments for interest have steadily
Charader of table.—In Table 7 are shown the reve
increased in proportion to the aggregate of govern
mental costs, and hence the percentages of the tables nue receipts from taxes, special assessments, fines,
forfeits, and escheats; that is, the gross receipts from
for that cost are so nearly uniform for the 11 years.
the revenues mentioned less receipts in error which
were later refunded.
Table 3UV
WEft CSNT IHSTRIBtmON OF HOT
GOVKBNMENTAL COST PAY*
In the introduction to this report, on pages 34 to 38,
ItXKTS.
are definitions of the terms "taxes," "special assess
For
For
Tor
ments," "fines," "forfeits," and "escheats," and
expenses. interest. outlays*
descriptions of the various classes into which the prin
cipal revenues mentioned have been subdivided for
33.1
9,1
57.9
statistical purposes.
32.9
9.6
1*12.
..„
57.5
34.1
9.6
56.3
Receipts from ike general property tax.—The receipts
33.0
9,5
57.5
33.6
9.4
57.0
of the several cities from the general property tax are
35.3
9.0
55.6
34.6
8.6
56.9
shown in Table 7 in three columns. The first gives the
32.1
9.2
58.8
31.8
8.9
W.3
total amounts collected in the several cities; the
32.4
8.4
59.2
33.4
8.3
5S.3
second, the amount of taxes collected as parts of the
27.7
9.1
63.2
original levies; and the third, the amounts received
Per cent relation of revenue receipts to governmental as penalties and interest on deferred payments and
cost payments.—Of the total revenue receipts of the collectors' fees.
Among the receipts included in Table 7 as from the
195 cities covered by this report, 64.5 per cent was re
general
property' tax are the amounts derived from
quired for meeting expenses, 12.7 per cent for meeting
general
and
special levies. The character of the special
interest, and the balance, 22*8 per cent, was available
in
IV
Mobile. Ala
80
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
savings banks. The railroad tax is levied at the average rate of
levy throughout the state. Of the amount received from the
proceeds of this tax, one-fourth is distributed to the towns in
which the railroads are located, and the remainder to the towns in
proportion to the railroad stock held therein, except that the
proportion represented by stock held outside the state is reserved
for the state. The tax on savings banks is a tax of 1 per cent on the
net amount of deposits after the deduction of real estate and loans
secured by mortgage at not to exceed 5 per cent interest.
New Jersey.—The only special property tax reported for New
Jersey cities is an inheritance tax.
New York.—The cities of New York derive revenues from special
property taxes which consist of 1 per cent on the valuation of
bank stock and half of the tax on mortgages collected by the county
clerk where the mortgages are recorded, at the rate of one-half of
1 per cent on the amount of the loan secured. After deducting the
Connecticut—The tax receipts of Connecticut cities reported in | cost of collecting the mortgage tax, half of the remainder is paid
Table 7 in the column headed "Special property taxes" are the to the taxing district in which the mortgaged property is situated
receipts from the tax known locally as "corporation and bank stock and the other half to the state.
Ohio.—The statutes provide for a tax of 5 per cent on collateral
tax." It is a tax of 1 per cent levied on the market value of the
stocks of every bank, trust, insurance, investment, and bridge com inheritance in excess of $200, to be collected by county treasurers,
pany whose stock is not exempt by law. The amount of taxes 75 per cent of which is to be paid over to the state, the remaining
paid by the corporation on its real property in the state is deducted j 25 per cent being retained as county revenue. The counties' shares
from the computed 1 per cent tax, and the remainder is collected of this tax included with the statistics of Cleveland and Cincinnati
from the corporation b y the state treasurer and distributed among are the only amounts reported for Ohio cities in the column of
the taxing districts according to the amount of stock in each. The Table 7 headed "Special property taxes."
Virginia.—The amounts reported in the column headed "Spe
amounts reported in the column of Table 7 headed "Special prop
erty taxes" for the various Connecticut cities are the aggregates of cial property taxes" for Virginia cities were derived from a tax of
80 cents per $100 of bank stock valuation assessed against the
the bank and other corporation taxes described above.
Delaware.—The city of Wilmington levies a special property tax j shareholders.
Wticonrin.—The only special property tax reported for Wiscon
of $1 on each horse and mule in the city.
Maryland.—The tax receipts of Baltimore reported as from special sin cities is the inheritance tax. This is reported only for Mil
property taxes represent the city's portion of the state tax of one- waukee, for which city the figures include the tax receipts of the
fourth of 1 per cent upon savings bank deposits. The city of Bal- i county, as previously explained. In 'Wisconsin the county treas
timore receives three-fourths of this tax collected from the institu- ' urer collects the inheritance tax, which is both direct and collateral,
and which ranges from 1 per cent to 15 per cent, depending upon
tions within its borders.
Massachusetts.—In Massachusetts the taxes on the stock of national the
' degree of consanguinity. Exemptions range from $10,000 to
banks located in the state are apportioned among the cities accord $100. This is a state tax, but counties retain 5 per cent of the
ing to the number of shares owned in each. The tax on shares collections up to $50,000, 3 per cent on the next $50,000, and 2 per
held outside of the state falls to the state. The collection of the cent on all additional sums.
tax upon the whole issue of the stock of a given bank is made by
Receipts from poll taxes.—In some cities poll taxes
the city in which the bank is located. The city retains its portion
are
assessed at a fixed amount per capita, as $1 or $2;
of such collection and pays the remainder to the state for distribu
in
others
the polls are given an arbitrary valuation, as
tion among the other Massachusetts cities in which Btock in this
bank is held; The taxes on national bank stock are of two classes; $100, and are assessed at the rate for the general
(1) Those collected and retained for its own use by the city in which property tax; in still others they are graded accord
the bank is located, and (2) those received from the state as appor ing to the occupation of the individual. All receipts
tionment of taxes collected from banks located in other Massachu
setts cities. The taxes on the capital stock of street railways and from per capita taxes, whether uniform or graded,
other corporations located in the state are collected by the state are included in the column headed "Poll taxes."
and apportioned to the cities. The street railway tax is on a Poll taxes amounting to $1,592,452 were reported for
mileage basis, and taxes on other corporations are according to the 1912 by 82 of the 195 cities, located in 21 different
residence of the stockholders.
states. Of this amount, 22 cities in Massachusetts
Michigan.—The special property tax reported for Detroit is a tax reported $750,547, or 47.1 per cent; 12 cities in Penn
on mortgages levied at the rate of 1 per cent on all mortgages and
land contracts, paid at the time of recording. The law became sylvania, $250,581, or 15.7 per cent; 13 cities in Now
Jersey, $101,639, or 6.4 per cent; 5 cities in Indiana,
effective August 1,1911.
Minnesota.—The special property taxes reported for the cities $56,909, or 3.6 per cent; 5 cities in Connecticut,
of Minnesota are of two kinds, a mortgage tax collected under the $155,368, or 9.8 per cent; and 3 cities in Bhode Island,
state law enacted in 1907, and a specific tax on grain in elevators, $28,342, or 1.8 per cent.
collected under a law enacted in 1909. Under the law first men
Receipts from taxes <m the liquor traffic.—Under the
tioned, mortgages are taxed at the time of registry at the rate of
one-half of 1 per cent on the amount of the loan secured. This heading "On liquor traffic/' in the general division
tax is collected by the county treasurer, who apportions the of Table 7 headed "Business taxes/' are included all
amount received to the state, county, and city, on the basis of the
the revenue receipts of cities from taxes on the liquor
tax rate for each. The law of 1909 levies a tax of one-fourth mill
per bushel on wheat and flax and one-eighth mill per bushel on traffic* Where no receipts are reported, either none
were collected in 1912, the cities being under general
other grain in elevators.
New Hampshire.—The special property taxes received by Man or local prohibition, or the revenue collected from the
chester in 1912 were derived from the railroad tax and a tax on traffic belonged to the state or some other civil division.
levies, and the amounts and varying rates at which I
levied, are given in Table 34 and in the text accom
panying the same, beginning on page 115.
Receipts from special property taxes.—Of the 195
cities covered by this report, 56 reported receipts from
special property taxes amounting to $12,473,487. Of
the total amount reported, the 22 cities of Massachu
setts reported $5,075,390, or 40.7 per cent, and the 17
cities of New York reported $5,788,077, or 46.4 per
cent.
I
The following is a brief statement of the character j
and amounts of the special property taxes reported
in Table 7 for the cities of the several states:
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
The very small amounts shown under this heading for
some cities indicate that the only liquor licenses
granted in them were those permitting druggists to
sell liquors and alcohol for medicinal purposes only.
Receipts from "business taxes other than on the liquor
traffic*—Business taxes other than on the liquor traffic
are shown in Table 7 in two columns, one with the
heading " Collected without issue of license," and the
other with the heading "Collected with issue of
license." Of the 195 cities covered by this report, all
reported receipts from business taxes other than on the
liquor traffic. Of the total amount, $882,160 was
reported by Washington, D. C, being derived from the
following sources: Street railway companies, $192,377;
savings banks, $14,433; telephone companies, $57,169;
electric light companies, $63,309; market companies,
$557; gas companies, $108,856; building and loan
associations, $17,946; national banks and trust com
panies, $221,484; life insurance companies, $71,915;
barge and dock company, $167; and other business
taxes, $133,947. The amounts reported in the column
headed "Collected without the issue of license" for
New Bedford and Newton, Mass., were taxes on ships
in foreign trade, and those for Duluth, Minn., were
tonnage taxes on vessels. All taxes reported in this
column other than for the four cities mentioned were*
receipts on insurance premiums.
Receipts from business taxes other than on the liquor
traffic collected with the issue of license are partic
ularly large in most of the cities of the Southern and
far Western states, in many of which cities licenses are
required for conducting nearly every kind of private
business. Licenses collected from street railway,
telephone, telegraph, and other public service cor
porations are also included* Among the receipts
reported in this column are those from billboard com
panies which rent their advertising space and facilities
to others. Receipts for permits to erect signs and other
advertising devices which project over the street
adjacent to a place of business are, however, tabulated
as receipts from minor privileges.
Receipts from license taxes on dogs.—Of the 195
cities covered by this report, 154 reported receipts
from taxes on dogs. Some of the cities not reporting
receipts from dog taxes collected such taxes for the
states, receiving back a portion of the same as sub
ventions, receipts from which are included in Table 8.
In other cities dogs are assessed as property, and re
ceipts from taxes on dogs are included. as general
property taxes.
Receipts from general license taxes.—The term "gen
eral license taxes" is used to designate the taxes
exacted with the granting of all licenses under general
statutes or ordinances, other than dog licenses and
liquor or other business licenses* Such licenses are
granted without respect to the business which may be
carried on by the licensee, and include those granted
to persons owning vehicles, irrespective of whether
28G560—14
6
81
these are for business or pleasure. Among general
licenses which are granted by cities are those author
izing business men to erect specified signs advertising
their own business without giving the right to occupy
any portion of the highway.
Table XV, which follows, shows the kinds of general
licenses from which revenues were derived, the number
of cities reporting each kind, and the aggregate
amount reported.
Table XV
REVENUE RECEIPTS FROM
GENERAL LICENSES.
KIND OF LICENSE.
Number of
cities
reporting.
Total..
Amount
reported.
91,163,632
999,390
138,615
19,677
3,269
1,899
782
Horse-drawn vehicle.
Automobile
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Carrying deadly weapons..
Not specified
Receipts from permit taxes.—Receipts from permit
taxes, or those exacted in connection with the granting
of permits, are usually credited by the cities them
selves to the department issuing the permit. Such
receipts are included in Table 7, with the exception of
receipts from permits issued by public service enter
prises, which are credited to these enterprises and are
tabulated in Table 11, Of the 195 cities, 173 reported
receipts from permits other than those of public service
enterprises. Tablfc XVI, which follows, shows the
character or purpose of these permits, the number of
cities reporting permits of each kind, and the aggregate
receipts reported.
BEYENtTE RECEIPTS THOU
FEBUITS.
Table XVI
KIND o r PERMIT.
Number of
cities
reporting.
$2,217,806
Total..
Street excavation..
Building..;.......
Sewer connection..
Plumbing
Electrical wiring
Placing obstacles in streets
Portable stands on streets
Excavation
Boiler..
Cesspool and vault
House moving..
Burial and disinterment
Laying side walk
Laying drain
Elevator
Repair and construction of docks..
Dredging and towing
Auction sales...
Dances
Railing
Keeping cattle
Parades
Fireworks
-..*
Rolling chair....
Burying dead animals...
Parking strip
Blasting.
Repairing wharf.
Gasoline
Taking up pavement...
■
Powder..*
*•
--*Clock
Dynamite
Not specified
:
Amount
reported.
29
732,654
599,510
310,632
243,676
93,907
93,352
21,769
20,162
11,967
10,610
9,184
6,906
4,880
4,700
4,610
4,431
3,759
3,272
1,460
836
719
530
454
327
193
183
166
85
34
19
15
15
10
8
28,771
82
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
Receipts from special assessments.—With the excep Receipts from special charges for outlays.—In many
tion of property taxes, special assessments constitute cities there are receipts like those from special assess
the largest revenue for the majority of the cities. ments for outlays which are not collected under that
Indeed, for several cities receipts from special assess name nor by methods similar to those by which special
ments very nearly equaled the receipts from the gen assessments are collected. Those receipts are compen
eral property tax, and for Seattle, Wash., they exceed sation for laying a sidewalk, constructing a water main
the latter in amount. Special assessments are segre or sewer, or paving the street in front of a property at
gated by the Bureau of the Census into two principal the request of the owner, without any levy against the
classes—special assessments for expenses and special property of others. All receipts in the form of special
charges for such construction work similar in character
assessments for outlays.
Receipts from special assessments for expenses.—Re to that which is paid for by special assessments are
ceipts of this class were reported by 74 cities. They tabulated separately, and in Table 7 are shown in the
are shown in the table under the same general heading column " Special charges for outlays." Ano thor class
as special assessments for outlays, and the segregation of receipts allied to those above described are amounts
of the two classes of assessments is based directly upon which cities secure from street car companios for pav
the general distinction between outlays and expenses. ing a certain portion of the street lying between or
In the tabulation it was impossible in many instances adjacent to the rails, and other amounts exacted from
to separate the interest on deferred payments of these similar corporations for meeting the cost of now bridges
assessments from the interest on special assessments and strengthening old ones, where the amounts are
for outlays, and where such was the case the interest exacted in accordance with the terms, of the franchise
receipts on these deferred payments have been tabu under which the street railway company is operating.
lated under the title "Special assessments for outlays." All amounts collected in this way from tho corpora
The following table shows the different classes of tions mentioned are reported in Table 10, under the
expenses met from special assessments; and for each title "Major highway privileges."
Receipts from Hues and forfeits.—Receipts from fines
class, the number of cities reporting and the aggregate
and forfeits are classified in Table 7 as receipts from
amount reported.
court fines and forfeits, which consist of fines imposed
by courts of law and forfeits of bail, and as from com
REVENUE RECEIPTS fROM
Table XVII
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.
mercial forfeits, which consist of forfeits of bonds and
deposits guaranteeing the fulfillment of contracts, the
EXPENSES MET BY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.
Number of
cities
Amount
good
faith of bids, and the performance of certain acts.
for which
reported.
reported.
Receipts from escheats.—Escheats are amounts of
money received from the disposal of property the
$2,220,050
Total..
owners of which can not bo ascertained or located.
Street sprinkling with water
,
1,013,810
Street cleaning....
157,591
Receipts from escheats were reported by 63 cities.
Street and sidewalk repair
142,269
Street lighting
Garbage removal.
Street reconstruction
Making sewer connections
Sewer maintenance
Snow removal
Moth extermination
Making water connections
Street oiling
Grass and weed cutting
Caring for trees In streets.....
Fire protection
Protecting property from collapse
Sidewalk cleaning
Making sewer and water connections.
Notspecifled
129,692
108,759
101,747
87,383
61,754
60,900'
60,058
46,430
23,085
13,085
7,840
6,136
TABLE 8.
Receipts from subventions and grants.—The total
amount received from subventions and grants by other
civil divisions was $34,315,499, of which 75.8 per cent
was for education. All of the cities covered by this
1,794
report received subventions for education. Wash
634
81
ington,
D. C, reported a grant from the General Gov
197,002
ernment of $6,145,334, which constituted 42.6 per cent
Receipts from special assessments for outlays.—Re of the total revenue receipts of that city for the year
ceipts from special assessments for outlays were re 1912. This was received in accordance with the
ported by 178 of the 195 cities covered by this report. organic act of 1878, under which the United States
The outlays for which the assessments were made Government assumes one-half of the principal expend
varied in the different cities. In the majority of the itures of the District of Columbia, which is identical
cities special assessments were levied for the construc with the city of Washington.
tion of sewers, paving, curbing, and sidewalks; in many
The cities of Pennsylvania received from the state
cities they were levied for the grading or widening of subventions derived from a tax on fire insurance pre
streets, the grading of hillsides, and the building of miums collected from foreign companies doing busi
retaining walls, and for parks, bridges, and viaducts; ness in the state, and assigned to the support of vol
and in some cities they were levied for the laying of unteer fire companies.
water mains. Receipts from special assessments for
Receipts from donations, gifts, and pension assess
outlays are shown under the two headings "Original ments.—The receipts of the 195 cities covered by this
levies," and "Penalties, interest, and collectors' report from donations and gifts from private indi
fees."
viduals and corporations, and from pension assessments
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
of municipal employees are given in Table 8, arranged
in five classes: Receipts for expenses other than pen
sions; receipts for pensions; receipts for outlays; re
ceipts for principal of public trust funds; and receipts
from pension assessments. The receipts for expenses
other than pensions were principally for meeting the
expenses of hospitals, schools, libraries, and parks,
although they include those to be expended for a num
ber of other purposes. The receipts for pensions were
mostly for the pensioning of policemen, sanitary police
men, firemen, and teachers. The receipts for outlays
were principally for school, library, and park purposes,
and those for establishing or adding to the principal
of public trust funds for municipal uses were mainly
for educational and charitable purposes, and for pen
sion funds for various classes of municipal employees.
The receipts from pension assessments were largely
contributed by the policemen, firemen, and teachers,
although small amounts were contributed by other
municipal employees. The census statistics of cities
having a population of over 30,000 in 1911 gave in de
tail the names of the cities receiving gifts and dona
tions for each of the purposes mentioned, together
with the amounts received by each. No correspond
ing tabulation is here made for 1912.
TABLE 9.
Classification of general departmental receipts.—
American municipalities realize considerable amounts
of revenue from fees, charges, minor sales, and allied
sources. These receipts are classified in this report
according to the division and department by which the
service was rendered. Thus classified they are arranged
in two principal divisions: (1) Those received by the
general departments, by which is meant the depart
ments, offices, and accounts of the government ex
clusive of the public service enterprises, and (2) those
received by the public service enterprises. The re
ceipts first mentioned are included in Table 9 and those
referred to in (2) are tabulated in Table 11* The re
ceipts of Table 9 are arranged in 10 principal divisions,
which correspond to the classification employed in
tabulating the expenses and outlays for the depart
ments, as given in Tables 12 and 18. The 10 divisions
mentioned are as follows: I, General government;
II; Protection to person and property; HI, Conserva
tion of health; IV, Sanitation, or promotion of clean
n e s s ; V, Highways; VI, Charities, hospitals, and cor
rections; VII, Education; VIH, Recreation; IX, Mis
cellaneous; X, General. The arrangement of Table
12 and the text accompanying the same fully set forth
the offices, departments, and accounts under each
division of the classification employed in Table 9 for
receipts, the arrangement of which differs from that
of Table 12 only in being somewhat condensed.
83
Character of receipts tabulated as from general de
partmental earnings.—The greater portion of the rev
enue receipts included in Table 9 is from fees, charges,
rents, and minor sales. The revenues from the
sources mentioned are what economists call "con
tractual" as distinguished from "compulsory" reve
nues tabulated as taxes, special assessments, and
fines. They all involve the exchange of equivalents
by which the cities receive cash in return for a bene
fit granted in the form of services, rents, or objects
sold. The statement of the last sentence needs modi
fication only to the extent that the price obtained
for the services, rents, or objects sold may be either
what the economists call a "private" or "competi
tive," or a "quasi private," "monopoly," or "pubHe" price; the former being a price fixed in an open
or competitive market, and the latter being arbitra
rily fixed above or below the competitive level by
the government acting under circumstances that give
it a monopoly of that which is furnished. The price
at which the rents and sales are fixed is nearly always
competitive, while that at which fees and charges for
services are established is generally a "public" or a
"monopoly" price, which in some cases is in excess of
the actual cost of the services rendered. The fees
and charges included in Table 9 are thus always those
which are received as a private or a monopoly com
pensation for actual services rendered, and are to be
distinguished from those obtained for the so-called
"license fees" and "permit fees," which are included
in Table 7 as from taxes, by the fact that the latter
are compensation not for a service rendered or work
performed, but for the privilege of doing something.
Receipts from fees and charges.—Included in this
report as receipts from fees and charges are all amounts
received by the several cities as compensation for the
services rendered the payers by the general depart
ments of the city, whether the services were clerical
in character, and the compensation is called a "fee,"
or were other than clerical, and the compensation is
spoken of as a " charge." The amounts here included,
which are locally called "fees," are generally estab
lished by law in advance; while those called '' charges "
are generally established upon completion of the work
or service. Among the special services the compen
sation for which is here included as charges are those
for making connections with sewer pipes and repairing
pavements which have been damaged by those making
connections with sewers.
In Table 9 are included for certain cities of Groups
I and I I receipts from departmental t fees, charges,
rents, sales, and other sources, of the counties con
taining these cities, the amounts of which are shown
in Table 4 on the county line for those cities, in the
column "From earnings of general departments."
84
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
Receipts from rents and sales.—As receipts from Similar receipts from private individuals or corpora
rents there are included in Table 9 only amounts tions for the privilege of placing wires, pipes, poles,
received for the use of real property employed prin and other fixtures and equipment in, under, over, or
cipally for departmental uses. Similar rents of prop across the streets incident to the* conduct of a business
erty used primarily as a productive enterprise are other than that of furnishing public utilities, are
included in Table 11, and those for property held for classed as receipts from minor highway privileges.
I t should be noted that only one class of receipts
investment purposes are tabulated in Table 10. As
from
public utility enterprises is included in Table 10
receipts for minor sales there are included in Table 9,
as
receipts
from major privileges, namely, such re
receipts from the sale of discarded equipment and
materials where the payments for replacement and ceipts as are in return for privileges essential to the
renewal of such equipment and the payments for the distribution of public utilities. Receipts from such
services which produced the material sold are classed enterprises or from others for privileges in streets for
as expenses. Similar sales on outlay account are tab purposes other than providing"the public with some
utility are tabulated as receipts for minor highway
ulated in Table 22.
Receipts from other sources.—Of receipts included privileges; receipts for the temporary use of land or
in Table 9, in addition to those for fees, charges, water fronts not involving the use of a street or alley
rents, and sales, are those which are referred to as are tabulated as receipts from rents; and receipts
receipts from other sources. These receipts are de from the vacation of streets and alloys are included
rived principally from contractual revenues, the same as from sales of real property in Table 22. Receipts
as those from fees, charges, rents, and sales, and from the same corporations and individuals which'
also include receipts which like those obtained from are in the nature of taxes as defined in this report are
rents and sales are revenues whose amounts are estab shown in Table 7 as receipts from the general property
lished in a competitive market by the operation of tax, special property taxes, or business taxes, according
enterprises in connection with institutions and parks.* to the subject of taxation, and to tho method by which
Amounts received as fire insurance adjustments the taxes were levied and collected.
that are expended for outlays during the same year,
Receipts from minor highway privileges.—Under this
and amounts received on account of losses by bank heading are included amounts received by cities for
failures and defalcations during the year of loss, are 'grants of what the Bureau of the Census designated
not included in the table, both being included in Table as minor highway privileges. The greater number of
22, the first as receipts on outlay account and the sec these grants are made to those occupying lands
ond as refund receipts. Likewise amounts received adjoining the street or alloy to make somo of the follow
by cities on account of damages and losses to city ing uses of the street or alley in front of their places
property, if for damages and losses charged as ex of business: (1) To construct vaults or other structures
penses, are included in Table 9; but if for damages and under the sidewalk, street, or alley; (2) to maintain
losses met by outlays, are tabulated in Table 22.
merchandise stands or place other property on the
sidewalk; (3) to use certain portions of tho street or
TABLE 10.
alley for storing building or other materials; (4) to ex
Receipts from major highway privileges*—Under this tend awnings, signs, bay or show windows, and other
designation are included in Table 10 all amounts structures beyond the building line or across the side
received from corporations and individuals as com walk or street; and (5) to construct bridges over or
pensation for the special privileges, powers, or rights tunnels or connecting pipes under the street, including
granted them in the streets and alleys of cities for water pipes for the use of steam and street railways.
providing the citizens with what are popularly called
Table 10 shows a total of $1,165,319 as receipts
public utilities. The amounts thus tabulated have from minor highway privileges. Of this aggregate,
been received as compensation for what some writers New York City reported $474,281, or 40.7 per cent,
have called the "operatingfranchise" as distinguished and Chicago reported $579,150, or 49.7 per cent. Of
from the "corporate franchise" of the paying corpora the amount last mentioned, it is possible that owing
tion or individual.
to the lack of correct or fully descriptive designations
Among the receipts from major privileges in Table in local accounts a small portion should have been
10 are those from steam and street railroads for the reported under other headings in Table 10 or in other
privilege of transporting freight or passengers through tables. Of the 195 cities covered by the report, only
or across the streets and alleys, and those from electric 55, or 28.2 per cent, reported receipts from minor
light and power companies, water, telegraph, and highway privileges. In the cities reporting receipts
telephone companies, heat distribution and refrigera from minor highway privileges the title of the city
tion, companies, for the privilege of placing wires, corporation to the highway extends to the building
pipes, poles, and other fixtures and equipment in, line, while in the majority of cities from which no
under, over, or across the streets, incident to the con receipts were reported that title extends only to the
duct of their business of furnishing public utilities. curb line.
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES*
Table XVIII, which follows, presents a condensed
summary of the receipts from minor highway privileges
included in Table 10, classified by the kind of privilege
for which the receipts were obtained.
Table XVIII
REVENUE RECEIPT'S rBOM
1UNOE HIGHWAY HUVILEGES.
KIND Or FBtYtLKCE.
Number of
cities
reporting.
Total..
Constructing vaults and tunnels
,
Use of sidewalks and streets...
Constructing and maintaining pipes and conduits
Use of bulkheads and area ways
,
Constructing and maintaining private spur tracks and
•sidings...*..........
,
, Constructing and maintaining bridges over streets and
alleys.Maintenance of curb stands
,
Constructing and maintaining projecting street signs
and awnings
Constructing and maintaining private sewers
Constructing and maintaining plaUorms and scales....
Constructing and maintaining temporary sheds.
Maintaining lunch counters
Constructing and maintaining telephone booths
Extending foundations .
Cleaning streets...
,
Maintaining drinking fountains.
Advertising on waste paper boxes
Storing materials under bridge
Exclusive right to
fish
,
Not specified
,
Amount
reported.
$1,165,319
440,699
414,875
71,539
69,852
57,026
27,630
23,958
21,736
11,995
7,044
2,710
1,958
1,524
558
549
352
339
36
30
10,909
Receipts from rents of municipal investment prop
erties,—The receipts from rents tabulated in Table 10
comprise all amounts collected as compensation for
the use of lands or other property not employed for
general departmental purposes. These receipts are
separated into two classes—those from the properties
of public trusts and sinking funds, and those from all
other properties. Of the amounts reported in the
first class, all were receipts from public trust funds
excepting $31,966 from sinking funds reported for
Baltimore, Md.
Included with the receipts from rents of sinking
and public trust funds for municipal uses, of which
mention is here made, are the receipts of Chicago, HI,
Philadelphia, Pa., Baltimore, Md., and Providence,
R. I., aggregating $40,153, which were received by
these funds as rents of their investment properties
from .the departments and enterprises of the city.
Receipts from interest—Table 10 includes all interest
receipt® of the general treasury and of the separate
funds of the cities covered by this report except (1) in
terest on taxes and special assessments, which is
included in Table 7, and (2) accrued interest on origi
nal loans, which is shown in Table 22.
The first column of the interest section of Table 10
shows the total revenue receipts from interest, or the
total receipts from interest, less receipts in error later
corrected by refund payments, and accrued interest
on original sales of debt obligations. These revenue
receipts are arranged in five groups: Those received
on current deposits, those received on investments and
deposits of investment funds, sinking funds, and public
trust funds, and those received from all other sources.
In this section of the table are included three classes
85
of interest transfer receipts: (1) Those which repre
sent interest payments charged to outlay account, (2)
those charged as expenses of municipal service enter
prises, and (3) the interest receipts of sinking and
investment funds and public trust funds for municipal
uses that were paid by the divisions of the government
of the city to these funds as interest on their debt
obligations held as investments. For further ex
planation, see introductory text, pages 26 and 43.
The transfer receipts mentioned under (2) are shown
in detail in Table 16. The remainder of transfer
receipts included in Table 10 are those mentioned
under (3). The aggregate of the three classes of trans
fer receipts for the cities covered by the report was
$15,828,803, of which $8,616,980, or 54.4 per cent, was
reported by New York, N. Y.
TABLE 11.
Public service enterprises.—Under the designation,
"public service enterprises" the Bureau of the Census
includes those enterprises or branches of municipal
service which are established and maintained by city
governments for the purpose of providing the public,
or the public and the city, with some utility or service.
The department or office maintained primarily to
serve the city only is called a " municipal service enter- *
prise" and not a public service enterprise. Thus, a
municipally operated water-supply system which sup
plies water to the public alone or to the city and the
public is called* a "public service enterprise," while one
which supplies water for the use of thefiredepartment
only is called a "municipal service enterprise."
The statistics of municipally operated public service
enterprises are for most cities defective, in consequence
of the fact that their accounts are not completely seg
regated, and the enterprises are not credited with all
the revenues resulting from their activities, nor
debited with all the expenses chargeable to them.
Thus, they may not be credited with the interest
earned on their funds on current deposit nor charged
with interest on their bonds. Again, in many cities
the method of accounting is faulty in that it does not
give credit to enterprises for utilities furnished or
services rendered by them to the various departments
and to other public utility enterprises of the city.
Then, too, in cities crediting their enterprises with
materials or services so furnished, there is no uniform
method of determining the amounts to be credited.
The only remedy for these defects is the more careful
segregation of accounts affecting enterprises of this
type and the adoption by officials in charge of munici
pal accounting of a uniform system of giving credit
for the utilities furnished by them to the departments
and other enterprises of city government.
Receipts of public service enterprises.—The total
revenue receipts shown in Table 11 for the different
classes of public service enterprises include all revenue
receipts of these enterprises recorded in the city books,
with the Exception of interest from current deposits.
86
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
cities from Table 12, it should be noted that while the
payments shown in that table for the main groups of
departments or divisions, as they have been called
above, are fairly accurate and hence comparable, those
REVENUE RECEIPTS FROM—
Table XIX
for
some of the individual objects of expenditure are
City
num
dry.
less
exact. For example, the expenses for the care
Miscel
ber.
City
Toll
Lunch
1 Ferries. bridges.
rooms. farms. laneous.
and repair of bridges can not in all cities be segregated
from the expenses for the care and repair of streets,
$1,313,180 J $479,122 9124,350 $22,963 $367,591
Total
pavements, and curbing; hence the individual items
1 New York, N . Y
1,207,357 439,205
of highway expenses are less accurate than the aggre
4 St. Louis, Mo
6i,659
10,004
5
105,823
gate of all highway expenses. Other items of expense
3.190
14 Los Angeles, Cal
221,936
16 New Orleans. La
more or less inaccurate by reason of imperfect classi
20 Seattle, Wash
20,381
24
51,353
fication by individual cities are the expenses for street
25 Rochester,N.*Y
18,126
31 OftlrtoTi*^ fifll
3,233
cleaning and snow removal. In some cities the streets
37 Memphis, TfiT«i
4,269
50 San Antonio, Tex
872
are cleaned by an independent street cleaning depart
59 Springfield, Mass
11,785
731
12,299
ment, while in others this work is performed by the*
2
98 Portland, Me
99
3,403
health department or street department. Where it is
100
50
104 Covington, Ky
4,300
done by a department having a variety of functions
116 Augusta, Ga
60.177
130 Davenport, Iowa
4,415
and the segregation of the items of expense for the
132 San Diego. Cal
i,&4
161 Jottet.lS..
1,599
different functions is not made by the local authori
!
162 Pasadena, Cal
21,034 1
165 Decatur, 111
434
ties, it is often difficult or impossible for the agents of
171 Pittsfield, Mass
2,794
189
4,300
the Bureau of the Census to secure correct statistical
191
5,826
193
25,491 ;;;!!^:!i:::::;:::i;::™'"
data. It must not be inferred, therefore, in the case of
T
1
objects of expenditures here mentioned that a blank in
The amounts included in the foregoing table in the Table 12 necessarily means that there were no expend
column headed "Miscellaneous" were receipts for the itures for the purpose indicated by the column heading.
following enterprises: Boston, Mass., city record; Los
A large number of cities made payments in 1912 for
Angeles, Cal., municipal newspaper; New Orleans, La.,
checking the spread of tuberculosis and for the care of
public belt railroad; Portland, Oreg., harbor dredging,
patients suffering from that disease. An effort was
piloting, and towage; San Antonio, Tex., river and
made to include all payments for this class of expenses
ditch commission, $272, and stone quany, $600; Oak
among those of the health department as part of the
land, Cal., water front development; Schenectady,
total payments for the prevention and cure of commu
N. Y., municipal stores; Portland, Me., liquor agency;
nicable diseases. For most cities the larger part of
Charleston, S. C, powder magazine; Racine, Wis., ar
these payments are tabulated as for the health depart
tesian well; Augusta, Ga., canal; and Davenport, Iowa,
ment, although in several cases some of them are tab
levee improvement.
ulated as for outdoor poor relief and for hospitals.
TABLE 12.
Among the payments included in Division V are those
Payments for general departmental expenses.—In Taof 10 cities of Groups I and II as parts of the payments
ble 12 are presented statistics showing payments for of the counties in which these cities are located for the
the accrued expenses of the various cities during 1912 maintenance of roads and bridges outsido the cities.
for objects or purposes other than the operation and The inclusion of these payments makes the aggregate
maintenance of public service enterprises, which are payments of the given cities more comparable with
here referred to as expenses of general departments. those of such cities as New York, N. Y., and New Or
Such payments constitute by far the most important leans, La., which have many miles of similar roads and
class of payments for the costs of municipal govern many similar structures within the city limits.
ments, comprising 53 per cent of the total payments
Payments for the expenses of schools, which are
for governmental costs, as shown in Table 6. They are given in the column headed "Schools," in Division VII,
given in Table 12 in sufficient detail to show the rela are presented in detail in Tables 35 to 42.
tive expenses of the several departments and branches
Payments for drinking fountains and city clocks,
of work in each city, and to provide data for compar which are reported by a number of cities, are included
ing the expense payments for a given object in one in Division IX, "Miscellaneous."
city with the corresponding payments in other cities.
Imperfect statements of expenses.—In the last column
These payments, like the receipts of Table 9, are ar for most of the 10 divisions of Table 12 are included
ranged in 10 general groups or divisions, to each of certain payments that could not be distributed to the
which is given a specific designation, and the pay individual items of the division, owing to imperfect
ments recorded in each of these divisions are subdi local accounts. As a rule, those amounts are not
vided according to the specific purpose of the pay large, but until all cities are awake to^the value of
ments. In making comparisons between individual comparable statistics a degree of noncomparability
The receipts shown in Table 11 in the column headed
"All other enterprises" are shown separately in Table
XIX, which follows.
s
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
87
between individual cities as to detailed items can governments, involving a distribution of executive
not be wholly eliminated.
powers in a great variety of ways to a number of differ
The figures of Table 12 and other tables of this ent offices given various designations.
report will be this year as in previous years more or
GOVEBNMENTAL COST
less disappointing to all who are interested in securing Table X X
PAYMENTS FOB^EXPENSES.
comparable statements of costs on the basis of such
GEN'EEJX EXECUTIVE OFFICE OR ACCOUNT.
Number of
units as square yards for caring for, maintaining, or
cities
reporting.
constructing streets, cleaning streets, etc. The Bureau
of the Census finds it impossible with the appropria
Total..
tions at its disposal to compile comparable figures of
Executive office:
this character; but it hopes that engineers and all
155
Engineer's department
77
Board of public works
:
others who appreciate the value of such statements and
15
Public service commission
66
Civil service commission.
;
are anxious for their compilation will cooperate with it
59
City clerk
9
Board of public improvement
in urging upon city officials the necessity of keeping
21
Board of public safety
14
Public building department
accounts and making local reports in sufficient detail
1
Sewer and water board
10
Board of contract and supply
.
to provide the data for the census report as now pre
2
Street and water board
2
Street and sewer commission..
sented and also to allow the presentation of detailed
Public utilities commission.
15
Charter commission
data so classified as to permit, with the general data
City commissioner*
23
City messenger
relating to area, contents, etc., the compilation of
Health and charities bureau
County clerk
•
comparable data of unit costs. Greater progress
Board of control.
Electrical bureau.
in this field has been realized in school statistics than
City architect
Bureau of city property
*
in any other, the comparable figures for which are
Excise commission
Street commission.
presented in Tables 35 to 42. The Bureau of the
City electrician
License inspector
Census hopes to make as much progress in some of the
Port administration*.
Board of liquidation.
.-.
statistics that are now included in Table 12 as has
Commission of harbor development and sewage dis
posal
been realized in the school statistics since it began
City statistician
Police and public building commission
the publication of such statistics for 1902.
Art commission
bureau
Comparability of statistics of expenses of 1912 wtth Transportation
Board of municipal research
Harbor board
ikose of previous years.—In reports of previous years
Municipal factory site commission
Contract bureau.
*
payments to retired policemen, firemen, and teachers
Bureau of statistics and library
City
recorder
;
as pensions and gratuities, and payments to associa
Fire and water commission.
Industrial commission....:
tions of municipal employees providing such pensions,
Department of legislative reference
City secretary
Board of police^re^ d^ti^/andcorrections^~l'..*
have been tabulated as expenses of the police depart
tment of public utilities, grounds and build-*
Department
ments, fire departments, and public schools. In this
ings
File and index clerk
report these payments are all included in Division X,
Board of estimate and apportionment,
License commission
in the column headed "Pensions and gratuities,"
' City stenographer
..
Freight bureau
and are given separately in text Table XXIV, "which
Custodian of city records
Building line commission.
County statistician
constitutes part of the text relating to Table 12.
Executive commission
Public service engineer
The amounts of these payments wero given in sepa
Superintendent fuel department
Registry clerk
,...
rate columns in the reports of 1902 to 1908, inclusive,
Permanent pavement commission
Intercity commission
but are not shown separately for 1909 and 1910. To
Weather bureau
Registrar of labor.
the extent of these payments the figures under the
Juvenile commission
Parks and cemetery commission
three department and also in Divisions IX and X Executive
account: .
27
Entertaining
are not comparable with the figures of preceding
8
City planning
*
Standard testing laboratory
years. The data contained in the reports for 1902
Gas investigation.
Convention expenses and league dues.
53
to 1908 permit of making comparisons for individual
Confederate reunion
Annexation expense
cities between the present report and those reports.
Platting commission,
Listing city property
To make similar comparisons between this report
Printing city charters
,
Municipal magazine
and those for 1909 and 1910, deductions should be
Printing list or city employees!.
Printing municipal record
made from the totals for police department, fire
Census.
*
Appraising city property
department, and school expenses as reported in these
Expense of bond issue
Telephone commission.
years in amounts somewhat less than the payments
for pensions in Table XXIV.
The payments for expenses for a large number of
m Payments for expenses of miscellaneous general execu
these
offices, and the payments for a number of lesser
tive offices.—hm of the difficulties mot with in the com
items
of expenses that are recorded in Division I of
pilation of comparative municipal statistics to which
Tablel2,
are included in the colunw " Other general ex
only a slight reference was made in the introduction to
this report is the difference in organization of the local ecutive." The instruction to the census agent for re-
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
88
porting payments for expenses under this heading was missions with various designations, and those paid to
to thus report all payments for the expenses of general various private associations and organizations for
governmental offices and commissions which could not securing protection to person and property. The
be identified with any of the offices specifically men names of the offices, boards, commissions, and organ
tioned on the schedule, the payments for which are in izations, and objects of payments thus reported are
cluded in the columns of Table 12 which precede the shown separately in Table XXH, together with the
column here referred to. Included with the offices thus number of cities reporting, the class of expenses, and
reported are the general offices having authority over the amounts of payments therefor.
the departments and subdivisions of the service whose
Number
expenses are arranged in Table 12 in 2 or more of Table X X I I
Amount
of cities
OmCE, OB BOABD, OR OBJECT OF FAYMfcNT.
reported.
the 10 principal divisions of that table. The local
reporting.
names of the offices for which reports were thus made
12, ISO, 090
Total..
are shown in Table XX, on page 87, and the number
607,857
29
Police
and
fire
alarm
system
of cities reporting offices and accounts of a specific Humane society.
303,898
72
244,281
1
of records
designation are there given, together with the aggre Commission
241,693
11
Electrical bureau.
—
236,304
120
Found
gate payments reported, for each class of offices.
£3,369
16
Morgue
£3,001
1
commission
Payments for expenses of inspection for protection to Horticultural
44,138
3
Public administrator
42,574
2
service
.
person and property.—American cities employ officers Ambulance
5
Flood commission
37,328
1
Hace riot damages....
.
/called "inspectors" who are vested with police powers United
34,568
4
States Life-Saving Service
34,390
2
office...
for enforcing a great variety of laws. The salaries -tod Surveyor's
31,017
51
Board of examining plumbers
29,611
4
Fire marshal.
expenses of these officers who are employed in enforc Board
26,315
10
of examining engineers
—
22,094
8
Employment
agency
ing the laws which have as their primary purpose to Engine houses and police stations
12,573
1
11,735
Insurance
deportment.
I
secure protection to person and property are reported Ordinance officers
10,995
1
9,604
3
Levees
in Table 12, Division II, in the column "Inspection Tearing dorm condemned buildings
6,871
3
5,702
1
Board
of
inebriety
service." The local titles for the officers "whose ex Fish and game warden
5,035
10
4,198
12
Harbor
master.....
penses are thus tabulated are given in Table XXI, Prevention of forest fires
3,825
1
3,699
1
Machinist
which shows the number of cities reporting officers of Building code commission .
3679
2
3,455
2
Settlement of sheep c l a i m s . . . . .
each designation or class and the amount of payments Riparian
2,282
3
protection
1,794
1
Protecting property from collapse
for the expenses of such offices.
1 507
1
Public motor vehicle registry
Table X X I
OFFICE, OB BOJXD, OB OBJECT OT PAYMENT.
Number of
cities
reporting.
Total.,
Building inspection
Tenement house inspection
,
Plumbing inspection
Sealer of weights and measures
Electrical inspection
Boiler inspection
,
Wiring inspection
,
Meter inspection
Inspection of explosives
Public utility
Elevator inspection
Bureau of incumbrances
Gas inspection
,
Boilers and elevators
,
Light and water inspection
Photometric station
Oil inspection
,
Industrial inspection
Inspection of paving permits
Board of appeal
Tree and stock inspection
Sidewalk inspection
Dance hall inspection
Employment agency inspection
Electric and building inspection
Commission to revise building laws
Sewer inspection
Sign inspection
Inspection of bridges and street repairs.
Coal inspection
Amount
reported.
$4,482,522
141
8
135
12S
64
23
10
14
4
1
7
1
11
4
5
1
8
6
1
1
5
3
1,945,083
826,403
404,213
375,335
209,444
147,634
121,367
106,661
65,694
62,469
45,234
32,432
31,393
26,127
22,055
17,809
14,789
6,072
5,070
3,721
3,000
1,709
Board of examining chauffeurs.
Commission on congestion of population....
Grappling for dead bodies
Breaking fee in r i v e r . . . . .
Examining moving-picture operators
Powder magazine
Trimming and removing trees
;
Reward for drowned man
Animal damages and bounties..
Canal piers
Chimney sweeping
Superintendent of mendicancy
Surgeon............
Fire patrol
Boflding inspectors'examining board
Board of boiler examiners
Free labor bureau
Medical society.
Viewer of fences
,...
Bureau of construction and repair of buildings..
Railroad crossing.
„
Hotel inspection.
Curfew
„.
Board for examining elevator operators.
Special signs
.,
Live stock inspection
,
3
1
3
1
1
2
4
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1496
1,457
1215
1 200
1,200
1,050
1,005
527
439
324
304
300
300
260
250
243
208
205
134
133
102
100
83
58
27
20
Among the payments included in Table 12 are those
for the expenses of cities for the office of public admin
1
istrator, register of deeds, and recorder, whose duties
1
1,338
1
1,200
are, with a few exceptions, performed by county offi
1
1,080
1
1,070
cials,
and are those met within cities exercising county
1
1,020
1
100
functions, or those for which the census for compara
tive purposes combines the county payments with
Payments for expenses of miscellaneous protection, to those of the city corporation. These payments are
person and property.—AH payments for expenses of shown in a column under a descriptive heading in
protection to person and property that are not readily Division I I of Table 12.
classified tinder the first six headings of Division I I of
N Payments for expenses of educational, recreation.-Table 12 are arranged in the last column of that divi The payments for expenses included in Division VIII
sion under the heading ''Other protection to person of Table 12, in column "Educational recreation,"
and property."
were for three purposes: Operating and maintaining
The payments thus tabulated are those for the salaries (1) museums and art galleries, (2) zoological collections,
and expenses paid to city officials, boards, and com and (3) conservatories.
1
1,500
1,500
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
PaymeTitsfor miscellaneous expenses.—Table XXIII,
which follows, presents an analysis of the payments
for expenses that are included in Division IX of Table
12 under the heading'' Miscellaneous." They are pay
ments for objects that can not properly be assigned to
any of the nine other principal divisions of the table.
The greater portion of the payments thus reported are
readily arranged under the three specific headings of
Table XXJII: (1) Soldiers' relief fund, (2) adminis
tration of public trust funds for municipal uses, and
(3) administration of investment funds and invest
Table X X I I I
CUT.
Total..
New York, N . Y .
Chicago, HI
Philadelphia, Pa.
8tLouis t Mo7.....
Boston.!
i,Mass
Cleveland, Ohio....,
Baltimore, Md
Pittsburgh, F a . . . . . .
Detroit, Mich.
Buffalo,!*. Y
$1,014,814 $598,175
10,277
32,410
14*900
1,024
203,383
2,639
71,765
1,957
992
10
20,191
402
1,026
3,327
1,134
49,710
5,923
21,055
25,664
2,275
29,950
40,085
2,044
2,909
600
35
7,568
600
New Orleans, L a . . .
Washington, D. C...
Minneapolis, Minn..
Jersey City, fc. J.,
Kansas City, Mo..
500
8,507
670
1,345
*2i,*120
Atlanta, Oa
Worcester. Mass
Syracuse, N . Y
,
New Haven, Conn...
Scranton, Pa
,
Richmond, Va
Paterson,N.J
Fall River. Mass.....
Dayton, Ohio
Lowell, Mass
Cambridge, Mass...
New Bedford, Mass.
Hartford, Conn
Trenton, N.J
Albany, N . Y
Camden,N.J
gpringfleld.Mass...
Tacoma,Wash
Lynn, Mass.
Dea Moines, Iowa...
Lawrence, Mass....
Wilmington, D e l . . .
Yonkers,N/Y.
Youngstow^Ohio..
Houston, Tex
,
Fort Worth, T e x . . .
Duluth,Miim
Norfolk', va..:;;..;,
Schenectady, N . Y . ,
Somerville,Mass-...
i«fc:::
Elisabeth, N . J
,
Waterbary,Cann...,
603
540
32
37,382
15,429
792
1,358
318
2,000
17,416
6
186
276
148
"i9*ii5:
426
2,456
19,530
206
750
*i,"634'
2,500
•
107
1,100
701
39,284
4,000
18,678
500
*52,"9is
**"'""i2,"7i7
10,482
50
181
226
175
3,713
690
600
2,755
38,914
793
272
741
388
808
210
809
8
644
380
121
123
126
128
133
Chattanooga, Tenn.
Maiden, Mass
Haverhill, Mass.....
Salem, Mass
Tampa, Fia
136
138
139
141
143
Kalamazoo, Mich..
Superior, Wis.
Wheeling, W.Va..
Newton, Mass
Woonsocket, R. I..
$341
35
$104
118
36
139
225
500
42
115
29,052
11,847
3,923
124
95
233
$230
2,608
95
210
1,619
6
"326*
30
163
250
151
84
175
200
15,436
35,236
26,621
4,832
105
14,163
1,400
616
163
1,000
777
1,911
1,231
64
75
16
352
50
300
10
360
750
156 Hamilton, Ohio.
157 Lexington. K y . .
159 Quincy.nl
160 Charlotte, N. C
161 Joliet,Hl
297
245
HI
112
113
117
120
Charleston, 8. C.
Allentown,Pa...
Aucuiunu, jro...,
Springfield, III....
Pawtucket,R.I..
Canton, Ohio
Sioux City,Iowa...
Binghamton, N. Y .
Atlantic City, N . J . .
Springfield, Ohio
New Britain, Conn.
100
102
103
106
107
145 Chester, Pa
146 Fitchburg.Mass...
151 Roanoke, Va
152 Elmira,N.Y
154 East Orange, N . J .
25
26,692
47,011
66
Passaic, N. J . . . .
Bayonne,N.J...,
Brockton, Mass..,
Portland, Me....
Holyoke, Mass....
*30,*92i
56
$2,180
Fort Wayne.Ind...
Harrisburg, Pa....,
East St. Louis, 111.
South Bend, Ind..
Terre Haute, Ind..
3,100
80
928
996
1,876
642
237
510
507
46
Troy, N . Y
Akron, Ohio
Manchester, N . H .
Hoboken.N.J....
Evansville, Ind....
Peoria, 111
12,118
1,040
Admin
Admin* istration
istration of
invest Other
Soldiers' of public ment
trust
miscel
relief and
funds
funds for
burial.
laneous.
and
munici invest
pal uses. ments.
City
num
ber.
5,052
1,103
Louisville, Ky.
St. Paul, Minn
Columbus, Ohio.....
Toledo, O h i o . . . . . . . .
Oakland, Col
,
GOVERNMENTAL COST PAYMENTS FOB—
192,367 $121,558
39,781
2,358
90
20,486
14,208
472,935
San Francisco, Cat.,
Milwaukee, W ^ . . . .
Cincinnati, Ohio....
Los Angeles, Gal.....
Newark:, N . J .
,
Indianapolis, Ind..
Providence, R. 1.,
Portland, Oreg...
Rochester, N . Y . .
Denver, Colo
ments. All amounts included in Table 12 under the
title "Miscellaneous" not included in Table x x m
under one of the three headings mentioned are in
cluded in that table under the heading "Other mis
cellaneous." The most important items of expense
thus tabulated are those for city excursions or "jun
kets," expositions of various lands, memorials, mon
uments, entertaining visitors and conventions, adver
tising the city, payments for the services of experts,
and aid to railroad construction.
OOVEBNlffiXTAL COST PAYMENTS FOR—
Admin
Admin istration
istration of
Invest Other
Soldiers' of public ment
relief and
miscel
mist
funds
buriaL, funds for
laneous.
and
munici invest
pal uses. ments.
89
9,911
ina, Ca...
162
163 Auburn, N . Y . . . .
164 Everett, Mass....
165 Decatur, I1L
168 Taunton, Mass...
, 169
171
173
175
176
Quincy, Mass..
Pittsfield, Mass
Oshkosh,Wis
Amsterdam, N. Y . .
Jamestown, N. Y . . .
177 Mount Vernon, N. Y .
178 Niagara Falls, N . Y . . ,
182 Lima, Ohio
184 Chelsea, Mass
185
187
188
191
192
193
NewRocheUe,N.Y..,
Lorain, Ohio
Austin, T e x . . . . . . .
La Crosse, W i s . . . .
Lynchburg, Va....
Sbreveport, L a . . . .
17
20
8,842
32
3,450
*ii*95l'
8,804
8,811
2,796
**4*i66'
*"782
15,117
3
224
26
58
""*275
118
1,146
""78
153
728
1,000
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
90
Payments for city pensions and gratuities.—The pay
ments of cities tabulated in Division X of Table 12
under the heading 'Tensions and gratuities" are of
two classes: (1) Those made directly to the former
city employees or to their heirs or dependents from the
general city treasury, or from public trust funds under
the direct control of the city; and (2) those made to
trust funds under the control of city employees, but
not under that of the city government. Table XXTV
shows the total amounts paid by each city to police
men, firemen, and teachers. Certain cities paid small
amounts of pensions to other employees, as follows:
New York, N*. Y., to health department employees,
and to those of other unspecified departments; Chi
City
num
ber.
Table X X I V
Policemen.
Total.
31
40
41
42
43
44
45
47
43
49
52
54
55
£6
57
68
59
60
€1
62
65
66
67
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
SO
82
FATMEKTS FOR PENSIONS T O B -
New York, N . Y . . . .
Chicago. ID
Philadelphia, Pa
St. Louis, Mo
Boston, Mass
Cleveland, Ohio
Baltimore, Md
Pittsburgh, Pa
Detroit, Mich
Buffalo, N . Y
San Francisco, Cal..
Milwaukee, wis
Cincinnati, Ohio
Los Angeles, Cal....
Newark, N.J
New Orleans, La
Washington, D. C...
Minneapolis, Minn..
Jersey City, N. J
Seattle, wash
Kansas City, Mo
Indianapolis, I n d . . .
Providence, It. I...*
Portland, Oreg...
* :,N.Y.
Rochester,;
Denver, Colo
Louisville, K y . . .
St. Paul,Minn...
Columbus, Ohio..
Toledo, Ohio
Oakland, Cal
Atlanta, Ga
Worcester, Mass
Syracuse, N . Y
New Haven, Conn....
Scranton,Pa
Richmond, Va
Paterson.N. J
Omaha, Nebr
Pall River, Mass
Spokane, Wash
Dayton, Ohio
Grand Rapids, Mich..
Bridgeport, Conn
Lowell, Mass
Cambridge, Mass
Hartford, Conn
Trenton,N.J
Albany.N.Y
Salt Lake City, Utah..
Reading, Pa
Camden, N.J
Springfield, Mass
Tacoma.wash
Lynn, Mass
Des Moines, Iowa...
Kansas City, Kans..
Yonkers,N. Y
,
Youngstown, Ohio.,
Duluth, Minn.
,
Norfolk, Va
Oklahoma City, Okla.
Schenectady, N. Y . . . .
Somerville, Mass
St. Joseph, Mo
Utica.N.Y
Elizabeth, N.J
Waterbury, Conn
Troy,N.Y.
Akron, Ohio
Hoboken, N. J
-
Firemen.
Teachers.
cago, 111., to library employees; Boston, Mass., to
health department employees, public works em
ployees, other city employees, and county employees;
Cleveland, Ohio, to the sanitary police; Baltimore,
Md., to employees not reported; Pittsburgh, Pa., to
employees of the wire department and bureau of elec
tricity; Salt Lake City, Utah, to a crematory employee;
Camden, N. J., to employees of the departments of
city comptroller, highways, water, and city property;
Lynn, Mass., to employees of the departments of health
and poor; Maiden, Mass., to employees of the depart
ments of city treasurer and elections; Tampa, Fla., to
a bridge employee; and Newton, Mass., to the city hall
janitor and an employee of the liighway department.
$3,858,052 $2,796,421 $1,702,811
2,087,644
563,279
61,670
149,823
80,698
33,698
57,359
53,233
65,777
78,726
23,179
51,688
11,907
23,420
7,244
75,972
12,440
63,181
9,500
22,569
24,181
12,533
23,053
8,069
14,446
9,304
14,162
12,603
6,896
1,230,235
268,387
57,799
40,856
130,870
78,861
26,079
43,625
26,165
73,688
76,496
46,431
53,940
7,636
41,926
25,268
39,617
48,369
33,667
9,634
3,773
21,936
20,485
38,486
10,974
15,014
12,700
8,285
19,435
9S9.324
105,505
106,729
106,211
22,945
23,046
6,865
21,693
27,462
20,685
55,955
'22,30.
28,199
17,561
8,303
9,737
3,660
6,330
7,001
4,013
5,939
370
3,771
14,046
11,862
3,320
7,169
8,224
1,793
6,242
5,500
1,410
1,287
7,226
6,895
6,396
1,730
8,531
2,400
1,266
842
3,866
5,896
5,569
3,160
240
976
4,580
1,720
2,307
2,210
7,998
1,905
8,137
2,120
13,313
11,352
4,427
6,508
2,212
10,681
7,020
9,723
11,736
3,126
8,691
1,574
3,237
2,091
7,283
7,435
4,900
12,425
2,018
8,192
1,367
5,613
3,170
853
5,564
3,375
6,465
4,004
4,179
8,933
1,270
5,212
900
2,804
"*893
83
550
4,362
1,700
1,502
7,806
420
9,073
8,718
6,224
2,475
2,589
*7*555
'&',m
r A T M o m FOR FENSIONS r o t —
City
num
ber.
91
92
93
95
96
98
99
100
101
102
105
106
107
IDS
109
110
111
112
113
114
116
117
118
120
121
122
123
126
127
128
130
132
133
137
138
141
142
145
147
149
150
152
154
156
160
161
162
163
164
165
171
172
173
176
177
178
179
180
182
184
185
190
191
192
195
Policemen.) Firemen.
Wflkes-Barre, Pa
Erie, P a . . . . '
EvansvfUe, Ind
Peoria, 111
Fort Wayne, I n d . . . .
Harrbburg, Pa.
Savannah, Ga
Jacksonville, Fla
South Bend, Ind
Terre Haute, I n d . . . .
Johnstown, Pa
Bayonne, N. J
Portland, Me
Holyoke,Mass
Charleston, S. C
Wichita, Kans
Allentown-Pa
Altoona, Pa.
Fawtucket, B. I
Canton, Ohio
Mobile, Ala
Sacramento. Cat.....
Saginaw, Mich
Sioux City, Iowa
Binghamton, N. Y.
Atlantic City, N. J..
Rocklord,Ill
Augusta, G a . . . . . . . .
Springfield, Ohio... Lancaster, Pa
New Britain, Conn..
Chattanooga, Tenn..
York, Pa
.
Maiden, Mass
Haverhill, Mass
Topeka, Kans.
.
Salem, Mass.
Davenport, Iowa
San Diego. Cal
Tampa, Fla..
Racine, Wis
Superior, Wb
Newton, Mass.
Butte, Mont
Chester, Pa
Dubuque, Iowa
West Hoboken, N. J..
New Castle, Pa
Elmfra,N.Y
East Orange, N. J
Hamilton, Ohio
Charlotte, N.C
Joliet.HL
Pasadena, CaL
Aubum,N.Y
Everett, Mass
Decatur, H I . . . . . . . . . . .
Pittsfield, Mass
Cedar Rapids, Iowa...
Oshkosh,Wis
Jamestown, N . Y . . . . .
Mount Vernon. N.Y.,
Niagara Fall*, N . Y . . ,
Jackson, Mich.
Wniiamsport, Pa
Lima, Ohio
Chelsea, Mass
NewRochelle,N.Y..
Orange, N.J
......
La Crosse, Wh
Lynchburg, Va
Council Blufls, Iowa..
i Includes pensions paid to firemen.
$2,353
1,247
985
3,883
1,820
944
1,210
2,275
3,710
1,428
1,022
281
3,309
445
Teachers.
$3,061
1,725
4,533
7,363
3,585
2,888
1,434
6,363
2,198
1,442
926
4,460
1,200
500
3,713
1,614
1,458
$5,269
3,178
1,647
1,704
600
4,354
160
634
5,930
450
2,391
1,789
950
6,014
1G9
COO
450
COS
829
112
975
558
1,106
2,810
3,836
120
891
330
2,162
273
2,040
4,230
1,861
225
1,135
1,138
1,350
501
4,776
504
420
600
652
3
960
992
750
1,972
520
* 400
50
977
142
1,594
870
454
500
3,578
COO
1,030
2,688
858
1,500
1,173
""iii
546
870
2,713
660
1,380
1,084
300
990
360
1,533
1090
1,805
'613
807
270
418
1,120
1,820
920
3,07$
560
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
91
Payments of judgments and claims for personal outside of parks and streets is included in Division II,
injuries.—AH payments by cities in settlement for under the heading " Other protection to person and
personal injuries, and those in satisfaction of judg property."
ments for such injuries, arc included in Table 12 in the
The agents of the Bureau of the Census are instructed
column headed "Judgments and losses." Payments to call the attention of city officials to the desirability
for land taken under condemnation proceedings are of distributing so-called "incidental operating expen
not included in this column, but in Table 18, in the ses" so that they will appear in the final report tinder
column showing the costs of the public improvements the functional costs of which they constitute parts.
for which the lands were condemned. AH amounts
Exceptional payments for expenses by Massachusetts
in payment of judgments and claims on account of per cities.—The state of Massachusetts has established for
sonal injuries, with the exception of small amounts tab the benefit of a number of cities and towns certain
ulated as undistributed expense, are shown in Table 12 metropolitan districts in and about Boston for the
in the column headed " Judgments and losses."
purchase and improvement of parks, and for the con
Payments for undistributed expenses.—The amounts struction and maintenance of sewers and waterworks.
included in Table 12 in the hast column with the The cities and towns benefited are charged with the
heading "Undistributed expenses" are, with few ex- cost of maintaining the properties and public im
.ceptions, those which with perfect accounting for provements acquired, including the interest on loans
statistical reports would bo distributed to the various made by the state for the original outlays, and are
other columns of the table. The amounts so tabu required to make contributions to the state sinking
lated belong to two quite different classes: (1) Munic fund for the ultimate redemption of the debt incurred
ipal printing and advertising, and (2) the undis by the state for their benefit. Other payments to the
tributed costs of such incidental operating plants as commonwealth of the same general nature are those
stables, garages, municipal service enterprises, bureaus for the abolition of grade crossings.
of supplies, storage yards, supply stations, and black
In this report, as in those for 1906,1907,1908,1909,
smith shops. For most cities these Undistributed 1910, and 1911, payments for the maintenance of the
expenses are small in amount/
metropolitan sewer and park systems are included
Among the incidental operating plants of New Eng with other sewer and park expenses in Table 12, and
land cities aro thoso of their so-called forestry depart payments for the maintenance of the metropolitan
ments. These are branches of the public service water system with other payments of this nature are
called into existence in many cases to combat the included in Table 15. All payments to the state for
destruction of trees in parks and streets by injurious interest are tabulated in Table 17, and all payments
insects and other tree pests. In most cases these to sinking funds are tabulated in Table 21. Preceding
departments or bureaus care for trees in streets and volumes of these statistics have stated in detail the
parks, and in a few cases care for trees on private amount of these special payments to the state for
grounds and receive compensation therefor. All each of these purposes.
Comparative summary of payments for general de
such so-called departments or branches of service are
incidental operating plants under the control of the partmental expenses of 1$ cities: 1902-1912.—In
park board, highway department, or some other Table XXV, which follows, there is presented, by
branch of the service. With few exceptions the ex principal divisions of the departments of the city
penses of these departments have been so kept that governments, a summary of the payments for general
they aro distributed to the governmental activities to departmental expenses by 146 cities from 1902 to 1912,
which they render service. Those for the care of inclusive. In this table certain payments of Table 12
trees in streets and parks appear among the park are consolidated to agree with the tabulation of prior
expenses, while the small amount for the care of trees years.
Table X X V
OlNSRAt
DEPARTMENT A t
191*
1011
1910
1909
1903
1907
1906
1905
1901
1903
1902
KXFBKSKS: ltf cmsfl.
1S486,S73,00*[»449,312,497| [$433,553> 066|»407,022,426]||398,352,030)1368,089,295|S329,300,973] $305,396,391 1294,951,671 «278,571,645 1272,381,811
43,325,004 34,060,323 30,569,445 28,997,741 29,392,6301 29,832,902
57,602,290] 63,691.881 51,891,921 49,810,90(» 48,453,019
General government..
46,074,136] 42,861,604 40,764,402 39,973,407 38,213,320] 36,378,817
57,799,584] £4,839,173 53,797,HCH 51,527,093 50,615,371
Police department
32,615,929 30,722,308 29,239,377 26,973,033]
35,559,315]
38,883,745
44,832,71« 43,019,761 40,954,065 39,704,942
Fire department
All other protection to person
6,025,742 5,959,63® 6,610,432 5,447,674 3,621,777
6,836,621
7,288,936
7,460,73(J
0,431,7141 8,617,243 8,052,252
_aad property..
6,816,018] 5,210,883 4,899,0001 4,706,560 4,756,817] 4,398,911
10,O39,Si« 8,601,005) 8,780,836] 7,SU,U« 7,107,815
Health conservation...
Total..
Sanitation or promotion of clean
liness
„
39,US,7S3 37,054,010] 34,131,737] 33,281,548
43,048,833
JUghways
, 55,264,032] »,072,49rt 52,618,597^
Charities, hospitals, and correc
28,133,754
29,060,973
30,648,19H
32,549,011
tions
...777..*...
138,801,414 137,356,885 119,054,967 114,446,034
Schools.....
Libraries, art galleries, and mo*
6,242,758 5,056,277] 7,090,865 6,242,855
^seiims.
18,320,618] 17,209,213 15,774,849 14,076,633
Recreation....
6,175,07«
8,480,167] 7,587,266) 7,020,57a 5,302,915
rgatons and gratuities
5,304,310]
7,560,10H
l,659,00tf
§2,667,838 30,273,319 26,776,25q 24,964,454
43,397,522 44,296,863 38,956,930) 36,773,272
23,483,152
36,367,98lf
27,873,963 24,589,19a 20,799,13d 19,448,261 19,105,252
111,369,209) 103,454,44d 95,797,977^ 87,760,928 86,546,619
5,854,854] 4,989,703 4,436,335 4,153,901
13,734,872] 12,024,359] 11,219,689 10,292,720
3,739,750]
4,961,214 4,503,509 3,893,373
6,143,672 5,346,813] 6,643,747] 5,348,311
4,177,242
8,461,753
3,340,558
4,941,597
20,994,944 18,577,098
33,493,710] 35,021,190
18,136,391
80,853,672
17,517,881
75,129,615
4,067,969 3,300,334
7,262,093 12,243,926
3,018,377] 3,354,051
5,956,010] 7,078,916
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
92
In compiling this table certain changes have been
made in the tabulations presented in preceding reports
to cause them to agree with the tabulations for 1911
and 1912, the treatment of pensions in those years
being different from that of prior years. The changes
referred to have transferred pensions as reported in
prior years from Divisions H and VII to Division X.
An examination of Table XXV shows that the total
general departmental expenses of the 146 cities in
creased in each of the years over those of the preceding
year, that increase averaging $21,449,119, the smallest
increase being that for 1903 over 1902, and the largest
that of 1907 over 1906. The actual increase and per
cent of increase of these expenses for each year over
those of the preceding year are shown in the following
statement:
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1903
1909
1910
1911
1912
Per cent.
Amount.
ANNUAL INCREASE.
over 1902
over 1903
over 1904
over 1905
over 1906
over 1907
over 1908
over 1909
over 1910
over 1911
...
penses included in the table; Groups II, IH, IV, and V
following in order. The same order occurs in the per
capita expenditures of Groups I, II, HI, and IV for
each of the specified purposes, except in the case of
fire, highways, and libraries, where the cities of Group
II had the largest per capita, but thefiguresin Group
V are in several instances larger than those for Group
IV. The figures for individual cities of the different
groups show striking variations, indicating that there
are other factors besides size which influence expense
payments.
Table XXVI, which follows, gives for each of the
five groups the per capita payments for the principal
general departmental expenses of the cities with the
highest and lowest per capita of such expenses, as
shown in the table. Diagram 13 presents graphically
the most important of the data of tho given table.
$6,189,834
16,380,026
10,444,720
23,904,582
38,788,322
30,262,735
8,670,396
26,530,640
15,759,431
37,560,507
DIAGRAM 13.—PER CAPITA NET PAYMENTS POR SPECIFIED GEN
ERAL DEPARTMENTAL EXPENSES BY GROUPS OP CITIES WITH
SPECIFIED POPULATION IN 1912.
2.3
5.9
3.5
7.8
11.8
8.2
2.2
6.5
3.6
8-4
Cftourt o r c m c s W I T H
i M a n c o POPULATION
OVER 600000
BOSTON
BALTIMORE
300000 TO 600000
WASHINGTON
TABLE 13.
Payments for the principal general departmental
expenses, total and per capita,—In Table 13 are pre
sented the governmental cost payments, total and per
capita, for the expenses other than those of public
service enterprises, arranged in most cases according
to the main groups of municipal departments, offices,
and accounts given in Table 12, but in a few cases
showing separately the payments for the more impor
tant individual departments, such as police and fire
departments and schools.
Expenses increasing with population of cities.—Group
I shows the highest per capita figures for all the ex
Table X X T I
NEW ORLEANS
100000 To 300000
DENVER
BIRMINGHAM
6 0 0 0 0 TO 100000
SPRINGFIELD
ALLENTOWN
TO 60000
NEWTON
CHARLOTTE
jtOUCATtOH
| H H COMMAVATtOM O* HCAlTM
E v w r a P O U C C OCPAJTTVICNT
feg^SJ QCXCJUk OOVm*t*WT
|MOHWAYS
\ CMA*fTK*,HOIOTAlS,A»0 COMMOTlOM*
| n*S Ot»AftTMtNT
lAUOTHta
omour tr.
©moron.
EXPENSES TOR-
All general departments
Boston,
Mass.
Balti
more,
Md.
Washing
ton.
New
Orleans.
La.
Denver.
Colo.
Birming
ham,
Ala.
Atlantic
cnovr r.
Allen*
town,
Mount
Vernon.
N.Y.
Char
lotte,
N.C.
...
$28.06
$15.14
$25.43
312.79
$20,13
$8.64
$22.76
$6.47
$77.53
$6.44
General government..
Police department
Fire department
All other protection to person and property
Conservation of health
3.02
3.10
2.26
0.47
0.81
1.76
2.21
1.62
0.18
0.34
1.01
3.06
1.01
0.94
0.40
1.91
1.13
1.44
0.25
0.30
3.85
1.31
1.64
0.33
0.75
0.66
1.06
1.44
0.20
0.14
2.02
3.12
3.56
0.83
0.43
0.49
0.48
0.68
0.02
0.06
2.67
2.06
1.60
0.27
0.32
0.67
0.63
1.07
0.07
0.05
Sanitation, or promotion of cleanliness
Highways
Charities, hospitals, and corrections
Schools
2.61
2.93
2.34
6.89
1.54
1.89
1.18
3.41
1.90
3.67
3.31
6.60
2.08
1.50
0.54
3. IS
1.11
2.39
0.70
5.91
0.89
1.02
0.23
2.80
2.69
2.26
0.79
5,74
0.61
1*34
3.75
1.82
5.25
0.83
8.65
0.42
0.90
0.02
2.20
libraries.....*
Recreation
Miscellaneous..*.....
General
0.56
1.88
0.15
0.62
0.21
0.96
0.02
0.53
0.10
0.25
a is
0.05
0.07
0.23
0.94
0.06
0.11
0.03
0.08
0.13
0.43
0.26
0.01
3.47
'.'.l.'.'.'.l
0.34
0.77
i Less than one-half of 1 cent.
1.49
0.16
0.31
1m
c>.0.28
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
The per capita payments for general governmental
expenses in cities of Groups I and I I are larger than
they otherwise would be because of the fact that New
York, N. Y., Philadelphia, Pa., St. Louis, Mo., Boston,
Mass.,Baltimorc,Md.,San Francisco, Cal., New Orleans,
La., and Washington, D. C, exercise all the executive
and judicial functions usually possessed by counties.
To secure comparability between the payments for all
general governmental functions, including payments
for court expenses in these cities and in other cities of
Groups I and I I which exercise no county functions,
certain percentages of the payments for the expenses
of county governments of the other cities of Groups I
and I I are combined with the city payments, as has
been explained in the discussion of Table 4, page 69.
The combination of county and city expenses secures
comparability of per capita payments for court and
other general governmental expenses for all of the
cities of Groups I and II, but those payments are not
comparable with similar payments of other cities with
the exception of Denver, Colo., for which city the
figures of the table include per capita payments for
expenses of the county as well as those of the city.
T*l)!e X X V I I
Comparative summary of (he per capita payments for
general departmental expenses: 1902-1912.—-In Table
XXVH, which follows, are shown the per capita pay
ments for different classes of expenses other than
those of public service enterprises for all the cities
covered by the different census reports from 1902 to
1912. There has been a general increase in the total
number of cities covered by these reports, but this
has had no appreciable effect upon the per capita
payments.
The total per capita payments for expenses other
than of public service enterprises increased from $13.02
in 1902 to $17.34 in 1912, a gain of 33.2 per cent.
The per capita payments for each year have shown an
increase over those of the preceding year, except that
those for 1909 were slightly less than those for 1908.
The per capita payments for expenses of the general
government, including those for courts, have increased
quite uniformly during the 11-year period, as have
for the most part those for the expenses of police and
fire departments, for conservation of health and sani
tation, which includes sewers, sewage disposal, and
refuse disposal, and for education.
ttOTECIIOtf TO FEfiSOX
AXD FEOFEBTT.
ToUL
YEA*.
1912.
mo
;....
M07
r.!;i;i.
. IWM
;.";""
1 Sanita
Conser tion, or
vation of promo
tion of
health. cleanli
ness.
Geoenl
mmi.
$17.34
16. G3 1
16.45 1
16.07
16. IS
15.83
14.53
13.89 i
13.72
13.00
13.02 I
$2.04
1.95
l.ftS
1.96
1.96
1.88
1.50
L3S
1.35
1.33
1.43
Polk*
depart
ment 1
Fire
depart*
menu
$104
1.99
2.15
2.15
2.17
2.09
1.99
1.95
1.96
1.SS
1.84
$1.62
1.58
1.65
1.65
1.G6
L61
1.51
1.46
1.42
1.33
1.30
93
All
other.
$0.33
0.31
0.30
0.29
0.29;
0.29
0.26 j
0.27
0.26
0.13
0.10
$0.35
a 31
0.33
0.31
0.29
0.29
0.23;
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.21
$1.42
1.35
1.29
1.31
1.32
1.30
1.18
1.13
1.09
0.9S
0.88
High
ways.
$1.98
1.96
2.01
1.71
1.76
1.91
1.73
1.67
1.69
1.60
1.69
EDUCATION.
Chari
ties,
hospi
tals, and
correc
tions.
School*
$1.13
1.10
1.08
1.10
1.13
1.05
0.91]
0.88
0.89
0.85
0.84
$5.02
4.73
4.62
4.58
4.55
4.46
4.241
4.02
4.03
3.86
3.61
; Miseelj Recrea ' laneous
and
tion.*
Libra
general.1
ries.*
$0.22
0.22
0.27
0.25
0.24
0.21
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.16
$0.6*
0.62
0.59
0.55
0.55
0.51
0.49
0.47
0.39
0.34
0.58
$0.56
0.50
0.20
0.21
0.25
0.23
0.29
0.25
0.23
0.35
0.37
1
Payment*forpensions are Included in column "Hltodkneoas said general" for 1911 and 1912; for the years 1902 to 1910 they are included with expenses of the police
Are, and school department*.
* Payments forexpeaset of art galteriet and museums are Included in column "Recreation*'for1911 and 1912; for the years 1902 to 1910 they are included with the
expenses oHibrarie*.
The most important data contained in Table XXVII
are graphically expressed in Diagram 14, which follows:
DIAGRAM 14.—INCREASE IK THE PER CAPITA PAYMENT FOR THE
PRINCIPAL GENERAL DEPARTMENTAL EXPENSES: 1902-1912.
DOLLARS
O
4
8
*2
16
1912 W / / / ^ / / / / / / ^ ) C < i < ^ X « l INI
wm&x^<sm
1911
1910
^Z^^//y/^/y^o^<>^^<^\\\\\
c^^^y//^/^^^>c)i^^A\\\\\
1909
1908
1907
W^////////j&£^>*&$£i
1908
1005
1904
,1003
mms^<m
mm$x<s>%m
(/z/////////$m&>^y^\\\\\ SSSS^Wv^
mm^pssSE^R
w///////A^&&tfft?£*m nun SSSffffNC^igggg
sw///////y^w&c&$
mi es m>>^m
6^y//y^/Ay^^^o^\\\\mm.
®sssm\
ft 902
B Z 3 EDUCATION
fegSSaa PROTECTION TO PERSON ANO PROPERTY
[ GENERAL GOVERNMENT
fiSSS
[ HIGHWAYS
CONSERVATION OF HEALTH
| CHARITIES, HOSPITALS*ANO CORRECTIONS
| ALU OTHER
TABLE 14.
Per cent distribution of payments for the principal
general departmental expenses, by object of payment.—
Table 14 shows, by principal divisions of the general
departmental service, the per cent distribution of the
payments for expenses, other than of public service
enterprises. This distribution represents broadly the
relative importance of the principal classes of expenses
for the several cities and groups of cities. The per
centages for legislative expenses are lowest in Group I
and highest in Group V, while those for judicial ex
penses decreased from 4.5 in Group I to 0.5 in Groups
1Y and V- • The high percentages for judicial expenses
in Groups I and I I are due to the exercise of the func
tions of county government by the cities of those
groups.
The percentages for police department expenses de
crease irregularly from Group I to Group V, being 12.9,
10.7, 10.8,10.5, and 9.1, respectively, for the different
groups. For this class of expenses, Jersey City, N. J.,
Savannah, Ga., Charleston, S. C, Mobile, Ala., and
Macon, Ga., show the largest percentages, 16.9, 16,
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
94
16.3, 17.3, and 16, respectively, and Lincoln, Nebr.,
and Pasadena, Cal., the smallest, 4.4 and 4.6, respec
tively. Forfiredepartment expenses the proportion
was largest for the cities of Group IV, 12.4 per cent,
and smallest for the cities of Group I, 7.4 per cent.
The highest percentage for any city was 22.3 for
Omaha, Nebr., and the lowest, 5.1, reported for Phila
delphia and Harrisburg, Pa.
The percentage represented by expenses for conser
vation of health and by those for libraries vary but
little for the different groups. Among the different
cities the largest percentage for health conservation, 10,
was reported for Lawrence, Mass., and the smallest,
0.1, for Saginaw, Mich.,,and Joplin, Mo.
The percentages of expenses for highways and for
schools were smallest for Group I and largest for Groups
HE and V, respectively. , Lancaster, Pa., shows the
highest percentage for highways, 27.1, and Hamilton,
Ohio, the lowest, 1.6. The largest percentage of ex
penses for schools, 54.3, was reported for Berkeley,
Table X X V I I I
GEKEBAL DSPABTHEXTJLL EXPENSES: 146 CITIES TOR—
1912
All other protwtlon to person and property.-...........
flftTiftetfO", or pTOenfitf <"1 Of
Recreation..."
fllpftTillnpss
,.
.'.
AUother
1911
1910
1906
1907
1906
190$
1901
12.2
12.7
9.8
1.8
1.9
12.2
12.7
9.8
1.8
1.7
11.8
12.5
9.7
1.9
1.9
las
iao
13.3
ia4
1.9
1.6
9.8
13.6
9.9
1.9
1.6
iao
iao
13.0
9.9
1*8
1.6
13.7
9.7
2.0
L7
13.4
9.5
1.3
1.0
8.2
11.4
6,7
28.5
8.2
11.8
6.8
28.3
7.9
12.1
6.7
27.5
8.2
10.6
6.9
28.1
8.2
12.0
6.7
28.1
8.1
11.8
6.3
29.1
8.1
12.0
6.3
28.6
&0
12.3
6.5
29.3
7.5
12.0
6.5
29.0
6.8
12.9
6.4
27.6
1.3
3.8
1.7
1.5
1.3
3.8
1.7
0.4
1.6
3.6
1.6
1.2
1.5
X5
1.5
1.3
8.2
la 9
7.0
28.0
1.5
3.4
1.2
1.5 |
1.4
3.3
1.2
1.5
1.3
3.4
1.2
2.0
1.4
3.4
1.2
1.8
1.4
2.9
1.1
1.7
1.5
2.6
1.1
2.1
1.9
4.5
1.2
2.6
eo
w&z&x i: 11 n i Y////M ^\\\NH«S
&tfX^\\\\\\\\Y//SSJ§
m«<s^mm
,0,C
L baM&foms&^liiimtK/^^^
/s/s/ym
1909* <ify&tt&z&ft<?&te i 1111111
^sss^mmk
1008* 3&5^K^toi6&3# 11111M I Y////rfm
<x<ssmm
1907 &$&OQ&?&zy&&\ 111 M 11 xs/y/yym xssssmm
ments for municipal service enterprises as distinguished
from those for public service enterprises are shown in
detail in Table 16.
Water-supply systems are the most important of
public service enterprises operated by American cities.
The total revenue receipts and payments for expenses
of such systems have been reported for 146 cities for
each of the yeara 1092 to 1912, inclusive, and a sum
mary of these receipts and expenses is included in the
statement which follows.
Revenue
receipts*
YEAH.
; EDUCATION
l l J H J l POLICE DEPARTMENT
~~
| GENERAL GOVERNMENT
| HIGHWAYS
1908
12.0
12.4
9.4
1.9
2.0
PER CENT
1906
1905
1904
1903
1902
1904
11.9
12.2
9.6
1.9
1.9
DIAGRAM 1 5 . — P E R CENT DISTRIBUTION OP PRINCIPAL GENERAL
DEPARTMENTAL EXPENSES: 1902-1912.
40
1909
11.8
11.9
9.2
1.9
2.1
The most important data contained in Table
XXVIII are graphically expressed in Diagram 15,
which follows.
. o
1912
i9i r
Cal., while the smallest, 12.2, was reported for Jackson
ville, Fla. For nearly all cities a larger percentage was
reported for schools than for any other one purpose
shown in the table. Although the per capita expenses
for schools, as shown in Table 13, increase with the size
of the cities, they do not increase as rapidly as other
per capita expenses; hence the percentages represented
by school expenses as given in Table 14 are greater for
the cities of Group V than for those of Group I.
Comparative summary of per cent distribution of general departmental expenses of 146 cities: 1902-1912.—
Table XXVIII, which foDows, gives a comparative
summary of the per cent of governmental cost pay
ments for the expenses of the general departments of
146 cities represented by those of the principal divi
sions of such expenses from 1902 to 1912. The per
centages are based upon tho absolute amounts of
Table XXV and are subject to tho factors and margin
of error to which attention was called in tho text re
lating to that table.
1910
1909
1908
1906
1905
1904.....
.„.„
♦....."
.
'
"
"""
165,966,005
64,327,041
63,300,103
67,105,840
54,^33,470
53,712,870
£0,406,039
47,336,624
44,974,037
42,936,187
41,210,322
Payments
for expenses.
$23,425,793
25,884,680
34 459 1%
23619 487
23 395,699
20 827,844
19 707,684
18077,311
19357,447
17448 701
14850 566
| CONSERVATION OF HEALTH
J FIRE DEPARTMENT
From 1902 to 1912 the receipts from the revenues of
water-supply systems of these 146 cities increased
$24,755,683, or 60*1 per cent, while their payments for
TABLE 15.
expenses increased $13,575,227, or 91*4 per cent.
Payments for expenses of public service enterprises.— The payments for expenses amounted to 36 per cent
The riature of these enterprises has been explained in of the receipts from revenues in 1902, and 43.1 per cent
the text discussion of Table 11, on page 85. Pay I in 1912. The increase in the revenue receipts and
[ CHARITIES, HOSPITALS,ANO CORRECTIONS
ALL OTHER
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
payments for expenses of the water-supply systems of
the 146 cities referred to above during the years 1902
to 1912 are illustrated by Diagram 16.
DIAGRAM 1 6 . — R E V E N U E RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS FOR EXPENSES
OP THE WATER-SUPPLY SYSTEMS OP 146 CITIES: 1902-1912.
IS
1012
.MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
30 <
*5
1911
k A v / /y /» /w/z/g/&^
1910
1////^////////^
1908
1907
1908
1905
1904
1903
1902
Q35ZS9PAYMENTS FOR EXPENSES
Of the Massachusetts cities of over 30,000 inhabit
ants seven are in the metropolitan water district and
obtain water for their several systems from the metro
politan water system. The metropolitan water sys
tem is operated by the state, and all costs of construc
tion, extension, and maintenance are apportioned
among the municipalities benefited. These costs are
annually apportioned among the various cities and
towns in three parts: (1) For the accumulation of
sinking funds to redeem bonds issued for the con
struction or extension of the metropolitan system, (2)
for interest on such bonds, and (3) for expenses of
maintenenace* The expenses of maintenance are
included in thefiguresshown in Table 15, the interest
is tabulated in Table 17, and the payments for interest
on debt for public service enterprises of city corpora
tions, and the payments for sinking funds are tabulated
in Table 21 with the payments on account of debt.
No exhibit of the amount of the metropolitan water
debt chargeable to each city, or of the annual increase
or decrease of such debt for each city, has been at
tempted by the Bureau of the Census, but the pay
ments made by a city to the state sinking fund may be
considered as a discharge of a portion of its obligations
to the state on this account. The payments in 1912
above referred to for the maintenance of the metropol
itan water-supply system by the Massachusetts cities
receiving water therefrom are included in Table 15
with the other payments of those cities for the ex
penses of the water-supply systems.
City T a b l e X X I X
num
ber.
cur.
1
4
5
14
16
20
24
25
37
50
59
73
93
99
100
104
116
130
132
137
161
162
165
171
189
191
193
1909
i H H R e V C K U E RECEIPTS
The payments for expenses of the different classes
of enterprises included in Table 15 under the heading
"All other enterprises" are shown separately in Table
XXIX.
Ferries.
New York. N . Y
fit Louis, Mo
Boston, Vrass
Los Angeles, CaL
New Orleans, La
Seattle, Wash
Toll
bridges.
Lunch
rooms.
|l,75ir?$9 J $646,963 $127,090
Total
////p//zap
95
1,446,815
1
635,801
38,993 1 $403,023
i
9,952
14,234
215,999
304,684
21,123
17,903
4,6S3
pprfpgfield, £TASS_ T r , r .
10,974
123,365
2,574
11,916
6,535
3,399
HolyoV 6,'Mass........
35
2,857
i7,385
i,834
Jolietjlll
Demtur. Ill
..*
Pittsfiela Mflffif.*.
Miscel
laneous.
63,184
Rochester, N / Y . . . . .
Memphis, T e n n . . . ..«
foul AntrmlQ TYr. . . . .
Covington. K y . . . . . . . .
City
farms.
1.264
2,726
13,934
4,269
i
160
2i,60S
2,857
2,530
2,S6S
The payments shown under the heading "Miscella
neous" in Table XXLX were for the following enter
prises: Boston, Mass., city record; Los Angeles, CaL,
municipal newspaper; New Orleans, La., public belt
railroad; Portland, Oreg., harbor pilotage, towing, and
dredging; San Antonio, Tex., river and ditch commis
sion; Schenectady, N. Y., municipal stores; Portland,
Me., liquor agency, $4,803, and municipal organ,
$1,732; Charleston, S. C, powder magazine; Augusta,
Ga., canal; Davenport, Iowa, levee improvement; and
Racine, Wis., artesian well.
TABLE 16.
Municipal service enterprises.—Under the designa
tion "Municipal service enterprises," the Bureau of
the Census includes those enterprises of a city which
are organized for the purpose of furnishing the city
with some public utility or service which most cities
obtain from or through a private enterprise. They
include such enterprises as municipal electric light
plants, asphalt repair plants, municipal printing
offices, and municipal repair shops. Some of these
enterprises perform services or supply materials for a
single department or office, and others for a number of
different offices or departments. Two different meth
ods of accounting for the operating expenses of these
enterprises are in use. One of these methods is to
treat such an enterprise as a separate department, and
its costs of operation as those of other departments.
The second method is to distribute the expenses of the
enterprise to the departments or branches of the city
government for which the enterprise performs the
service or to which it supplies materials. To permit
the compilation of comparablefiguresfor the costs of
such services as street lighting and high-pressure water
96
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
service, the Bureau of the Census for the 1912 report has
treated all of these enterprises as if the latter method
of accounting had been followed by the several cities.
Table 16 sets forth the expenses and receipts of these
enterprises as they might be briefly summed up if the
accounts of the cities with such enterprises were kepf
as distributing accounts for assigning the costs to the
departments or branches of the city government for
which the service was rendered. This method of treat
ment has been followed in the annual reports for years
later than 1908, where municipal service enterprises
were treated substantially in the same way as were
public service enterprises.
In preparing this table the Bureau of the Census has
treated as distributable expenses all allowances for
depreciation and kindred expenses which the several
cities have recognized in their statements of the costs
of the services rendered, and in addition, in the case of
electric light plants, it has included an allowance for
interest on the reported value of the plants at the aver
age rate paid on the debt of the cities operating such
plants. (A detailed statement concerning this latter
allowance is presented in the introduction to this
report on page 26, under the title "Difficulties arising
from faulty accounting for interest chargeable as out
lay or expense.")
The variations in the procedure of the several cities
with reference to depreciation and, in the case of munic
ipal service enterprises other than electric light plants,
to interest, make it impossible to compile accurate or
strictly comparable statistics of the cost of such serv
ices as those to which the expenses recorded in Table 16
are distributed.
In the columns under the designation "Payments for
expenses" are included separate statements of the costs
of services and materials obtained from the public or
through city departments and enterprises for the use of
the given enterprises, and also the allowances for
interest on the valuaof the plant, though these allow
ances are only accounting payments.
As counterbalancing these payments for expenses,
Table 16 shows (1) the amounts received as compensa
tion for materials sold and services rendered to the pub
lic incidental to the performance of services to the city,
(2) the charges made to the departments and accounts
of the city for. services rendered, and (3) all undistrib
uted expenses or undistributed profits.
Many cities other than those shown in this table
undoubtedly carry on in connection with certain de
partments undertakings which might be considered
municipal service enterprises; so long, however, as
cities do not regard these undertakings as distinct
enterprises, nor keep separate accounts for them, it is
not possible to include them in any presentation of the
statistics of municipal service enterprises.
as waterworks, several cities, in accordance with the
practice in commercial accounting, charge the interest
accruing on money borrowed for tho purpose during
the time that the property is being constructed as a
part of the cost of the property. The amounts so
charged to outlay account are included in Table 18 of
this report as part of the costs of tho permanent prop
erties and improvements of tho cities. Thoy are also
included in Table 17 for the purpose of showing the
total payments of the cities for tho use of credit capi
tal. The method of adjusting tho payments rocorded
in the two tables by means of contra-receipts as in
terest transfers, which are included in Tablo 10 has
been previously explained on page 26 under tho title
"Difficulties arising from faulty accounting for in
terest chaigeable as outlay or as expense."
The interest payments of Tablo 17 are classified as
payments for interest on (1) funded and floating debt,
(2) special assessment loans, and (3) rovenue loans and
miscellaneous debt obligations. Thoy are all exclusive
of payments made in error and later repaid to the city,
and of payments of interest which balance amounts
previously received as accrued interest on the original
issue of city debt obligations.
The amounts included in this table in the columns
"Of other governmental units 1 ' are given in detail for
the various divisions of the city governments in the
column headed "Interest" in Table 4. Of tho total
amount of interest paymonts, 94 per cent was reported
for the city corporations, 2.7 per cent for independent
school districts, and 3.3 per cent for other independent
divisions, including certain counties of Group? I and
n.
Tho aggregate of all interest payments was $107,816,353. Of this amount, $15,828,803, or 14.7 per
cent, represents transfers or amounts of money paid
by the various divisions of the government of the city
as interest on city securities held by the sinking funds,
investment funds, and public trust funds for municipal
uses. The total amount paid to tho public by the 195
cities was $91,987,550, an addition to tho correspond
ing amount paid by the 193 cities covered by the re
port for 1911 of $6,015,635, or 7 per.cent, of which
increase $127,288 is accounted for by the addition of
two cities not reported in 1911.
From the classification of interest according to the
kind of debt obligations on which paid, it appears that
89.1 per cent of the total interest payments was on
funded and floating debt, 6.5 per cent on special assess*
mentT loans, and 4.4 per cent on revenue loans and
miscellaneous debt obligations.
The interest on special assessment loans is seldom
paid from collections of property taxes or similar rev
enues, but from special assessments, such assessments
being collected in a number of annual or semiannual
TABLE 17.
installments, each one of which includes an amount
Paymentsfor interest on city debts.—In their account for meeting the interest on the bond for whose amorti
ing for the construction of pennanent properties, such zation the installment is collected. In such cases the
property owner pays the interest on the debt as well
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
97
as tho principal, tho city neither making nor losing
FEE CAPITA.
Per cent
anything by the transaction, and no burden is cast
i ©fall
1
govern
upon the general taxpayer. Table 17 does not include
mental
YEAB.
Net pay
cost
Net
any payments for interest on certain special assess
indebted- ments for payments
for
„ness.
Interest.
ment obligations issued by some cities that are pri
interest.
marily debts of tho individuals against whom they are
$70.47
96
*3.14
levied and not debts of the city. When cities collect 1912
1911
67.31
3.04
96
1910
;
:. * . „
64.00
2.91
95
special assessments of this class and receive interest on 1909
61.22
2.84
94
t
60.78
2.89
90
deferred payments,* such interest collections are in 190S
1907
55.75
2.55
86
62.11
2.43
9.2
cluded as receipts for private trust funds and accounts, 1906
50.88
1905
2.36
8.9
49.3S
2.22 i
8.4
which are recorded in Tablo 20, and not as receipts for 1904
45.19
1903
2.05|
8.3
44.19
2.03 !
9.1
special assessments, which are recorded in Table 7; in 1902
like manner, tho payments for interest are included
Exceptional payments for interest by Massachusetts
among tho payments for private trust funds and ac
cities.—On page 91 attention is called to certain pay
counts in Table 21 and not in Table 17.
Increase in actual and relative payments for interest— ments by Massachusetts cities to the commonwealth
On page 19 of the introduction attention was called to for the maintenance of sewer, park, and water-supply
the great increase since 1902 in tho net indebtedness systems that have been constructed for the benefit of
of the 146 cities for which tho Bureau of the Census the city of Boston and the adjoining municipalities,
has collocted statistics for each of the years 1902 to and the further payment to the state to reimburse it
1912, inclusivo. Ono result of the great increase of for payments of interest on the loans which were made
municipal indebtedness there referred to has been to to finance the construction or acquisition of*tljp sys
increase tho total payments of the same cities for tems. Similar payments of interest are made to the
interest and tho percentage of all their governmental state on the advance made by it infinancingthe cost
cost payments, as is shown by the statement in the of changes required for the abolition of grade crossings,
next column giving por capita indebtedness, per capita and are included in Table 17 on the lines for the
payments for interest, and per cent of all governmental several cities.
TABLE 18.
cost payments expended for interest, 1902-1912.
The steady and continuous increase in indebtedness
Payments for outlays.—The payments for outlays
and interest payments of tho 146 cities whose statistics
included in Table 18 comprise the amounts paid by
are summarized in tho statement are illustrated by
the several cities for the acquisition or construction of"
Diagram 17.
the more or less permanent properties and public im
provements,
including the payments for "the additions
DIAGRAM 17.—INCREASES IN NET INDEBTEDNESS AND NET
PAYMENTS *OR INTEREST BY 146 CITIES: 1902-1912.
made to those previously acquired or constructed, but
exclusive of payments in error for the correction of
NET INDEBTEDNESS
DOLLARS
which counterbalancing amounts are later received.
O
15
30
*S
BO
75
The payments last mentioned are included in Table 22
1012 S % % ^ j ^ g ^ ^ 2 ^
under a descriptive heading. The payments for out
1911 2 8 % ^ 8 Z ^ 2 g 5 ^
1910 '///jmw///////////^^^^
lays shown in Table 18 exceed the amounts reported in
1909 ym&yjw/jp////////jyj%^
Table 4in the column headed "Outlays" in the case of
1908 ssm^.szz^/is^^
12 cities by the amount of payments for outlays
1907 v/////&r///jwy/////////^^^^
recorded in Table 18, which were offset by receipts
1906 v//////////////jy/j?/////w////;w^^
from the public on outlay account, the most important
1906 wy//Av//y/////////////////////y////y/^^
1904 y/y///j?y/jy//jy//jW///s///#//jyy///^
of which were receipts from the sales of real property
I9(
and from fire insurance adjustments. The "pay
w/M?smy//////////w/^^^^
1902
ments" of Table 18 are thus the total payments on
v///myjmr///////My//^^^^^
outlay account less payments in error, while the "gov
NET PAYMENTS FOR INTEREST
ernmental cost payments for outlays" of Table 4 are
DOLLARS
the
payments on outlay account which increase the
1912 1 ^ ^ ^
value of the permanent properties and public improve
1911
ments as a result of the cash transactions of the
1910
1909
year.
1008 E^^fe^^^
The grand total of the payments for outlays, other
1907 v///my/////Atv////M'^
than
payments in error, of the 195 cities was
1908 ! ^ ^ S ! % ^ J ^ ^
$303,590,267, while the governmental cost payments
1005 a % ^ % % ^ ^
for outlays, as above explained, were $303,481,467.
1904
'mr//////////;w/////////////j£m^
1903
The excess of receipts from the public which increased
mwr/m?/////////y////jffly/////////^^^^^
1902
municipal indebtedness over payments to the public
r//m%w//j0'/////////yjmy/s^^
28656°—14
98
FINANCIAL STAT1STICS OF CITIES.
which decreased municipal indebtedness, as shown in I municipal assets, readily separable into three princi
Table 21, was $135,023,724. The governmental cost pal classes: (1)Receipts from the sale of investments
payments for outlays over the excess last referred to and supplies, which result in the exchange of one asset
were $168,457,743. This shows that for the 195 cities as for another; (2) receipts which increase indebtedness,
a whole the net receipts from increase of debts were only such as the receipt of money, services, materials, or
44.5 per cent of the governmental cost payments for property in exchange for a debt obligation assumed or
new properties and public improvements, there being, otherwise incurred; and (3) receipts which have been
however, great differences among the individual cities, described on page 41 of the introduction, where they
have been given the designation "Counterbalancing re
as is pointed out in the text to Table 21, page 99.
After making all needed allowances for different ceipts." These three classes of nonrevenue receipts are
amounts of cash on hand at the beginning and close of given in detail in Tables 20,21, and 22, respectively.
Summary of nongovernmental cost payments.—The
the year, and for all of the factors that should be con
nongovernmental
cost payments included in this re
sidered, it is evident that, from the comparison just
made, the majority of the cities are increasing the value port are, like the nonrevenue receipts, readily separa
of their permanent properties and public improvements ble into three principal classes: (1) Payments for the
faster than they are increasing their debts, while in the purchase of investments and supplies which exchange
case of a few, if any consideration is given to deprecia one asset for another, (2) payments which decrease
indebtedness by exchanging the asset cash for out
tion, the opposite condition of affairs exists.
Thefigurespresented in Table 18 represent for each standing liabilities, and (3) counterbalancing pay
city the outlays of the entire city government by princi ments to which attention has beta called on page 41.
pal divisions and subdivisions of governmental service. These three classes of payments are given in detail in
The c^oltfmn headed "For outlays" in Table 4 shows Tables 20, 21, and 22.
Secondary classification of nonrevenue receipts and
the net amount of these payments for outlays by each
of the divisions of the government of the city, includ nongovernmental cost payments.—Table 19 presents a
classification of nonrevenue receipts and nongovern
ing school districts, counties, and other divisions.
Payments included in the column of Table 18 headed mental cost payments in addition to the one described
"All other/' under the general heading "Protection to above. This is a classification which separates the
person and property," were made for such purposes as receipts into "receipts from the public" and "transfer
the purchase, construction, or improvement of com j receipts," or receipts by one division, fund, or account
bined police andfire-alarmsystems, levees, subways, j of the city government from another* This classifica
and conduits for wires; retaining walls, piling, plank tion is also applied to the nongovernmental cost "pay
ing, riprapping, and other structures for guarding ments, which are separated into the two corresponding
aga,inst damage by lakes or rivers; lifeboats; and for classes of "payments to the public" and "transfer
the permanent equipment of electrical departments or j payments."
bureaus, departments of public safety, and the offices
TABLE 20.
of recorders or registers of deeds.
Receiptsfrom the sale and paymentsfor (he purchase of
The outlays tabulated in the column headed "All investments.—Table 20 gives the receipts from the sale
other," under the general heading "Sanitation, or pro I of investments and the payments for their purchase by
motion of cleanliness," were for equipment for street j the cities covered by this report, classified as receipts
cleaning and refuse disposal, and for public comfort and payments of (l) sinking funds, (2) public trust
stations, and the drainage of low-lying lands, etc.
funds for municipal uses, (3) investments funds, and
The outlays tabulated in the column headed "All I for investments not held in funds, and (4) private
other," under the general heading "Highways," were trust funds and public trust funds for nonmunicipal
made for the improvement of bays, rivers, and harbors, uses.
and for viaducts, and in the case of all cities with large
Receipts from the sale and payments for (he purchase of
areas some were made for the construction of roads supplieStr-The same table also shows the receipts from
and bridges outside of the populous districts of the
the sale of supplies, including accounting receipts for
city.
I supplies on hand at the beginning of the year and used
The payments for outlays for electric light plants for during the year, and payments for supplies during the
lighting city streets or municipal buildings aggregated
I year that were on hand at the clo&e of the year; or,
$501,162, and those for other municipal enterprises had
rather, in the first case the excess of the value of supa total of $1,227,854. The objects of these payments,
!
together with the amounts expended, are shown in plies used over the payments for their purchase, and
| in the second case the excess of payments for supplies
Table 16.
| over the value of those charged as expenses and outi lays, substantially as has been described on page 24 of
TABLE 19,
the introduction of this report.
Summary of nonrevenue receipts.—The nonrevenue Transfers of investments and supplies.—A consider
receipts of municipalities included in this report able portion of the receipts shown in Table 20 repreare; when classified with relation to the aggregate of ! sent (1) the receipts by the funds of the city for the
DESCRIPTION OF (GENERAL TABLES.
99
redemption of city securities held by them as invest- II the 195 cities covered by the report, 48 paid the public
ments, (2) the receipts from the sale of investments by more cash for the redemption of debt obligations' than
one city fund to another, and (3) the receipts from the they received in transactions that increased indebted
sale of supplies by one division of the city government ness, and thus decreased their debt obligations in the
to another. The first class of receipts are balanced by possession of the public. The other 147 cities received
payments recorded in the column of Table 21 headed more money or its equivalent in transactions increasing
"Bonds, notes, warrants, and judgments," and the indebtedness than they paid for the redemption of debt
second and third classes are balanced by payments re obligations, and for them the holdings of city obliga
corded in the columns of Table 20 showing the pay tions by the public increased during the year. The
ments for investments and supplies purchased. The fact that 48 of the 195 cities covered by the report were
second and third classes of receipts are relatively small ablein the year 1912 to decrease their debt obligations
as compared with the one first mentioned.
to the public, although the 195 cities as a whole re
The payments included in Table 20 that were trans ceived from new debt obligations incurred $ 135,023,724
fer payments were also of three classes: (1) Payments more than they paid for the redemption or cancel
by funds of the city for city securities purchased from' lation of old ones, is one worthy of consideration by
.e various divisions of tho city government for invest those who have come to believe that cities must
ment at tho date of the original issue of such securities, necessarily increase their indebtedness in ever enlarg
(2) payments by one city fund for securities sold by j ing proportions.
another, and (3) payments for supplies purchased by one
Of the 147 cities which increased their indebtedness
division of tho city government from another. These to the public, the increase constituted less than 20 per
three classes of payments are balanced by receipts in cent of the payment for outlays in 38 cities, more than
Tables 20 and 2 ^substantially as set forth above. The 20 and less than 40 in 34, more than 40 and less than
aggregate amounts of the transfer receipts andpayments 60 in 25, more than 60 and less than 80 in 17, more
mentioned under (1) for tho great majority of cities than 80 and less than 100 in 9, and more than 100 in
are the same as the transfer payments and receipts the following 24 cities: New York, N. Y., Cleveland,
included in Table 21, since for those cities there are no Ohio, Baltimore, Md., Newark, N. J., Columbus, Day
sales or transfers of investment from one of the funds ton, and Youngstown, Ohio, Houston, Tex., Akron,
to another. For tho few cities in which the transfers Ohio, Hoboken and Passaic, N. J., Pawtucket, R. I.,
o£investments are mado between the various funds and Augusta, Ga., Springfield, Ohio, Chattanooga, Tenn.,
transfers of supplies are made between the divisions of Woonsocket, R. I., West Hoboken, N. J., Charlotte,
the city government, the transfer receipts and pay N. C, Portsmouth, Va., San Jose, CaL, Mount Vernon,
ments of Table 20 exceed the transfer payments and N. Y., Austin, Tex., La Crosse, Wis., and Lynchburg,
Va., all of which materially increased their cash on hand
receipts included in Table 21.
during the year as shown in Table 3. Some of these
TABLE 21.
cities increased their cash balances and debt obliga
Receipts which increased and- payments which de tions to the public by only small amounts, while others
I materially increased them. The cities last referred to
creased indebtedness.—Tho nonrevenue receipts of cities
which are accompanied with increase of indebtedness are among those which are needlessly burdening their
and their nongovernmental cost payments which result taxpayers with interest payments, as has been pointed
in a decrease of indebtedness are shown in Table 21. out in the text relating to Table 3, page 67.
Transactions which increased the debts of Massachu
They are separated into three principal classes, those
setts
cities to ike state.—Attention has been called on
represented by (1) bonds, notes, and warrants issued
pages
91 and 97 to the expenditures of the common
by the city and judgments rendered against it; (2)
liabilities arising from the assumption of public trusts wealth of Massachusetts through special commissions
for nonmunicipal uses and private trusts; and (3) lia- * and boards, by which lands were acquired and devel
bilities arising from acting as agent for other civil di oped, and structures completed for providing tho
visions. Classes (2) and (3) of receipts and payments metropolitan district, including Boston and its suburbs,
are subdivided by the table into subordinate groups. with common sewer, park, and water systems, and for
Transfer receipts and payments on debt account.—Theassisting that city and others in the abolition of grade
receipts and payments of Table 21, in addition to being crossings. The outlays for the metropolitan systems
classified as above set forth! are also classified as re are recorded on the books of the commissions, which
ceipts from and payments to the public and transfer constitute part of the official records of the state but
receipts and payments* (For the relation of the trans not of the cities. These payments by the state are
fer receipts and payments of Table 21 to those of Table transactions which increase the indebtedness of the
cities in the metropolitan district. In like manner the
20, see the text descriptive of Table 20.)
advances
of the state for the cities' share of the cost of
Receipts from and payments to the public on debt ac
abolishing
railway grade crossings are transactions
count.—Receipts from and payments to the public are
increasing
local
indebtedness to^thestate* - No-pcffion
the only receipts and payments relating to debt obli
I
of
this
increase
is included in Table 21, it not being
gations that increase or decrease the city cash. Of |
100
FINANCIAL STAT]ISTICS OF CITIES,
practicable to secure the data for any accurate appor the text explanatory of Table 4, to the different organi
tionment of this increase in the several cities. The zations of cities for governmental purposes. Table 4
advances by the state for the cities* portion of the cost summarizes revenue receipts and governmental cost
of abolishing grade crossings were not ascertained and payments by the independent divisions of the govern
are therefore not included in any table or statement of ment of the cities. Table 23 presents a summary of
all receipts and payments, cash balances, and date of
this report.
the close of the fiscal year for each division there
Transactions which decreased the debts of Massachu
setts cities to the state.—Thefinancialtransactions which shown, and in addition it shows the receipts, pay
lessened the indebtedness of certain Massachusetts ments, cash balances, and date of the close of the fiscal
cities for which this report gives statistics were of year of the funds of each division. When the city
three kinds: (1) Payments by cities to the state for corporation is the only local governmental organiza
sinking funds for the amortization of debts incurred tion, the figures for tie several funds are presented
for the metropolitan system of sewers, parks, and immediately below the name of the city, as in the case
water; (2) payments by the cities to the state of the of New York, N. Y. "When several additional govern
assessments levied upon them by the state for the re mental divisions or organizations are included, these
payment of the advances made by it for the cities on divisions are shown under the name of the city as co
account of the abolition of grade crossings; and (3) the ordinate with the city corporation, as in the case of
earnings of the metropolitan sinking funds,of the state Chicago, HI. For cities of the latter class the funds
which add to the assets of those funds.. The payments of each division are shown as subordinate to the
mentioned in (1) are included in Table 21.
division to which they belong. The grand total of all
divisions
is shown opposite the name of the city.
TABLE 22.
I
As subordinate to each governmental unit, Table 23
Counterbalancing receipts and payments.—On pageshows those funds which are kept wholly separate from
41 of the introduction definitions are given of counter- J other funds and whose transactions are recorded by
balancing receipts and payments, or nonrevenue re- I city officials in independent systems of accounts.
ceipts and nongovernmental cost payments recorded Sinking, investment, and trust funds are, however, al
in revenue and governmental cost accounts. These ways shown separately, whether the city officials record
receipts and payments are of six general classes shown j the transactions of these funds with other city trans
in Table 22 in the division relating to receipts. As the I actions or maintain separate systems of accounts there
counterbalancing payments of each class are in all cases for. With the exception just mentioned, the first
equal to the receipts shown in the several columns, column of Table 23 indicates the number of separate
the table, gives only the aggregate payments.
accounting systems or sets of records from which data
General transfer receipts and payments.—Table 22, must be procured in order to make a full report of the
in addition to giving the counterbalancing receipts and financial transactions of each of the municipal govern
payments of cities, presents a statement of the general ments. A large number of funds, as in New Orleans,
transfer receipts and payments of the cities, or re La., and Louisville, Ky., indicates that many munici
ceipts by one of the independent divisions or funds pal transactions are not under a central accounting
of the city that are paid by the others. For the control and that accountability is divided among sev
majority of cities these transfers are equal, but for a eral officials. Judging from the experience of the com
few of them they differ, owing in the greater number mercial world, it is believed that the bestfinancialad
of cases to the difference in the fiscal years of the ministration is possible only when all financial trans
different divisions of the cities reporting such differ actions are brought within one accounting system, and
ences, so that the transfer receipts of one year by one when one official is given the power and is held respon
division appear in the transfer payments of the other sible for its proper conduct. In Washington, D. C, the
division, either in the preceding or succeeding fiscal Federal Government shares the administration and the
year. A few of the differences referred to are in cities cost of municipal affairs with the District government,
whose divisions have the samefiscalyear, but in which which fact in part accounts for the large number of
some of the payments of the givenfiscalyear made on funds in that city.
the last day of the year do not appear on the books
The term "general treasury" is applied to the
of the receiving division until the first day of the suc
aggregate
of the funds, other than sinking funds, over
ceeding year. These differences do not in the least
affect the revenue and governmental cost transactions which the city auditor or comptroller exercises au
that constitute the essential portion of the statistics thority. The term "cash in transit" is the designa
tion of cash which has been entered on the books of
of this volume.
one
department as paid to another but has not been
TABLE 23.
recorded on the books of that other as received. Cash
Summary of aU receipts, payments, and cash balances,in transit is only reported in the case of cities with
h/^ivisiom and funds of city gwernment.—Attention jdivisions having the same date for closing their fiscal
has~6een- called on page 21 of the introduction, and in years.
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
Date of close of fiscal year.—The table shows wide
differences in the dates on which thefiscalyears close.
These differences complicate the work of compiling
comparable statistics. Not only do the different
cities close their fiscal years on many different dates,
but often the fiscal years ofjthe units of the same city
and of their funds and accounts close on different
dates* It is evident, therij* that the statistics for a
large number of cities will involve fiscal years ending
on many different dates. The statistics shown in this
report relate in each case to the fiscal year ending
hetween February 1,1912, and January SI, 1918.
A uniform date for the close of the fiscal years of all
divisions, funds, and accounts of cities would greatly
facilitate the compilation of comparable municipal
statistics. Several states have statutes providing
for such a uniform date for their cities, and the enact, ment of similar laws is urged in Massachusetts and a
' number of other states.
The city corporation is the principal governmental
* unit of every city, and in many cities the only such
unit. Of tho 195 cities and towns of the United
States for which reports were secured, 100 closed the
fiscal year of their city corporation on December 31,
and each year sees an increasing number of cities
adopting this date* In seven states having more than
one city of over 30,000 inhabitants, all of these cities
close their fiscal year on December 31, those states
having an aggregate of 31 such cities. These states
are: Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Minne
sota, Ohio, and Washington. In no other state having
two or more cities of over 30,000 inhabitants do all of
them close their fiscal year on the same date. Of the
95 cities closing their fiscal year 1912 on dates other
than December 31, 22 closed such year June 30, 13
March 31, 9 April 1, 9 November 30, 8 February 29, 8
April 30, 6 September 30, 5 January 31, 3 May 31,
2 April 15, and 1 each on January 23, April 3, April 7,
April 8, April 10, May 6, July 1, August 31, December
2, and December 16.
Ipl
Superior, Wis., Wheeling, W. Va., Dubuque, Iowa,
West Hoboken, N. J., New Castle, Pa., Lexington,
Ky., Springfield, Mo., Quincy, HI., Pasadena, CaL,
Portsmouth, Va., Cedar Rapids, Iowa, San Jose, CaL,
Joplin, Mo., Austin, Tex., Newport, Ky., and Colorado
Springs, Colo.
The sinking funds of the first class axe established
and maintained primarily for the redemption of bonds
at maturity^ while those of the second class are main
tained primarily for the amortization of city debt
obligations by purchase before their maturity, or for
the redemption of serial or other bonds maturing in
practically equal amounts each year. Sinking funds
of both classes are met with which are employed for
the payment of interest on city debt obligations in
addition to the purpose, mentioned, although not all
of either class are so used. The revenue of municipal
sinking funds comprise (1) the amounts annually appro
priated by the city corporation and other governmental
units for sinking fund purposes, and (2) certain city
revenues that have been permanently set apart or
pledged for such purposes. In addition to the reve
nues mentioned, nearly all sinking funds of the first
class also receive interest on their investments. Funds
of the second class, as a rule, expend the greater por
tion of their revenues during the year in which received,
while the revenues of the funds of the first class are in
part or wholly accumulated from year to year and
expended at the maturity of the various bond issues.
The sinking funds whose transactions are reported in
Table 24 and whose assets are shown in Table 26
received as interest and rents on their investments an
aggregate of $16,530,878. This was 3.04 per cent of
the assets on hand at the close of the year. The funds
of the first class mentioned above must have secured
a higher percentage than this, while those of the second
class secured a lower rate, although the data were not
obtained for an exact computation in either case.
In some states cities borrowing money on long-term
bonds are required by statute to maintain sinking
funds with investments, and in a limited number of
TABLE 24.
states cities under these statutes are further required
Sinking funds of two distinct types.—Table 24 to maintain a separate fund for the amortization of
presents a summary by cities of certain transactions each bond issue. In states without such laws a city
of sinking funds, the amounts of their assets being can, in its discretion, maintain either type of sinking
presented in Tablo 26* Sinking funds are ti two fund, or can, if it chooses, meet maturing debt obli
classes, those with and those without investments. gations without the maintenance of a sinking fund.
The cities with funds of the first class number 126, and In both classes of states an increasing number of
those with funds of the second class number 41. Tho officials are becoming convinced that it is financially
cities of the latter class are St. Louis, Mo., Washington, inadvisable to maintain sinking funds with invest
D. C, Seattle, Wash., Indianapolis, Ind., Syracuse, ments and are advocating sinking funds of the second
N. Y., New Haven, Conn., Memphis and Nashville, class or the issue of serial bonds so maturing as to
Tenn., Salt Lake City, Utah, Wilmington, Del., St. obviate the necessity of any kind of sinking fund. It
Joseph, Mo., Evansville, Ind., East S t Louis, HI., is to be noted in this connection that of the 28 cities
South Bend and Terre Haute, Ind., Springfield, HI., with no sinking funds in 1912 the majority reported
Covington, Ky., Mobile, Ala., Sacramento, CaL, no funded debt obligations other than serial bonds.
Transactions of sinMng funds.—Table 24 presents a
Augusta, Gat, Berkeley, CaL, Bay City, Mich., Lin
coln, „ Nebr., Davenport, Iowa, San Diego, CaL, summary of the financial transactions of all the sink-
102
FINANCIAL
ing funds of the 167 cities having such funds at the close
of thefiscalyear 1912. The table thus includes transactionsof sinking funds not only of the city corporation,
but of all of the divisions of the government of the city.
The receipts of these funds are tabulated under five
headings, and the payments under four. Of the five
-headings for receipts, two are for revenue and three
for.norirevenue receipts. The receipts from revenues
.are.of two distinct classes: (1) The earnings of the
funds, which consist of rent and interest on invest
ments and interest on cash deposits in bank held as
sinking fund assets, and (2) other revenue receipts. •
The latter receipts in turn are of two distinct classes,
the first being revenues from specific sources which j
are pledged for sinking fund purposes, and the second
' the general property tax appropriated for sinking fund
purposes, which are paid direct to the sinking funds and
never pass through the general treasury. The cities
reporting the latter class of receipts, as a rule, have
sinking funds under the control of sinking fund com
missions, and for most of them the taxes are collected
by the county rather than by the city corporation.
Of the total amount reported in Table 24 as receipts
from other revenues, $16,348,820, or 59 per cent, was
reported for New York, N. Y. The net revenues thus
reported were all pledged by charter or other provision
for sinking fund purposes for the redemption of some
particular classes of bonds or of city debt obligations
in general. The revenues thus received, which were
distinctly pledged for sinking fund purposes in New
York, N. Y., in 1912, , were: Special assessments,
$39,263; business licenses, $241,570; reimbursement of |
comptroller's expenses for collecting state tax, $5,000;
fines and penalties, $566,132; major privileges,
$460,472; minor privileges, $409,138; rents of miscel- I
laneous property, $165,568; stenographer's fees,
judicial, $21,243; revenue of water-supply systems, i
$7,293,544; revenue of public markets, $305,782;
revenue from docks and slips, $4,577,229; income from
ferries, $1,207,357; rapid transit rents, $507,699; and
interest on bank deposits not assets of sinking funds,
$543,823.
Of the 167 cities with sinking funds, 66 reported pay
ments for interest or expenses which aggregated over
$10,000 each. The sinking funds of these 66 cities are
charged with the duty of paying the interest on a part
or all of the outstanding indebtedness. In a few cities
with payments less than $10,000, tabulated under the
heading "For municipal expenses and interest/' the !
sinking funds are charged with the duty of meeting
interest payments on a part of the municipal debt, but
the smaller amounts shown under that heading are in
most cases payments of the expenses of managing the
sinking funds.
]
The receipts shown under the heading "From issue
of debt obligations" represent the receipts by the
sinking funds from the issue of debt obligations
that were issued through the sinking fund authori-
STICS OF CITIES.
ties rather than from the general city treasury* They
also include certain small amounts of warrants
drawn by the sinking fund authorities that had not
been cashed before the close of the year and premiums
on bonds issued from the general treasury that were
specifically dedicated for sinking fund purposes. The
amounts shown in payments under the heading " For
redemption of debts" represent the amount of city
debt obligations that were redeemed directly through
the sinking funds. Many cities having sinking funds
do not, however, redeem their debt obligations by their
sinking funds directly, but instead transfer cash to the
city treasury, which reports all payments for the re
demption of debt. These different methods of report
ing the payments of cities for the redemption of debt
render it impossible to compile comparable statistics
of sinking funds without a combination of the trans
actions of these funds with all the other funds of the
city. (Attention has been called to this fact in the
introduction to this report on page 21, under the head
ing "Difficulties arising from differences in accounting
for administrative funds.")
The receipts shown in the column headed "From
other sources" in large part represent receipts from the
sale of investments by the sinking funds, and in like
manner the payments included in the column headed
"For other objects" are those made by the sinking
funds for the purchase of investments.
Many cities, especially those reporting no receipts
from revenue in Table 24 or small receipts therefrom,
make no specific provision for sinking funds other than
that included in the annual appropriation. In such
cities the moneys received by the sinking funds other
than from the sale of investments and interest thereon
are by general transfer from the city treasury. In
like manner many cities which appear in the table
with no payments for the redemption of debt transfer
their cash to the general treasury, which makes pay
ments for debt redemption. Table 24 does not show
the aggregate of either the receipts or payments of
the sinking funds by transfer, but only the excess of
the one over the other.
The last two columns of the table show the amounts
by which the aggregate assets of the sinking funds in
creased or decreased during the year.
TABLE 25.
Public trust funds for municipal and nonmumcipal
uses.—Cities frequently receive donations and bequests
for what the statutes and court decisions have de
nominated "charitable uses." In most cases the pur
pose of the donation or bequest is to extend aid in
certain directions in excess of what the city is accus
tomed to provide on its own account. In a smaller
number of instances the donations or bequests are to
be applied to purposes which are other than municipal
in their nature and for which the city can not make
appropriations.
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
103
Public trust funds of the class first mentioned are
Public trust funds for educational purposes were
established for charities, education, pensions, and other found in considerable numbers, especially in Boston,
public benefits; and those of the second class are for Mass., Chicago, 111., Philadelphia, Pa., and Cambridge,
"charitable uses" for which the city can not make Mass. These funds were usually for books, medals,
appropriations, but the administration of which may prizes, or scholarships, though four of them ^ r e for
legally be entrusted to municipalities as constituting the maintenance of trade schools.
convenient agencies for accomplishing the desired end.
The diverse objects to which public trust funds for
Funds established for city uses are termed public trust municipal uses are applied may be judged from the
funds for municipal uses, while those established for following examples found among the funds for mis
purposes other than municipal in their nature and for cellaneous objects: Immigrant relief; medals and prizes
which the cities can not make appropriations from for inventors, firemen and school children; loans to
revenues, are designated public trust funds for nonr artisans; street cleaning, lighting, and repairing;
municipal uses. In the case of the greater number of Pasteur or other treatment for hydrophobia; music for
these funds the income alone is available for the pur the public; trees in parks; public celebrations; drink
poses for which the funds are created; but in the case ing fountains; buildings and observatories.
of a few, both principal and income may be expended.
The revenues of trust funds from taxes, fines, and
In some cities the public trust fund cash, although forfeits are a part of the revenues of cities derived from
applicable only to the specified purposes of the trusts, the exercise of the general powers of government.
has been merged with the general city cash, and the The aggregate of these revenues included in Table 25
transactions are not as clearly set forth on the books is $617,078. If these taxes and allied revenues were
as would seem essential to correct administration and not included in the statements of tax receipts in Table
accounting. In the majority of cities, however, the 7, those receipts would not be comparable between
transactions are properly recorded and kept entirely cities; and if the attempt were made to show the pro
distinct from the ordinary municipal transactions and visions for pensions, schools, libraries, or charities,
without taking into account the payments included
accounts.
Transactions ofpublic trustfundsfor municipal uses.— in Table 25, or if the attempt were made to make
The acceptance by a city of donations and bequests comparisons between cities with reference to the pay
for municipal uses acts as an appropriation thereof, ments by them of pensions, and such comparisons were
and the money or wealth so received, if accounted for based upon the fund reports summarized in Table 25,
in a legal sense, would be shown in the accounts or the results would not be satisfactory, because some
reports as " appropriated." To distinguish such ap portions of the data for correct comparison would be
propriations from the ordinary governmental appro wanting; hence the necessity, as pointed out on page
priations, they are usually set apart in special funds 21 of the introduction under the title "Difficultiesdenominated "public trust funds." Cash and other arising from differences in accounting for administra
wealth in these funds constitute governmental assets, tive funds/' of basing all comparable statistics of cities
and the acceptance thereof creates no liability other upon a combination or consolidation of the reports of
than the liability involved in the ordinary govern all administrative funds.
The receipts of the trust funds for municipal uses
mental appropriation* The municipal purpose most
often subserved by trust funds for municipal uses is covered by Table 25 from rents and interest on invest
that of providing pensions for policemen and firemen ments aggregated $4,160,761 for 1912. This was 5.2
who have suffered disability or have completed a per cent of the assets at the close of the year, as given
specified term of service, and gratuities for the families in Table 26.
Table 25 is presented as an exhibit of transactions
of those who have died in the service. The pensioning
already
included in the preceding tables, and is de
of teachers isfindingfavor in recent years, and several
signed
to
show in connection with the other tables the
cities report public trust funds for this purpose. A
character
of the transactions of those funds by the
number of cities, for the most part in the Eastern
states, report public trust funds for charitable uses, several cities, and something of the relation of the
such as for the care of the poor and the defective classes. aggregate here included to the aggregate of which they
Of the 195 cities covered by the present report, 146 form a part.
Table 25 gives the total payments of the several
reported public trust funds for municipal uses. Trust
funds for charitable uses were most numerous in cities for pensions and gratuities through their public
Philadelphia, Pa., and Boston and Salem, Mass., the trust funds for municipal uses. A comparison of the
majority being for outdoor poor relief. Among the figures of the table with those shown in Table XXIV
specific charitable uses to which the trust funds were will show the amounts of pensions and gratuities paid
applied were the support of orphans' homes, assistance by some cities directly, without the agency of these
to poor children, maintenance of a free dispensary, funds. Table 25 also gives the payments by these
loans, excursions for poor children, and purchase of funds for schools and libraries.
shoes for indigent school children.
104
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
by this investigation, as compared with 19 per cent in
1911, 18.9 per cent in 1910,19 per cont in 1909, 18.5
Amount of specified assets and value of public prop per cent in 1908,19.2 per cont in 1907, and 20 per cent
erties at close of year.—Table 26 shows, in addition to in 1906. The percentage which the value of tho assets
the cash of the cities in their general funds, the cash in the sinking funds represented of the aggregate
and investments in their sinking and investment funds, amount of funded and floating debt was 21.2 per cent
public trust funds and private trust funds, as well as in 1912 as compared with 21.2 per cent in 1911, 21.4
the value of other property held as investments. If a per cent in 1910, 21.5 per cent in 1909, 21.2 per cont
city is to present a complete balance sheet it must in 1908, 21.8 per cent in 1907, and 22,6 por con tin 1906.
include therein statements of the amounts that will
Assets of public trust funds for municipal uses*—Tho
probably be collected from assessed but uncollected text accompanying Table 25 contains a condensed
taxes and special assessments, of accrued interest on statement of the character and purpose of tho funds
investments held, and of certain contingent assets that whose assets are tabulated in Table 26 undor the
have a monetary value. No effort is here made to pre general heading "Assets in public trust funds for mu
sent exhibits of the assets or resources mentioned, nicipal uses."
however, for the reason that but very few cities of the
Included with the assets in public trust funds for
United States make such statements of all their assets, municipal uses are assets in certain funds, mostly pen
and of these few only a limited number make any sion funds which aro supported largely or altogether by
allowance for revenues that may prove uncollectible. appropriations and by certain kinds of municipal reve
The figures in the last column of Table 26 represent nues assigned to them by statute, charter provision,
the total value of the public properties which is shown or ordinance. Although these so-called funds are in
in detail in Table 27. The term "public properties/' their origin and nature more nearly allied to adminis
as here used, comprises the land belonging to the city trative funds than to trust funds, they aro assigned to
and used for municipal purposes, together with all the the latter class in accordance with the general usage
structures upon such land, including buildings and of American cities.
machinery and all appliances and equipment used for
At.the close of the year 1912, 60 cities reported
carrying on the work of the city departments and the public trust funds for municipal uses which had no
various public service and municipal service enterprises investments in city securities, 24 reported funds hold
operated by the city. These properties are to be dis ing no investments other than city securities, and 20
tinguished from public improvements as defined on reported funds holding no investments.
page 45, a statement of whose replacement value is
Assets of investmentfunds, and value of miscellaneous
given in Table 28.
investments.—Under the heading "Assets in investment
The assets shown in Table 26 are classified according funds, and miscellaneous investments" aro shown (1)
to the fund of which they form a part and to the char all assets of funds with investments other than sinking
acter of the security or other investment held.
and trust funds, and (2) all interest-bearing securities
Assets ofsinking funds.—The character of the sinking andinvestmentsotherthanthoseofthefundsmentioned,
funds, the assets of which are presented in the first including real property used for purposes other than the
group of the columns of Table 26, has been fully set uses of the departments and enterprises. Although
forth in the text accompanying Table 24. Of the 167 the term "investment fund" is seldom, if ever, em
cities reporting sinking funds with assets, 73 reported ployed by the city officials, it seems to bo an appro
city securities as their only asset other than cash, 8 priate designation for the class of funds first men
reported other investments but no city securities, 45 tioned. The value of real estate incidentally acquired
reported both city securities and other investments, and yielding little or no income is included under the giv
and 41 reported cash as their only asset at the close of en heading as a miscellaneous investment, although in
the year.
previousyearsithasbeen tabulated asaportionof "pubr
For the greater number of cities the sinking funds lie properties/' In some instances tho assets in invest
are prudently and economically administered, either ment funds consist of bonds or stocks acquired by the
by city officials, who act as trustees ex officiisf or by city in consideration of financial aid or grants to rail
independent boards of commissioners appointed for roads or other public service corporations; in a few
that purpose. In a small number of cities, however, instances they consist of real estate held for the purpose
the cash accumulation in the funds has been diverted of securing rents or the profit that may result from an
to the payment of current city expenses, with the increase in value; in other cases they consist of bonds
result that the so-called assets in the fund are mere or mortgages received in exchange for real estate and
accounting entries, and, since they do not constitute held as investments awaiting maturity or a favorable
true offsets to the bonded debt, are not taken into market.
consideration in the preparation of this report.
In a majority of the cities reporting investment
At the close of the fiscal year 1912 the aggregate funds or investments, the invested assets are com
assets in the sinking funds reported equaled 19.1 per paratively small. In some instances they are doubt
cent of the total indebtedness of the 195 cities covered less of a temporary nature, being held merely for a
TABLE 26.
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
favorable opportunity to dispose of the securities or
real estate, when the proceeds are to be returned to the
general treasury. In some cities permanent invest
ment funds are established to enable the cities to
cany their own fire risks on municipal buildings, an
amount equal to the premiums usually chaiged by the
fire insurance companies being set aside each year for
the creation of a fund from which fire losses may be
paid as they occur. Such funds are usually invested
in profitable securities and are here classed as invest
ment funds. Funds provided for the purchase, con
struction, or equipment of buildings or other municipal
permanent properties which, according to the practice
of some cities, are invested during a period of accumu- i
lation, are here also treated as investment funds*
Of the 195 cities covered by the investigation for
1912, 72 reported investment funds or miscellaneous
investments, their assets aggregating $ 193,434,357.
Assets of public trust funds for nonmunieipal uses.—
These are city funds the income of which is devoted to
purposes that are not municipal, and for which the
municipalities do not make appropriations. In Massa
chusetts and a few other states the cities are not only
authorized but directed to accept moneys in trust to
guarantee the care of specified monuments and graves
in cemeteries. The acceptance of such moneys creates
an express public trust and makes the city a trustee in
the same way that a private individual or corporation
becomes a trustee under corresponding circumstances. ,
The acceptance of such a trust creates a debt liability I
for the amount received, and such liabilities should be j
shown in accounts and reports of public indebtedness, j
Assets of private trust funds.—In certain cases cities
receive and hold .money under conditions which create
private trusts. The trusts of this kind most frequently
met with in the financial administration of cities con
cern the estates of deceased persons held in trust for •
Unknown heirs, or moneys deposited as guaranty of
contracts. Sometimes the moneys held under these
private trusts are set aside in special trust funds, and
sometimes they are represented by private trust
accounts. Private trust funds are distinguishable
from private trust accounts by the method of caring
for the cash received in trust. When cash is received
in trust for a given person or corporation and is depos
ited in trust for such person or corporation, a special
fund is created, to which is here given the designation
"private trust fund;" while if the cash is debited to the
general city fund and an account is opened for it on
the city books, the account is here spoken of as "pri
vate trust account." In a number of cities but little
attention is given to the proper recording of transactions affecting private trusts, the receipts and pay- |
ments frequently being entered upon the books as
ordinary city revenues and expenses. Such accounting for moneys received in private trusts leads not
only to confusion and irregularity, but sometimes even
to defalcation.
I
105
In Table 26 the assets in public trust funds for
nonmunieipal uses and in private trust funds are shown
together, their aggregate being $12,975,427.
TABLE 27.
Value of properties employed or field for specified
purposes.—The value of all permanent public proper
ties except those in funds with investments is shown
in Table 27, in which for convenience in treatment
those properties* are classified as "Land, buildings, and
equipment of general departments," "Land, buildings,
and equipment of municipal service enterprises," and
"Land, buildings, and equipment of public service
enterprises." Most of the properties included under
the first and second headings are essential to the con
duct of municipal affairs and are unproductive; that
is, any income that may be derived from them is
merely incidental. The corresponding table for the
1191 report also included the value of property that was
acquired incidentally to the conduct of governmental
business and was neither employed in carrying on the
governmental functions of a municipality nor held
with the definite purpose of procuring an income. In
this report such property is designated in Table 26 as
miscellaneous investments. The properties of public
service enterprises are productive; that is, they are de
signed to furnish an income approximately equaling or
exceeding the cost of operating and maintaining them.
Valuation of municipal properties.—The importance
of carefully and accurately estimating the.value of
public properties is very imperfectly appreciated by
many city officials. In some cities lands and buildings
are given a book value equal to their original cost,
while in others the valuation given for 1912 is an esti
mate of the value made several years before. The
result is that the valuations of public possessions
included in this report for different cities do not fur
nish reliable data for comparisons.
The valuation of properties employed in public serv
ice enterprises has received more consideration from
city officials than that of any other class of permanent
public properties, yet the need of still more exact and
systematic valuation for accounting purposes is almost
universal. Wide differences exist in accounting usage
with respect to depreciation and with respect to the
inclusion of the franchise or privilege value of a public
utility enterprise with the physical value of plant and
equipment. Acloser approach to uniformity of method
is needed to make the financial statement of an en
terprise in-one city comparable with that of a similar
enterprise in another. Only in case of such uniformity
can thefiguresconcerning an enterprise in one city be
clearly intelligible to those in charge of a similar enter
prise in another city, so that the experience of one may
be made available to all. Further, more xegard
should be given to the importance of a full and careful
consideration of all factors affecting the present value
106
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
of municipal possessions; not only that the valuation improving, and extending governmental properties by
of such properties in one city may be comparable with purchase or construction during 1912 are represented by
that in another, but as an aid to the keeping of a com the payments for outlays. Inasmuch as the increase in
plete account of operating costs and a means of assur the v&lue of municipal properties from the beginning to
ing honest and prudent administration of the public the end of the year should correspond approximately
to the -outlays for such properties, less depreciation,
resources.
Comparison of increase in value of municipal prop-,during the same year, a comparative presentation
erties with municipal outlays.—The costs of providing, based on certain data for 1912 and 1911 is of interest.
Table X X X
Number
of cities.
TotalGroup I...,
Group II..,
Group HI.,
Group IV.,
Group V...
1S3
Net outlay
payments for
properties in .
T912.
TOTAL TALUK OF MUK1CTPAL
r&onKtas*
m°
Increase (n valua
tion or municipal
properties.
1911
Excess of
increase in
valuation over
net outlay
payments.
$173,559,891
$3,313,687,279
$3,170,341,866
$173,345,413
$785,522
77,052,878
27,828,732
37,788,042
18,554,963
11,335,276
2,008,138,985
37? 596,746
478,167,333
290,261,496
188,522,719
1,932,930,861
351,920,442
441,988,190
268,779,220
174,723,150
75,208,121
26,676,304
21,432,276
13,799,569
* 1,844,757
»1,152,428
M,G0S,899
2,927,313
2,464,293
» Excess of net outlay payments over Increase In valuation.
The net outlay payments for properties given in the Kalamazoo, Mich,, Wheeling, W. Va., Newton, Mass.,
table are obtained by deducting the outlay payments Galveston, Tex., Decatur and Aurora, HI., and Orange,
for sewers and highways given in Table 18 from the N.J.
net outlay payments as given in Table 4. These pay
The high-pressure water system in New York City
ments were less than the increase in the reported esti was valued at $7,114,857, and the high-pressure serv
mated valuation of permanent properties exclusive of ice pipes in Baltimore at $736,514.
sewers and highways by $785,522. The first three
In many cities the importance of special and careful
groups show an excess of net outlay payments, while valuation of property of this kind is evidontly over
Groups IV and V show an increase in valuation in looked. The usefulness of census statistics of city
excess of the net outlay payments.
enterprises depends—no less for this class of enter
Value of properties of general departments.—Of the
prises than for the public service enterprises—on frovaluation reported for departmental properties, quent and exact valuations of the city property em
amounting to $2,115,490,382, $914,221,636, or 43.2 ployed, for only on the basis of such valuations can
per cent, represents the valuation of parks, gardens, statistics be compiled which will have any great value
and playgrounds, nearly one-half of this amount being for purposes of comparison.
reported by New York City. Next in order of value
Value of properties of public service enterprises.—The
come schools, with a valuation of $604,394,759; gen value of properties held by public service enterprises
eral governmental buildings, with a valuation of $194,- at the close of the fiscal year 1912 amounted to
687,206; and properties of fire departments, with a $1,214,744,357, as compared with $1,226,315,857 re
valuation of $97,634,976. Over one-fifth, or 20.2 per ported for 1911. The amount for 1911 included the
cent, of the total valuation for schools, was reported value of the rapid transit systems in Now York, N. Y.,
by New York City.
and Boston, Mass., and of a ferry in Portsmouth, Va.,
Value of properties of municipal service enterprises.—which in 1912 are included in the value of investment
Of the total valuation reported for properties of munic properties in Table 26. Of the total value of public
ipal service enterprises, amounting to $21,334,440, service enterprises, 74.9 per cent represents the valuo
60.4 per cent, or $12,890,402, represents the value of of water-supply systems, 10.8 per cent the valuo of
electric light systems. The other enterprises of this docks, wharves, and landings, and 14.3 per cent the
type, named in the order of the valuations reported, value of all other enterprises. Thirty-five and eight*
were high-pressure water systems and service pipes, tenths per cent of the total value of public service en
asphalt repair and paving plants, and a printing de terprises was reported by New York City.
partment. Electric light systems were reported by
The total value reported for electric light and power
21 cities, Chicago, HI., reporting over half of the total systems was $19,967,797. Electric light systems were
value of such properties, while for New York, N. Y., reported by 18 cities, namely: Chicago, HI., Clevoland
Pittsburgh, Pa., and Nashville, Tenn., the valuations and Cincinnati, Ohio, Los Angeles, CaL, Seattle, Wash.,
given were between $600,000 and $664,000. The Columbus, Ohio, Tacoma, Wash., Kansas City, Kans.,
other municipalities operating electric light systems Fort Wayne, Ind., Jacksonville, Fla., Holyoke, Mass.,
as municipal service enterprises were Detroit, Mich., Bay a t y , Mich., Hamilton; Ohio, Pasadena, CaL,
Milwaukee, Wis., Richmond, Va., Grand Rapids' Lansing, Mich., Jamestown, N. Y., Joplin, Mo., and
Mich., Fort Worth, Tex., Springfield, HI., St, Joseph, Austin, Tex. GasH3Upply systems were reported by
Mo., Little Rock, Ark., Topeka, Kans., Lincoln, Nebr., Richmond, Va., Duluth, Minn., Holyoke, Mass.,
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
"Wheeling, W. Va., Hamilton, Ohio, and Taunton,
Mass. Holyoke, Mass., and Hamilton, Ohio, operate
both electric and gas-supply systems. The value of
the plant and equipment for electric lighting in Hol
yoke, Mass., was $822,135, and that for gas lighting
was $671,643. The correspondingfiguresfor Hamilton,
Ohio, were $260,876 and $230,343.
The several items constituting the group of miscella
neous public service enterprises included under the
title "All other" in Table 27 are shown in Table
XX XT, which follows.
Table X X X I
CRT AND ENTERPRISE.
Grand total.
Value.
$107,622,754
Toll bridges.
New York, N . Y . .
Covington, K y . . . .
Newport, Ky
Lacrosse, w i s . . . .
Shreveport, La
87,765,487
87,426,279
38,000
46,000
1K5.20S
70,000
Real estate*
Oakland, Cal
rateison, N . J . . . .
Camden, N . J
Charleston, S. C .
6,578,450
6,150,000
1,000
57,450
370,000
Public halls
Pittsburgh, Ta
Buffalo, N . Y
.
Cincinnati, Ohio
Itochester.N.Y
Denver, Colo..
*
St. Paul.Minn
Oakland, Cal
Richmond, Vo
Houston. Tex
Peoria, ill
Wichita, Kans
Saginaw, Mich
Chattanooga, Tenn
Charlotte,!*. C
Muskogee, Okla
3,073,258
1,062,375
330,500
213,425
117,291
672,000
425,000
.\.
11,200
33,750
402,722
70,650
214,645
103,000
131,700
85,000
100,000
Subways for pipes and wires.
Baltimore, Md
Utlca, N. V
Erie, Pa
New Britain, Conn
New Castle, Pa.
Auburn,N.Y
2,779,276
2,494,234
54,495
26,000
45,820
5S,000
100,727
Canals...
Newark, N . J .
Augusta, G a . .
2,236,041
133,801
2,103,140
City farms..,
San Diego, C a t . . . .
Pasadena, Cal
1,279,140
794,680
484,460
Street railways.
San Francisco, Cal....,
Seattle, Wash
630,201
579,300
50,901
Miscellaneous
Boston, Mass.;
Ferries
Los Angeles, Cal.:
Municipal newspaper...
New Orleans, La.:
Belt Railway, including sugar sheds..
_ Water and sewer pipes
Portland, Oreg.:
Dredging plant..
Towage and pilotage equipment
PortlandVMe.r
^ Municipal organ...
Charleston, 8. C :
Powder magaxine.
Muskogee, Okla.:
Fairgrounds.
2,380,001
610,200
14,666
810,000
32,000
592,735
213,350
60,000
7,050
40,000
TABLE 28.
Replacement value of public improvements.—The
value shown for public improvements is either (1) the
original cost of construction with allowances for changes
that may have occurred in the price of materials and
107
of labor and for depreciation, or (2) the estimated
present cost less depreciation of original structures.
In theory such values may be ascertained within a
reasonable degree of accuracy, but the administrative
significance of such values not being appreciated the
valuations for many cities either have not been made
or are far from accurate or complete. I t is on account
of this fact that no totals are given in the table. The
valuation of improvements in the new cities of the
West is a comparatively easy problem, and that fact
Undoubtedly accounts for the somewhat more com
plete figures for those cities than for the older cities in
the Eastern states.
Nearly all public improvements fall naturally under
one or the other of the broad headings " Sewer systems*'
and "Highways." A few cities, however, reported
valuations, small in the aggregate, for such improve
ments as levees, unproductive docks and wharves,
retaining walls, etc., which can not logically be classed
under either of the above headings and which are
therefore shown by themselves in a column headed
"All other public improvements."
It is apparent that there is little comparability
between the figures for the different cities reporting
except in the case of sewer and drainage systems.
The mileage and present cost of construction of each
type of sewer are known by every well-informed city
engineer, and there would seem little reason why the
estimated value shown should not correspond closely
with the replacement value. In reporting the value
of sewers, however, some engineers have reported con
struction costs and have allowed little or nothing for
depreciation. This is especially the case in cities
which have had a modern sewer system for only a
few years. For such cities the value shown is perhaps
greater than the actual value, but the difference is not
great enough to affect seriously the comparability of
the figures. Chicago reported a greater valuation for
its sewer and drainage system than any other city,
but the figures included the valuation of a drainage
canal valued at $37,127,915;
The valuations of highway improvements are incom
plete and inaccurate. The valuations of street pave
ments and bridges have received more careful consider
ation from city officials than those of other highway
improvements, and for many cities the values of those
improvements are all that were reported Under this
heading. There are, however, other highway improve
ments which are entitled to be listed in a complete
inventory. Nearly every city has in years past made
large outlays for the purchase of land for street pur
poses, for grading, etc., and as such outlays represent
wealth of the city invested in highways, in a broad
sense, a comparison of expenditures for such purposes
in different cities would be of interest. Many cities
have made large outlays for grading, but, so far as
reported, Cleveland, Ohio, Seattle and Spokane,
\Vash., St. Paul, Minn., Dayton, Ohio, and Kansas
108
FINANCIAL STAT1STICS OF CITIES.
debt" with the exact significance assigned to the term
"net funded andfloatingdebt" in the reports for 1909
and 1910, the conclusion having been reached after
some discussion and reflection that the shorter terms
may with propriety be used in speaking of the debt
to which the Bureau of the Census in 1909 and 4910
gave the longer designation.
Indebtedness classified by the governmental unit by
which incurred.—In Table 29 the gross debt of the
several cities and groups of cities is first classified ac
cording to the division of tho city's government by
which the indebtedness was incurred. Of the govr
ernmental indebtedness of tho 195 cities, exclusive of
the Massachusetts cities to the commonwealth, 942
per cent was incurred by the city corporation, 2.6 per
cent by the independent school districts, and 3.2 per
cent by the other divisions of the city governments,
including for certain cities of Groups I and II that
portion of the debts of the counties in which tho
cities were located, represented by the percentage of
the assessed valuation of the property located in the
county that was reported for tho territory under the
authority of the city corporation. Tho amounts re
ported in the column headed "Other governmental
TABUS 29.
units of city" were as follows: County government,
Gross and net indebtedness of cities.—Table 29 has$9,173,430 in Chicago, HI., and tl\p total amount re
been arranged to show both the gross and net in ported in the specified column for Cleveland, Ohio,
debtedness of the cities covered by this report at the Pittsburgh, Pa., Detroit, Mich., Buffalo, N. Y., Mil
close of the fiscal year 1912. The terms gross in waukee, Wis., Cincinnati, Ohio, Los Angeles, Cal,
debtedness and gross debt are here used as designationsNewark, N. J., and Minneapolis, Minn.; park and
of the aggregate of all the outstanding debt obliga driveway districts, $12,806,829 in Chicago, 111., and
tions, and the terms net indebtedness and net debt are the total amount reported in the specified column for
used as the designations of the gross funded and float Tacoma, Wash., East St. Louis, Peoria, Springfield,
ing debt, less the assets of sinking funds accumulated and Rockford, HI.; sanitary district, $17,879,975 in
Chicago, HI., and tho total amount reported in the
for their amortization.
specified
column for Oakland, Cal.; poor districts,
The terms "net indebtedness" and "net debt" as
total
amount
reported in the specified column for
here used differ materially from the use of the term
Philadelphia,
Pa.;
Port of Portland, total amount re
in preceding census reports for cities having a popu
lation of over 30,000. In the reports for the years ported in the specified column for Portland, Oreg.;
1902 to 1908, inclusive, the Bureau of the Census ap bridge district, $350,000 in Portland, Mo,; water dis
plied the term "net debt" to the total outstanding obli trict, $5,152,635 in Portland, Me.; and county super
gations of cities, less the amount of sinking fund visors' fund, total amount reported in specified col
assets. The net debt so computed seldom repre umn for Rochester, Syracuse, and Troy, N. Y.
sented the actual net debt, because the computation
Indebtedness classified by character of outstanding
did not take account of the assets of cities provided debt obligations.—Indebtedness classified according to
for the redemption of current debt, including special the character of the outstanding obligations is shown
assessment certificates, revenue bonds, warrants, and in Table 29 under three principal headings, "Funded
trust liabilities. Recognizing tins fact, the Bureau of or fixed," "Floating," and "Current," The first two
the Census in its reports for 1909 and 1910 applied classes are not subdiyided, but the current indebted
the term "net funded andfloatingdebt" to the differ ness is classified under four subheadings: "Special
ence between the gross funded and floating debt and assessment bonds and certificates," "Revenue bonds
those sinking fund assets which had been specifically and notes," "Warrants," and "Obligations on trust
provided for the amortization of such debt. In com account*"
puting that net funded and floating debt for the re
Indebtedness classiHed as funded.—Under the title
ports mentioned no account was taken of the assets "Funded or fixed" are tabulated those debts evi
in sinking funds which were provided for the amorti denced by formal instruments which have a number
zation of special assessment certificates. In this re of years to run and for the amortization of which no
port and in the report for 1911 the Bureau of the, assets other than those of sinking funds have as yet
Census used the terms "net indebtedness" and "net been specifically authorized or appropriated. This
City, Kans., are the only cities that have inventoried
such improvements.
#
The larger part of the value reported in the column
headed "Street pavements, gutters, and curbing" rep
resents the value of pavements. Where curbs and
gutters were reported, their value was generally in
cluded with that of pavements, though for a few cities
it was reported separately.
Only about half of the cities reported values for
sidewalks, and some of them reported only the value
of sidewalks adjoining land owned by the city.
The column in Table 28 headed "All other/' under
- "Highways," includes the valuation of various high
way improvements, the specific character of which was
not reported; also for Cleveland, Ohio, and St. Paul,
Minn., certain amounts for grading; and for Cincin
nati, Ohio, and Pittsburgh, Pa., valuations of county
roads. In the column headed "All other public im
provements" are shown for Rochester, N. T., and
Denver; Colo., the valuation of retaining walls; and
for other cities, valuations of such improvements as
levees, unproductive wharves and landings, and street
lamps and standards.
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
class of debts includes bonds, corporation stocks,
certificates, and other long-term debt obligations
receiving various local designations.
Indebtedness classified as floating.—In the column
with the title "Floating" are tabulated the amounts
of indebtedness represented by outstanding judg
ments, time warrants, and certificates of indebtedness
that do not conform to the census definition of
revenue loans, together with the special revenue
loans to be redeemed from the tax levy of the suc
ceeding year, and all other short-term obligations
where payment has not been provided for from the
proceeds of the current tax levy. The amount and
character of these floating debt obligations included
in Table 29 are shown in Table XXXII, which fol
lows. This table gives the number of cities report
ing each kind of floating debt obligation and the
aggregate amount of such obligations outstanding.
109
cities to the state are of two kinds: (1) Those represented
by the city's obligations to the state to reimburse it for
the advances made for the city's portion of the expense
of abolishing railroad grade crossings, and (2) those
represented by the obligations imposed on the cities
by the state laws for reimbursing the state for the
apportionment to the several cities of the costs of
installing the metropolitan sewer, park, and water
systems, including the improvements of the Charles
River Basin. These are municipal improvements
which have been acquired and completed under the
direction and supervision of the state authorities in the
interest of the city of Boston and the adjoining munici
palities. The earnings of the state sinking funds
accumulated to meet this indebtedness amounted to
nearly $600,000. Taking account of this fact and mak
ing all due allowance for all omitted factors affecting
the indebtedness of the. cities to the state, there was
a net reduction during the year 1912 of not far from
$500,000
not shown by the payments of this report.
FLOATING PKBT
Table XXXII
OBUQATIONS.
Indebtedness classified as current—In the column
KIND or DEB¥ OBLIGATION.
headed "Special assessment bonds and certificates," a
Number of
Amount
cities
subdivision of current debt obligations, are tabulated
reported.
reporting.
those obligations which are to be paid from* special
130,647,956
Total..
assessments. These obligations may be long-term or
34,062,995
Corporate stock notes
shortr-term bonds or certificates, or outstanding war
7,033,066
Special revenue bonds
4,859,333
Accrued Interest on premium bonds
rants
payable at a specified time.
1,702,727
Contracts
763,000
Special notes
The
amounts shown in the column headed "Revenue
693,058
Judgments
699,791
Special obligations to public trust funds.,
bonds
and
notes" represent (1) short-term obligations
452,043
Interest-bearing warrants duo on call
236,269
Time warrants
issued
with
the distinct pledge or general understand
1S2,1S9
Land purchase.......
23,481
Konmterest-bearmg demand note
ing
that
they
are to be met from future collections of
5.000
Noninterest-bearing sewer bond
3,003
specified current revenues other than special assess
Old city currency used as currency
1,796
Water-scrip certificates
20,200
ments, and (2) overdrafts by the financial officers of
Not reported
the city. The debt obligations first mentioned have
various
designations, as "revenue loans," "revenue
Special debt obligations to public trust funds.—
bonds,"
"anticipation
tax warrants," and "temporary
Among the debt obligations included in Table XXXM
revenue
loans."
S3 "Floating," the kind that ranked seventh in
amount outstanding was that designated "Special - In the column with the title "Warrants" are in
obligations to public trust funds." Such obliga cluded the amounts of noninterest-bearing warrants,
tions arise when cities receive money for public orders, vouchers, and audits due but unpaid at the
trust purposes and convert the same to general uses. close of the year, except so-called warrants to be paid
These debt obligations were reported in 1912 by 12 from special assessments, which are included in the
column headed "Special assessment bonds .and certifi
cities, as shown by the following statement:
cates." Warrants or orders against cash derived from
special assessment loans are not themselves special
City
City
assessment loans, and consequently are tabulated in
Amount.
num
CttT.
Amount! I num
cmr.
ber.
ber.
this column with the other outstanding warrants.
Outstanding warrants were reported by 130 of the
125,000
39
49
$5,200:
143,835
42 Fail River, Mass
51 New Bedford, Mass..
145,459 \
195
cities covered by the present report, including 5
117,673
45 Grand Rapids, Mich.
98
2,000
7,853
46
122 York, Pa
of
the
9 cities in Group I, all of the 9 cities in Group
.3,700;
61,149
47 Bridgeport, Conn.....
146
6,000
45,717
168
48 Lowell, Mass
II, 30 of the 38 cities in Group III, 37 of the 57 cities
36,200
in Group IV, and 49 of the 82 cities in Group V. In
Indebtedness of Massachusetts cities to ihe state.— some cities warrants are issued only when personally
Table 29 gives the floating debt as above defined of all called for, and are thus for the most part immediately
the 195 cities covered by this report, with the excep presented for redemption; in others the treasurer's
books are kept open for some days or weeks after the
tion of the cities of Massachusetts.
close
of thefiscalyear, so as to charge to each year all
The table does not include for the cities mentioned
payments
of the costs of that year; in still others the
their debts to the commonwealth, although it includes
treasurer
sets
aside cash in "suspense accounts" for
all other debts. The funded debts of Massachusetts
110
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
the redemption of unpaid warrants, which may thus vestments, and not public service enterprises. As a
be treated as " paid " in the appropriation account. In rule the debts of cities for the purpose of the general,
several cities the outstanding warrants are of two departmental and municipal service enterprises were
classes: (1) Unclaimed audits, for which warrants considerably greater than those for public service en
have not been issued by the auditor because not yet terprises and investments, but for several cities the
called for, and (2) unpaid vouchers, where the war debt outstanding for public service enterprises and
investments was the larger. The cities with this
rants have been duly issued but not yet redeemed.
In the column with the title "Obligations on trust greater indebtedness for public service enterprises and
account" are tabulated debt obligations arising from investments were Los Angeles, Cal., Tacoma, Wash.,
the trusteeship of private trusts and public trusts for Troy, N. Y., Portland, Me., Flint, Mich., Macon, Gav
Pittsfield, Mass., Amsterdam, N. Y., Newport, Ky.,
nonmunicipal uses.
La
Indebtedness classified by creditor.—Under this gen Crosse, Wis., Colorado Springs, Colo., and Council
eral heading the total gross debt included in Table 29 Bluffs, Iowa.
Increase during year in debts and sinking fund
is separated into two classes, that which was owing
(1) to the public, and (2) to city funds with invests assets.—Under the general title "Increase during the
ments, including the sinking, investment, and public year in—" there are given under descriptive head
trust funds for municipal uses. In the column headed ings (1) the total funded and floating debts, (2) the
"City funds with investments" is included the par sinking fund assets, and (3) the net debt. Of the 195
value of all city securities held by sinking and invest cities covered by the report, 117 showed increases
ment funds and public trust funds for municipal uses, during the year in net debt, amounting in the aggre
while in the column headed/'The public" is included gate to $144,090,422, and 77 cities showed decreases
the par value of all other city debt obligations out in such debt aggregating $10,009,075.
standing, including the municipal liabilities by reason
Per capita indebtedness.—In the columns headed
of public trusts for nonmunicipal uses and private "Per capita." there are given the per capita of (1) the
trusts. Of the total debt, $516,597,357, or 18.2 per total gross debt, (2) the gross debt incurred for gen
cent, was held by the three classes of funds mentioned. eral departments and municipal service enterprises, (3)
In some cities more than one-third of the total debt the gross debt incurred for public service enterprises,
outstanding was held by these funds, the largest por and (4) net debt. The figures given in the column
tion being held, as a rule, by the sinking funds.
referred to under (1) are in the case of each city the
Indebtedness classified by purpose for which irir sum of those given in the columns referred to under
curred.—A third classification of Table 29 segregates (2) and (3). No segregation of net indebtedness cor
debt obligations of cities into debts incurred for (1) responding to that given of gross indebtedness was
the purposes of general departments and municipal practicable. It should be noted, therefore, that in
service enterprises, and (2) the purposes of public thesefiguresfor the net funded and floating indebted
service enterprises and investments. Of the total debt ness the indebtedness for public service enterprises is
recorded in the table, 70.2 per cent was incurred for included, and hence in any comparison of such in
general purposes and 29.7 per cent for public service debtedness between individual cities consideration
enterprises and investments. The revenues derived should be taken of the indebtedness of such enterprises
by most cities from public service enterprises and in shown in Table 29 and the value of such enterprises
vestments are sufficient to meet the interest accruing as given in Table 27.
on the second class of debts. Those debts, as a rule,
Increase ofindebtedness with size ofciHea.—lkQ differ
do not rest as burdens upon the general taxpayers, as ent per capitafiguresof Table 29 for the five groups of
they are not met from their contributions, but, like cities, classified according to population, are repro
special assessment loans, are paid from revenues de duced in the statement which follows.
rived from those specially benefited. The special
assessment loans constituted 5.2 per cent of the total
roi CATtTA or
indebtedness reported; hence the total burden of debt
0*033 DEBT.
that rests upon special classes of citizens is 34.9 per
For gen For pub* Per cap
cent of the total, while that which is to be paid by
eral de lie ser
CBOtr or crars WITH srsamo
ita of
part*
net
roruLATiox.
en
taxation of the general body of citizens without regard
meats vice
debt
ter*
Total. and mil* prises
to special benefits received is 65.1 per cent of the total.
nidnal
in
serried and
vest*
enter
Included in the debt shown in Table 29 as incurred
ments.
prises.
for public service enterprises and investments are debt
$95.50
....!..„...
obligations of Philadelphia, Pa., and Toledo, Ohio, Over 600,000.
143.12
1137.74
I94-&
71.83
Over 300,000 and less than 600,000.„
30**44
88.00
67.56
issued for the construction and acquisition of gas Over
44.61
100,000 and less than 300,000.
10*81
68.39
61. 58
Over 40,000 and leas than 100JMO.
14.22 1 42.85
£5.50
41.28
works, and the debt obligations of Cincinnati, Ohio, Over 30,000 and leas than 50,00),
38.12
11.22
38.44
tt.66
issued for the construction of the Cincinnati & Southern
Railway. These properties *are now leased to and
The most striking fact shown by the foregoing
operated by private, corporations, and hence are in statement is the increase of indebtedness with the size
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
of cities, the per capita indebtedness in each column
being smallest for the cities with the least population
and increasing group by group to that of the largest
number of inhabitants. The facts shown in the state
ment are presented graphically in Diagram 18.
Ill
cates," classified according to the reported purpose for
which the outstanding obligations were issued.
The classification for many cities is more or less im
perfect owing to the imperfect records of those cities.
The classes of debt obligations by purpose for which
issued
that are most accurately shown for all cities are
DIAGRAM 18.—INCREASE OP PER CAPITA INDEBTEDNESS WITH
those
for
the water-supply and lighting systems. The
INCREASE IN SIZE OF CITIES: 1912*
debt
incurred
for other public service enterprises is not
oaou#v or a n t * WITH
vtctfoo rotuuiTiON e
so fully exhibited, and this is also true of the debt in
curred for municipal service enterprises. Of the debt
incurred for general purposes the segregation is thor
oughly made for but few cities, as is evidenced by the
fact that the amount tabulated as incurred for " com
60000 TO 100000
bined or unreported purposes" forms 14.6 per cent of
the total. Debt tabulated as for funding purposes is
•0000 TO 60QO0
in much the same category as that tabulated for com
fcfiGfiaOtMJULM»A«THtMT» AND MUMCML
bined or unreported purposes, it being possible that
some of that tabulated for refunding purposes was in
service or public
The per capita net indebtedness was in excess of curred for constructing municipal
rl
service
enterprises.
$100 for New York, N. Y., Boston, Mass./ Cincinnati,
Bonds issued under such: terms as "local improve
Ohio, Los Angeles, Cal., New Orleans, La., Omaha,
Nebr., Tacoma, Wash., Portland, Me., Atlantic City, ment," "street improvement," and "general improve
N. J., and Galveston, Tex. Eight cities showed net ment" have so far as possible been tabulated under the
per capita indebtedness of less than $10. The cities more descriptive headings of the table, and only when
of the five groups with the highest and the lowest per such tabulation was impossible have they been tabu
lated as for "combined or unreported purposes."
capita of net Indebtedness were as follows:
Issues of bonds described as "refunding" have been
classified
according to the purposes for which the debt
GROUT*
Highest city.
Lowest city.
Amount.
Amount
they replaced was incjirred, whenever these purposes
could be discovered without too extended a search of
I
SIS. 09
New York, N . Y
$156.67 Detroit, Mich
24 09
139.18 Washington, D.. C...*
uIll
the earlier records, and the amount tabulated under
^3.82
100.23
Denver, Colo*.........
Omaha, Nebr
\..
IV
8.93
128.73
Portland, Mf.. ,
this heading in Table 30, representing 4.2 per cent of
V
113.24
3.75
the grand total of funded and special assessment debt,
includes
only what could not be so classified. This
Diagram 19 presents graphically the facts contained
amount
is
$19,966,627 greater than the corresponding
in the foregoing statement showing the great contrast
anv>unt
shown
in Table 30 of the report for 1911.
in the indebtedness of cities of the same approximate
The
designation
"funding" is applied to bonds
population.
issued to meet unpaid claims and judgments and out
DIAGRAM ID.—PER CAPITA NET INDEBTEDNESS OF CITIES WITH
standing warrants, but the column so headed doubtless
HIGHEST AND LOWEST PER CAPITA IN GROUPS OP CITIES WITH
includes many obligations that would more properly be
SPECIFIED POPULATION: 1912.
classified as issued for refunding. The debt obligations
w * * i or CITICT * w n
reported
as issued for funding purposes amounted in all
• t a r n s PomtMioM
OVtR tOOOOO
to
7.9
per
cent of the grand total and was $6,976,278
NfWYORK
DtTROtT
more
than
the amount reported under that designation
SO000O TO tOOOOO
CINCINNATI
for
1911.
WASHINGTON]
tOOOOO TOM0000
Table XXXIII presents a classification of the in
OMAHA
OCNVEft
debtedness
incurred for public service enterprises and
»O00O t o 100000
investments that is included in Table 30 in the column
PORTLAND
tfttf
headed "All other."
*0000 TOMOOO
GALVtSTON
A more.precise classification of debt obligations
•PRlNCttUO l |
according to purpose of issue on the part of the several
cities is still to be desired. This is particularly the
TABLE 30.
case with the special assessment debt, of the total
Funded and special assessment indebtedness, classified amount of which, $148,019,181, as shown by Table 29,
by purpose for which incurred.—Table 30 presents a no less than $92,075,308, or 62.2 per cent, can be
summary of that portion of the total city indebtedness classed only as incurred for combined or unreported
to which, in the text description of Table 29, has been purposes. It is a gratifying fact, however, that the
given the specific designation "funded debt/' to officials of a number of important cities are taking an
gether with that portion of current debt represented increased interest in this matter, and it is hoped that
by outstanding "special assessment bonds and certifi their example may be generally followed.
I
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
112
Table XXXIII
City
mim-|
ber,
CITY, AND ENTERPRISE fOB -WHICH INCURRED.
Total
Outstanding
indebtedness
incurred for
specified
miscellaneous
public service
enterprises.
,
$248,369,581
New York, N . Y . .
282,420,446
Docks and ferries.
Rapid transit
Toll bridges
Markets
Philadelphia, Pa.:
Convention hall..
Boston, Mass.
Rapid transit.
Ferry
107,549,550
93,162,337
78,322,944
3,385,615
49 Cambridge, Mass.:
Cemetery
21,292,700
460,000
51 New Bedford, Mass.:
Wharf
.
485,000
175,000
Buffalo, N.Y.:
Market....
10,210,000
6,965,000
3,225,000
913,320
913,220
100
80,000
San Francisco, Cal.:
Street railway....
Cincinnati, Ohio
Southern Railway
Purchase of leasen ►Ids..
Market
Municipal lodging house.
1,900,000
17,661,600
17,432,000
153,600
56,000
20,000
14 Los Angeles. Cal.:
Harbor improvement.
2,925,000
15 Newark, N . J.:
Docks
100,000
16 N e w Orleans, La..
Public belt railroad.
Markets
19 Jersey City, N.'J.,
Docks...
Harbor.
21 Kansas City, Mo.:
Market
514,770
458,020
56,750
187,100
127,100
60,000
e
300,000
22 Indianapolis, Ind.:
Market
3,000
24 Portland, Oreg.:
Docks
,
Rochester, N . Y .
Public m a r k e t . . .
Convention hall..
450,000
244,000
144,000
100,000
26 Denver. Colo.:
Auditorium..
239,400
27 Louisville, K y . :
Wharves
St. Paul, Minn.:
Auditorium...
1,000
Toledo, Ohio:
Market....
31
Oakland, Cal.
Wharves and docks.
Auditorium
tt
76 UUca,N.Y.:
Subways....
77 Elizabeth, N. J.:
Docks.
79
80 Akron, Ohio:
Market house...
81 Manchester, N.H.;
Cemetery.. 4...
91 Jacksonville, Fla.:
Water and electric light plant.
101 Wichita, Kans
,
Forum........
Market bouse.
Cemetery
107 Canton, Ohio:
Market house and auditorium.
108 Mobile, Ala.:
Wharves
110 Saginaw, Mich...
Auditorium*..
Market
116 Augusta, Oa.:
Canal....
117 Springfield, Ohio:
Markets
25,000
121 Oiathmoota,Tenn.:
Wharf
.„
180,000
,
Market and market hous^
Wharf and slip construction
Norfolk, Va.:
Market home, site and buildings..
73 Schenectady, N.Y.:
Public market
Mo.:
75 S t . *
Subwayforwires.
Cemeteries
1,710.331
124 Berkeley, Cai.:
Wharves....
1,541,480
168,851
137 Racine, Wis.:
Cemetery.
29,000
138 Superior, Wis.:
I>ock property.
60,000
140 Macon, Om.:
Market..
37 Memphis, Tenn.:
Market h o u s e .
67 Youngstown, Ohio:
Market house....
120 New Britain, Conn.
34 Worcester, Mass.:
Cemetery
Tacoma, Wash.:
Wharf and dock.
200,000
29 Columbus, Ohio:
Market
£8 Camden, N.J.:
Docks
Houston, Tex.
Outstanding
indebtedness
incurred for
specified
miscellaneous
public service
enterprises.
837,500
Market house
Asphalt repair plant.
45 Grand Rapids Mich.:
Market
21,752,700
660,000
Memorial Hall.
Market
44 Dayton, Ohio.
Nashville, Term.:
Hay market..
Markets
Cemetery....
Baltimore, Md...
Pittsburgh, Pa...
OTT, AKD ENTCKnUSE FOR WHICH IXCUTUIED.
ber.
1,500,000
Cleveland, Ohio..
Bocks and wharves.
Conduits
;
City
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
Table XXMII-Contlnued.
City
num-l
ber.
*
OTt, AXD ENTEEPEISE FOE WlOCtt BfCUKRED.
144 Montgomery, Ala
Market
Wharf warehouse
Outstanding
indebtedness
incurred for
specified
miscellaneous
public serried
enterprises.
Jl10,000
100,000
10,000
145 Chester, Fa.:
Wharf
55,000
150 New Castle, Pa.:
Conduit
50,000
155 Knoxvflle, Tcnn,;
Market
15,000
160 Charlotte, N. C :
Auditorium
65,000
163 Auburn, N. Y.:
Subways for pipes and wires
60,061
City
num
ber.
CITY, AND ENTERPRISE FOR WHICH INCURRED,
166 Portsmouth, Va
Ferry and boat construction
Cemetery*.....
178 Niagara Falls, N. Y.:
Market
:
^„„
187 Lorain, Ohio:
Cemetery
183 Austin, Tex.:
Cemetery....
189 Newport, Ky.:
Tollbridge
191 La Crosse, Wis.:
Toil bridge
192 Lynchburg, Va.:
Market and auditorium
113
Outstanding
indebtedness
incurred for
specified
miscellaneous
public service
enterprises.
925,300
25,000
300
39,400
8,000
50,000
37,000
107,200
54,500
Comparison of funded and special assessment in ratio of debt to valuation was therefore 43.6 per cent,
debtedness with the value of municipal properties.—The as compared with 43.5 per cent in 1911- The fore
classification of funded and special assessment debts, going percentages take no account of sinking fund
according to the purpose for which they were in assets which at the close of 1912 constituted 20.4 per
curred, provides a basis for comparison between the cent of the outstanding funded and floating debt. If
amount of such debts and the value of the properties consideration is taken of these assets, the ratio of net
on account of which they were incurred, as shown by funded and floating debt to property valuation was,
Table 27. Because of the fact that the purposes for for the year 1912, 34.7 per cent. This would indicate
which debt obligations were issued are often not stated that the revenue accumulations of the cities—that is,
clearly, it is impossible in many cases to accurately the interests of the cities in their permanent properties '
determine the ratio between the value of lartds, as proprietors—were equal to 65.3 per cent of the value
buildings, and equipment of departments, and the debt of those properties. This percentage is slightly larger
incurred for their acquisition. The greater part of the than those given on page 71, showing the proportion
debt incurred for the acquisition of departmental of revenue receipts expended directly or indirectly
properties is included under the heading "Incurred for for outlays by the 195 cities reported for 1912.
general purposes" in Table 30, though considerable This greater percentage affords evidence that the
amounts appear in the columns headed f 'Incurred for revenue expenditures for outlays are greater than the
refunding" and "Incurred for funding." Deducting depreciation in property values due to use in service
the amount of funded debt tabulated as incurred for and obsolescence. The percentage given above
combined or unreported purposes from the total debt indicates that about two-thirds of the reported
reported as incurred for general purposes, the remain valuation of the properties of departments repre
der, $1,361,874,228, maybe divided into two parts. One sents property that has already been paid for by the
part, the total debt for sewers and highways, plus the cities from revenues received. (See tabular state
special assessment loans for combined or unreported ment, page 106.)
The ratio between the debt incurred for water-sup
purposes, amounting to $666,729,873, may be said to
have been incurred for public improvements. The ply systems and the total valuation of such systems
other part, amounting to $695,144,355, or 51 per cent is of special interest. The valuation of the waterof the total, may be considered as having been in supply systems reported for 1912, as shown in Table
curred for the properties of departments. To this 27, was $909,604,279. For these properties Table 30
should be added a portion of the funded debt classified shows a debt of $475,544,000, or 52.3 per cent of the
as incurred for combined or unreported purposes, valuation, as compared with 53.6 per cent in 1911,
and of that shown as incurred for refunding or for 49.4 per cent in 1910, and 46.7 per cent in 1909. In
funding purposes—that is, of the debt incurred for eight cities the debt incurred for the water-supply
purposes not definitely reported. Assuming that the system was in excess of its reported valuation.
same proportion of this debt as of that incurred for
TABLE 31.
specified purposes (51 per cent) was for the acquisition
Funded and special assessment indebtedness, classified
of departmental properties, the outstanding debt on
by
year of maturity.—Table 31* shows the debt obliga
account of such properties would amount to
tions
for which statistics are given in Table 30, classi
$922,650,502.
fied
according
to year of maturity for the 20 years
The total valuation of departmental properties in
next following 1912. For $1,265,060,154, or 47.6 per
1912, as given in Table 27, was $2,115,490,382, and the
28656°—14 8
U4
FINANCIAL STAT1STICS OF CITIES.
cent of the total, the year of maturity is later than
1932, and for $110,254,688, or 4,1 per cent, it was not
ascertained. Of this latter amount, $2,487,820 repre
sents tha principal of "premium bonds" in New
Orleans, for which the amount to mature each year
is determined by lot, while a considerable part con
sists of serial bonds for which the amounts maturing
each year were not specified.
TABLE 33.
Par value of debt obligations issued and redeemed dur*
ing the year.—la Table 21, under tho heading "Bonds,
notes, warrants, and judgments," are shown the re
ceipts from the issue of city bonds, notes, and war
rants, including accounting receipts for judgments re
corded against tho city by tho various divisions of the
city government, and tho payments by thoso divisions
for the redemption or cancellation of such obligations,
TABLE 32.
including the payments by Massachusetts cities to the
Interesirlearing debt, classified by rate of interest— state for the reduction of their indebtedness to the
The debt for which statistics are presented in Table 32 commonwealth on account of tho metropolitan dis
comprises the funded and special assessment debts, trict loans, and for the repayment of the state advances
which are shown in the two tables immediately pre on account of the abolition of grado crossings, as ex*
ceding, together with the outstanding revenue loan8 plainedonpages91,97,99,and 109. InTablo33i3shown
and floating debt; it is the sum of the indebtedness the par value of the principal classes of these obligar
shown in the first four columns under the heading tions issued or entered of record during 1912. In the
'/Classified by character of outstanding debt obliga feeing of so-called notes or warrants tho cities seldom
tions" in Table 29. The larger part of the current or never secure any premium or are compelled to allow
debt shown in the columns headed "Warrants" and any discount other than interest paid in advance,
"Obligations on trust account" in Table 29 is debt which is sometimes spoken of as a discount. In the
bearing no interest: The total interest-bearing debt redemption of the samo class of obligations no dis
for which the rates were reported was $2,681,834,773* counts are secured and no premiums paid. It is other
In addition to this amount, Table 32 shows wise with the issue and redemption of funded or longterm debt obligations. They are seldom issued at par,
$109,052,502, for which the rates were not reported.
Nominal and actual rates of interest-—By nominal and if purchased before maturity for cancellation they
rate of interest is meant the rate per cent stated in the are seldom purchased at par. The great majority of
obligation itself, and by actual rate is meant the per American cities, however, issue debt obligations only
centage which the interest payment specified in the when they can be disposed of at or above par. Owing
obligation constitutes of the actual amount of money to this fact, tho total receipts from the issue of funded
received at its issue (which is its par value, plus the debt obligations generally exceed tho par value, and
premium realized, or less the discount allowed) after thus the receipts shown in the column headed "Bonds,
allowance has been made for the proportional amorti notes, warrants, and judgments" in Table 21 exceed
zation of the premium or the proportional distribution the par value of those obligations as recorded in Table
of the discount over the life of the obligation.
33. The amount of tho excess for the 195 cities in
In considering the rates of interest paid by cities 1912 was $1,719,090. Only 14 cities reported receipts
the fact should be kept in mind that the great majority from tho issue of debt obligations less in amount than
of cities are forbidden by "statute to issue their debt the par value of their obligations issued. With an ad
obligations at a discount. The rates, therefore, are vance in the average rates of interest on city debt ob
frequently high enough to command a premium on ligations during tho last fow years, it is found in 1912
debt obligations sold, and hence the nominal rates are that more cities in redeeming their dobt obligations
somewhat larger than the actual net rate paid. The before maturity were able to secure a discount than
report for 1911 shows the nominal rates of interest for were compelled to pay a premium on the same. The
the years 1905 to 1911, inclusive, for all cities and for foregoing statement takes account of the special pay
each of the five groups of cities.
ment by Massachusetts cities to the state for the re
A discussion of the many elements that determine demption of debt. The debts thus amortized are not
the rates of interest that cities pay for the use of money shown in Table 33, and hence on its face Table 33
is not attempted in this report. It should be stated, seems to indicate a conclusion opposite to that stated
however, that the rates paid depend largely upon the above.
condition of the money market at the time the money
As shown in Table 33, the par value of debt obliga
is borrowed. Thus the rate of interest which a given tions issued during the year exceeded the par value of
city will be obliged to pay on debt obligations issued those redeemed by $173,928,411, and the nominal debt
may vary considerably from year to year, so that the of the cities covered by the report was therefore in
average actual or net rates reported in Table 32 are creased by that amount, less the reduction of the debt
not absolute measures of the credit of cities, since these of Massachusetts cities due to the payments to the
rates must be considered with reference to the date of state and the earnings of the sinking funds for the
sale and other circumstances not shown in the table.
metropolitan district loans.
DESCRIPTION OF
TABLE 34.
Assessed vahwiion ofproperty.—The valuations given
in Table 34 are those of property which is subject to
taxation for the purposes of the divisions of the gov
ernments of the cities covered by this report- In cer
tain states—notably Pennsylvania—these differ some
what from the valuations on which state and county
taxes are levied. This difference results largely from
the fact that certain classes of property, especially
. that of corporations, are in these states subject to state
taxation only, so that the valuation of such property
does not appear in the report of property taxed for
city purposes. In some instances the assessed valua
tion of an independent division of the government of a
city, such as a school or park district, or of a county in
the case of 10 cities of Groups I and II, differs from
that of the city corporation. These differences are
due to (1) differences in the areas of the city corporaration and of the independent division; for example,
all of the 10 counties above referred to, the school
districts of most Ohio cities, the sanitary district of
Chicago, and the bridge district of Portland, Me., in
clude territory outside of the city limits, while a few
school districts include only a portion of the territory
within the cities; (2) different bases of assessment,
as in Dubuque, Iowa, where the city makes its own
assessment of property, while the school district uses a
totally different assessment made by the county for
the samo property; or (3) differences in the classes of
property subject to taxation, as in St; Louis, Mo., where
the school district receives taxes upon certain corpora
tion franchises which are not subject to taxation for
general city purposes.
In examining the figures of Table 34 relating to as
sessed valuation it should be noted that those on a
line for the name of a city represent the assessed valuar
tion of (1) the property within the territory included
in the jurisdiction of the city corporation, and (2) the
property subject to taxation for the maintenance of
that corporation. The figures on a line for one of the
divisions of the governments of the cities represent,
except in the cases indicated by footnotes, the assessed
valuation of all the property subject to taxation for
the maintenance of such division, as appraised at the
assessment made for the purposes of such division,
whether it is the same as or different from that made
for city corporation purposes. When the assessed valu
ation thus shown for any division is established by an
assessment other than that for city corporation purposes, that fact is indicated by a percentage for that
division in the column headed "Reported basis of as
sessment in practice (per cent of estimated true
value)" different from that of the city corporation.
The table gives separately for the city corporation and
for each independent taxing division the valuation of
&U property in the division subject to the general
property tax and of that subject to special property
taxes. (Definitions of the general property tax and
special property taxes are given in the introductory
text on p. 36.)
GENERAL TABLES.
115
The classification of property belonging to railroads,
telegraph companies, and a number of similar corpora
tions varies in the different states; in some states such
properties are classified as real, in some as personal,
in others as both real and personal, and in still others
they are given a separate classification. "Where such
property is given a separate classification and is taxed
for city purposes, the valuation given it is shown in
the table under the heading "Other property/' under
which heading are also tabulated those property and
franchise valuations of corporations for which the de
tails secured were insufficient for a more complete
tabulation.
Reported lasis of assessment in practice.—The re
ported basis of assessment in practice is for most cities
an estimate, furnished by city officials, of the percent^
age which the assessed valuation of property forms of
its true value. For certain of the cities of Minnesota,
Washington, and Wisconsin the figures were obtained
from the state tax commission and represent approxi
mately the proportion that the assessed valuation
bears to the selling value, the figures given having
been determined by a critical investigation involving
a comparison between the assessed valuation of prop
erty sold and the considerations received at such sales.
The figures for both real and personal property for
most cities outside of these three states are far from
correct, although those for real property are the more
trustworthy.
Tax rates.—The rates of levy for the general property
tax per $1,000 of assessed valuation and per $1,000 of
reported true value are given in detail for the several
divisions of the city's government, for city, county,
and state levies and for all combined. In the case of
cities in which taxes are levied at two or more rates
in different divisions of the .city or on different classes
of property, the figures shown in Table 34 for the city
as a whole represent average rates on the basis of the
assessed valuation of property within the city corpo
ration, the specific rates of levy for city purposes on the
same basis for the various divisions of the government
or classes of property of such cities being given in
Table XXXIV, which follows. The rates based on the
reported true value are subject to all the errors in the
estimates given in the column headed "Keported basis
of assessment in practice (per cent of estimated true
value)."
Cities with two or more tax rates.—In the majority of
cities all sections and all property subject to the gen-,
eral property tax are taxed at the same rate. In a
limited number of cities, however, this tax is levied at
different rates, either in different sections or upon dif
ferent classes of property. So far as the data collected
were sufficiently definite to make the needed exhibit,
such data have been so arranged in Table XXXIV,
which follows, as to show for each portion or class of
property in the cities last referred to that are subject
to different rates, the assessed valuations of the prop
erty taxed at each rate, and the amount of taxes
levied at such rates.
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
116
JLGOKCOATS TAX
KJLTK rem
AGGREGATE TAX
RATE PER
Table XXXIV
$1,000 or—
$1,000 or—
CITY AND PARTS OF CITY OB
CLASSES OF PROPERTY.
valuation.
Levies.
value.
i$7.9S
467,504
20,009
18,375
10,223
13.33
13.25
13.05
12.43
8.00
7.95
7.83
7.46
330,934,480
8,110,505
124.51
112.26
237,446,955
43,878,125
4,483,905
11,348,780
15,308,115
6,425,410
91,355
4,779,710
1,281,405
1,897,840
3,992,880
5,036,173
1,090,372
111,201
272,370
304,632
140,716
1,818
102,286
26,525
37,767
86,645
25.00
24.85
24.80
24.00
19.90
21.90
19.90
21.40
20.70
19.90
21.70
12.50
12.42
12.40
12.00
9.95
10.95
9.95
10.70
10.35
9.95
10.85
35, OH, 595
1,510,100
1,408,025
822,525
Old city
Lorin annexation
C l a i m a n t annexation..,
North Brae annexation..
Los Angeles, CaL,
Old city
Annex, 1806
Annex, 1899
Annex, 1906
-.
Colegrove and East Hollywood.
Hollywood, old city
Hollywood, annex, 1908
San Pedro, old city
San Pedro, annex, 1906
San Pedro, Terminal I s l a n d . . . .
Wilmington
Esti
mated
true
value.
i $13.30
$38,812,245
Berkeley, Cal..
$516,111
116,881,725
2,653,320
122.70
111.35
79,545,575
Old city
6,906,200
Annex, 1891:
14,991,700
.Annex, 1897
15,438,250
Annex, 1909.
• 103,659,335
Oakland school district
» 5,456,847
Fruitdale school district
Melrose and Lockwood school
* 3,837,352
districts...
.
Highland school district
* 718,157
Bray a n d Elmhurst school dis
■3,210,034
tricts
Adeline sanitary district.
731,600
Goldengate and Fruitdale No. 2
sanitary districts
,
4,344,300
Melrose sanitary d i s t r i c t . . . .
1,175,900
Melrose N o . 2 sanitary district...
233,350
1,575,002
136,052
247;012
329,052
27,506
* 19.80
U9.70
M9.50
'16.00
<3.17
•5.04
*9.90
*9.85
19.75
*&00
4].59
42.52
18,989
4,291
< 4.94
*5.97
• 2.47
42.99
10,789
585
«3.36
40.80
•1.68
4 a 40
6,082
2,822
2,800
41.40
42.40
412.00
40,70
4 1.20
46.00
44,937,630
711,816
115.84
19.50
33,857,425
5,307,865
5,772,340
542,389
82,110
87,317
16.02
15.47
15.13
9.61
9.28
9.08
63,176,320
1,041,596
U6.49
19.89
54,146,750
9,029,570
902,785
138,811
16.67
15.37
10.00
9.22
23,465,310
•364,283
115.45
19.29
22,486,155
979,155
236,105
8,812
•10.50
•9.00
•6.30
•5.40
22,107,835
606,175
112,750
2,788
•5.10
•4.60
43.06
42.76
1,020,880
3,828
•3.75
42.25
133,987,715
4,122,383
130.77
115.38
105,585,890
13,929,110
2,833,060
9,689,025
1,950,630
3,188,605
441,553
04,058
331,365
66,712
30.20
31.70
33.20
34.20
34.20
15.10
15.85
16.60
17.10
17.10
16,768,073
567,687
1
33.86
M6.93
13,541,820
3,226,253
8,994,941
7,773,132
7,282,364
6,308,074
254,586
68,718
116,934
97,164
18,206
22,079
M8.80
'18.20
4 13.00
4 12.50
4 2.50
43.50
'9.40
'9.10
4 6.50
•6.25
41.25
41.75
97,683,477
1,435,663
93,099,171
4,584,306
1,408,616
27,047
Hartford, Conn.,
91,118,506
•1,816,536
Urban property
Farm property
Nine school districts.
90,511,615
606,891
91,480,781
Oakland, Cal.
Pasadena, Cal.
Old city
North Pasedena.
East Pasadena..,
Sacramento, Cal.,
Old city
Annexations.
San Jose, Cal.
Old city
Annexation
.,
San Jose and Cottage Grove
school districts
,
Gardner school district
Hester, Sunol, Willow Glen, and ;
East San Jose school districts...
Denver, Colo
(
TOTitoryoutside school districts.
Nos. 2^7,17, and 21.
School district No. 2..
School districtNo. 7 .
School district No. 17
SchooldistrictNo.21
Pueblo, Colo
Old cities o l Pueblo and South
Pueblo
Annexations
School district N o 1
,
School district No. 20
Park districts Nos. l a n d 3
Park d i s t r i c t N o . 2
Bridgeport, Conn..
Urban property.
Farm p r o p e r t y . .
N e w Britain, C o n n .
I Urban property
I Surbuxban property.
1
14.70
1
36
15.13
6.83
19.92
115.94
1,447,281
3,332
365,923
•15.99
•5.49
*4.00
•12.79
•4.39
•3.20
39,367,672
539,028
113.60
M3.60
38,655,504
712,168
533,298
5,730
13.80
8.05
13. SO
8.05
1
0fdUi&Sm^?0laSSeSSmeOtS0ndlflerentba5e3Valuaiionsglven^onbMfa
4 Rate for special levy for district named in s t u b . '
* Includes a small amount levied outside of citv
for Sw»hrv>l
nnmvuu
W
Cn 01
« Exclusive of levy for schools.
° ^""Poses.
* E x c l u s i v e of levies for schools and parks.
New Haven, Coon.,
Wards 1 to 12:
City taxing district •
,
Westvllle taxing district »•..,
Ward 13
H!
Wards 14 and 15:
Subject to taxes for city and
borough of Falrhaven,
East.
,
Subject to city taxes only...,
78
64
91
16.36
14.86
13.86
1,782,090
3,590,339
"27,000
37,1*5
13.36
10.36
Water bury, Conn.
67,894,921
1,022,293
■15.06
Urban property:
Subkci to highest rata.
Subject to lowest rata..
Suburban property
65,040,966
5,251,322
7,603,613
£70,363
74.716
"77,214
15.81
14.23
10.15
57,330,835
867,512
115.12
56,009,416
1,351,422
£36,944
10,666
15.30
7.65
£5,831,340
632,166
i 11.32
63,101,0*3
2,733,307
60X92S
23,233
11.50
8.50
25,643,737
413,614
'16.21
19,896,009
5,70,720
338,217
77,567
17.00
13.50
9.003,711
* 329,749
»35.75
9.003,711
3,419.604
0,008,280
153,964
£9,833
115,960
•17.10
«17.50
«19.30
940,420,171
38, 000,458
141.14
60,311. H»
206,026,003
22,615,13$
8,920,930
40.20
43.30
64,073,689
67,36a, 43*
11,914,33)
6,689,341
4,272,387
1,313,935
1,102,3*6
904.2S0
13,376,374
2,761.576
2,855,781
449,171
263, « 2
170,011
53,609
43,103
37,317
436,900
43.10
42.50
37.70
38.30
39.80
40.80
39.10
41.30
»*3C40
Wilmington, Del.
Jacksonville, Fla.
Tampa, Fla.
Old city
Annexations.
ISO
Aurora, HI
City corporation
School district No. 129.
School district No. 131.
Chicago, HI..
South Park district
,
West Chicago Park district..,
Lincoln Park district:
Lake View town
N o r t h Chicago t o w n . . . .
M
North west Park d i s t r i c t . . . . ,
Irving Parkdistrict
North Shore Park d i s t r i c t . . . ,
The R i d g e Park district
Ridge A v e n u e Park district.
Fernwood Parkdistrict
Other Chicago territory
90
189
E a s t St. Louis, H I .
13,311.411
607,533
145.64
City corporation
,
Parkdistrict
Old school district
Annexed school territory u . -
13,311,411
14.203,663
14,076.2M
513,922
291,520
52,554
282,080
15,417
»21.90
«3.70
20.04
* 30.00
Davenport,Iowa..
28
Esti
mated
true
value.
1
114.51
24,283,260
692,725
* 28.53
Urban p r o p e r t y . . ,
Farm p r o p e r t y . . .
24,146,610
136,650
690,593
2,132
28.60
15.60
Newport, K y . ,
15,921,886
252,020
115.83
»10.29
1,939,590
3,791,100
2,916,900
3,425,343
378,140
31,033
59,141
49,587
56,861
6,807
16.00
15.60
17.00
16.60
18.00
10.40
10.14
11.05
10.79
11.70
», 470,813
48,591
14.00
9.10
SewerdistrictA.....
Sewer district B
Sewer district C
Sewer district D . .
,
Sewer district E
Territory outside of specified
sewer districts
,
IS
33.253,648 »116.12
2,133,176
**9.172
"47,055
Property Inside flrellmits..,
Property outside firelimits..
133
1139,779,146
130,413,633
617,352
3,3*1,743
Property taxed at full rate..
Property taxed at half rate.
14.70
15.13
5.83
valuation.
Levies.
value.
130
i Average rate for all levies i n city.
* Exclusive oflevies for schools and for sanitary districts
O T T A N D t AKTS OF O T T Oft
CLASSES o r r B o n u m r .
Baltimore, M d .
633,800,340
8,674,255
113.69
113.69
Urban property
Surburban p r o p e r t y . . . .
409,856,560
16,433,656
25,092,413
179,412,676
7,746,289
207,127
182,601
18.00
12.60
6.50
3,00
18.90
12.60
252,524,144
6,203,316
124.57
HZ»
property in general.
Money and c r e d i t s . .
313,398,439
39,125,705
6,105,502
97,814
28.61
2.50
■a
S t Paul, M i n n . .
158,443,926
2,724,483
117.20
110.32
SH^v.:::::::
Minneapolis, M i n n .
3.00
12.07
Urbanproperty....
20.12
2,255,158
112,085,379
11.77
Suburban property.
19.62
419,356
21,373,876
1,29
Money anil c r e d i t s . .
2.00
24,984,671
49,969
* Average ratefcr all school districts. D a U l b r s h o w i n f t n e e x a c t r a U i n a n y o n o
of t h e districts n o t available.
• All of wards 1 to 12 with exception of part of ward 10.
» Part of ward 10 included with ward 13—Westvflls scowl utsaict.
ii Includes city and WestvOle school district levies.
" Includes city and Fairhavcn East Borough levies.
" Includes school district and city lev its.
^ .,frl/i*
M Averagerate for all levies for territory not within the limits <of I h e p a r k " W n »
" Territory located outside city limits and not included with thefiguresfor cny.
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
Table XXXIV-Contd.
AGGREGATE TAX
BATE FEE
$1,000 OF—
CITY AXP PARTS OP d r y OR
CLASSES OF PROPERTY.
Assessed
valuation.
Levies.
$178,820,427 $4,115,595
Kansas City, Mo.
Property not taxed for park
purposes
Property taxed for park purposes
Property subject to general
looftax.
Property subject to railroad
schoolI tta x . .
119,850,557
58, 969,870
1,498.132
884,548
170,347,787
1,703,478
6,333,383
29,437
i $23.02! $11.51
* 12.50
* 15.00
•10.00
•4.65
•5.00
69,496,462
845,305
•697,592
147,713
112.16
12.29
11.60
92,502,108
1,534,907
U6.59
U4.93
92,188,083
314,025
1,530,322
4,585
16.60
14.60
13,223,407
112.16
285,175
*21.57
Property In general
Real property of pensioners.
Auburn, N. Y .
13,181,257
42,150
284,707
468
21.60
11.09
21.60
11.09
21,150,227
391,003
US. 49
U4.79
Property- in general
Real pre
' of pensioners.
property
20,997,628
152,599
390,036
967
18.58
6.34
14. £6
5.07
22,0S3,754
* 498,172
122.56
U7.60
Property In genera]
Real property of pensioners.
Jamestown, N . Y .
21,867,29$
216,456
'496,344
1,828
22.70
8.49
17.71
6.62
14,447,380
•372,884
125.81
118.07
Property In general
Real property
prop
of pensioners.
14,335,297
112,0S3
•371,528
1,356
25.91
12.10
[3,204,962,430 150,506,057
U8.34
18.14
8.47
118.34
County of New York,.
County of Kings
County of Queens
County of Richmond.*
B, 938,069,111 108,388,186
'1,723,496,394 32,098,475
463,147,289 8,482,625
60,149,636 1,536,771
18.25
18.62
18.32
19.17
18.25
18.62
18.32
19.17
Rochester, N . Y . . .
188,809,650 •3,842,590
12a 35
U6.28
188,359,875 •3,839,207
3,389
449,775
20.38
7.54
16.30
6.03
53,837,977
1,097,588
120.39
118.76
49,037,650
1,009,474
2 a 59
18.94
New York, N . Y
Property in general
Real property
pror
of pensioners.
Schenectady, N . Y
Property Inside hydrant limit*..
Property outside hydrant limits,
inside lighting district
Property outside hydrant limits.
outside lighting district....
Real property of pensioners.,
Troy, N . Y
4,666,330
86,728
18.59
17.10
44,050
89,947
59,030,540
774
612
1,409,045
17.58
6. SO
123.87
16.17
6.26
Old city.
Lansfngburg
North Greenbush and S t Karys
Sycaway...
,
Erie, P a . . . . . ,
50,297,303
7,878,624
619,863
234,750
26,068,062
1,181,098
13,346
5,285
599,284
23.48
26.51
21.53
22.51
122.99
U1.50
General
eft
ueneraicity.
,
Boulevard Park addition..,
Johnstown, Pa..
Territory outside old Coopers*
A dale school district
Old Coopcrsdale school district.,
25,958,099
109,963
19,233,830
597,029
2,255
443,055
23.00
20.52
123.04
11.50
10.26
111.52
19,008,100
225,720
437,186
5,869
23.00
26.00
11.50
13.00
" 209,316
123.39
143
131
J Average rate for all levies in city.
■•Exclusive of levies for schools.
•Rate for special levy for school porposes only.
w«»™i,«i
4
MW Includesfc92,700, valuation oYiSSonal property located to Weehawken
•anexatton. which is taxed at the same rate as all property in the old city.
* Incudes $10,971, amount of levy on personal property located in Weehawken
■oaexation.
♦* J, I f l cludes levy of I S S S w S e c f e d by city on assessment for 1913 of $22,624,372,
w reimburse county for payment of sundry city expenses.
Pawtucket, R. I
50
H14.9S
$782,163
i$14.9S
774,195
7,968
15.60
3.10
313,063,860
3,971,861
251,379,340
Property in general.
Intangible personal property.... | 61,684,520
3,808,397
163,464
15.15
2.65
25,631,100
398,578
115.55
Property in general
Intangible personal property... „
Nashville, Tenn..
24,547,850
1,083,250
395,220
3,358
16.10
3.10
77,161,306
1,138,689
114.76
Old territory..
New territory.
67,795,971
9,365,335
1,016,940
121,749
15.00
13.00
32,250,450
625,765
119.40
21,412,090
10,838,360
406,830
218,935
19.00
20.20
88,674,375
1,312,498
U4.80
Woonsocket, R. I
El Paso, Tex.
San Antonio, Tex...
Portsmouth, Va..,
Property in general:
Old city.
,
Wards6and7
Dank stock and intangible
personal property.
2,995,775
2,780,375
2,914,450
7,403,400
917,425
38,785,975
2,551,575
5,461,775
3,571,200
2,482,250
17,437,650
367,500
1,000,025
45,236
42,261
44,591
108,163
13,761
558,509
40,060
84,111
55,354
38,971
259,821
5,660
16,000
15.10
15.20
15.30
14.60
15.00
14.40
15.70
15.40
15.50
15.70
14.90
15.40
16.00
63,881,180
1,001,589
115.68
53,548,010
6,341,850
883,542
50,735
16.50
8.00
3,937,300
54,020
66,934
378
17.00
7.00
12,343,960
185,916
115.06
9,171,536
2,145,632
155,916
17,165
17.00
8.00
1,026,792
12,835
12.50
Seattle, Wash..
212,929,048
4,296,054
120.18
Original city
Early annexations.
West Seattle
Ballard
Southeast Seattle...
Georgetown
Dunlap
South Seattle
Yesler.
Columbia
Ravenna
South Park
159,202,793
24,746,743
9,737,681
5,616,232
3,776,591
3,004,587
1,828,817
1,467,377
1,176,326
1,023,519
892,274
456,108
3,258,881
496,915
183,166
113,616
72,888
40,923
34,400
28,320
21,657
19,488
17,221
8,579
20.47
20.08
18.81
20.23
19.30
13.62
18.81
19.30
18.41
19.04
19.30
18.81
Tacoma, Wash,.
District No. 1
District No. 2
Districts Nos. 3 and 4.
District No. 5
153
Esti
mated
true
value.
49,627,860
2,570,495
Norfolk, Va.,
60
value.
$52,198,355
Entire city except ward 7:
Property in general..
Intangible personal property.
Ward 7: .
'
Property In general
Intangible personal property, j
20
Levies.
,
Improvement districts:
No.l
No. 2
No. 3
No. 4
No. 5
No. 6
No.7
No. 8
No. 9
No. 10
,
No. 11
No. 12
No. 13
166
valuation.
Property In general
Intangible personal property..
Providence, R. I
Property outside of improve
ment district
Improvement district
23.01
25.98
21.10
22.06
1,556,323,614 22,969,234 U4.76 U4.76
Philadelphia, Pa..
Urban property:
1,358,311,470 20,374,671 "15.00 "15.00
Subject to highest rate.
1,406,246 "14.50 H14.50
Subject to lowest r a t e . .
Suburban property:
292,367 "11.67 " 11.67
25,060,040
Subject to highest rat*.
596,758 "11.33 " 11.33
52,655,080
Subject to lowest r a t e . .
Farm property:
96,801 " l a 00 "10.00
0,680,088
Subject to highest rate.,
132,936 » 9.75 "9.75
13,634,448
Subject to lowest rate
Property subject to additional
levy for poor district:
0.50
0.50
48,494
96,982,488
Urban property
0.33
0.33
17,552
52,655,080
Suburban property.
0.25
0.25
3,409
13,634,448
Farm property.
.
23
12.29
11.60
14.94
13.14
121.57
Elmira,N.Y
106
•2.32
« 56,762,578
•12,733,884
,
CTTY AND PABTS OF CITY OR
CLASSES OF PBOFEBTY.
• 6.25
*7.50
Hoboken,N.J..
Property inside fire limits....
Property outside fire limits..
AGGREGATE TAX
BATE FEB
$1,000 OF—
Esti
Assessed mated
true
value.
value.
Old city
Weehawken annexation.
Albany, N . Y .
Amsterdam, N. V
117
Huntington, W . V a . .
Old city
Annexations..
Superior, Wis.
138
Property outside specified sewer
dfetricts
Sewer districts Nos 1 and 3
Sewer district No. 5
Sewer district No. 6
73,299,008
1,281,026
117.48
60,102,519
10,121,543
2,417,887
657,059
1,060,809
174,698
36,051
9,468
17.65
17,26
14.91
14.41
29,432,257
283,220
19.71
28,274,175
1,158,082
275,675
"7,545
9.75
8.85
23,739,502
496,791
120.93
16,552,514
6,080,900
302,830
803,258
338,740
130,496
7,104
20,451
20.46
21.46
23.46
25.46
• Includes levy of $2,394 collected by city on assessment for 1913 of $14,336,547, to~
reimburse county for payment of sundry city expenses.
»Includes levy of $163,336 collected by city on assessment for 1913 of $187,452,785,
to reimburse county for payment of sundry city expenses.
" Includes levy of $456 on assessment of $50,445 on real property of pensioners.*
taxed for school purposes.
" Exclusive of levy for poor district.
u Does not Include levy forschool purposes In Guyandotte, annexed to Huntings
ton in 1911 but not annexed to city school district until a year la ter.
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
118
priations and receipts are classified in Table 35 under
five general headings: (1) ."Revenue appropriations
of city," (2) "Revenue receipts," (3) "Receipts from
issue of city and district debt obligations," (4) "Re
ceipts from sales of property, investments, and sup
plies," and (5) "Receipts from other sources." Reve
nue receipts are further classified under seven different
subheadings, according to the sources from which
derived.
Revenue appropriations of city and receipts from
the general property tax.—Thefiguresincluded in the
two columns headed "Revenue appropriations of city,"
and "The general property tax" should be studied
together. In the two columns are included 81.7 per
cent of the total revenue appropriations and receipts
from revenue and 66 per cent of the total appropria
tions and receipts from all sources shown in the table*
As a rule, in cities for which amounts are shown in the
column headed "Revenue appropriations of city" the
schools are operated as a department of the city gov*
eminent, while in those for which amounts aro shown
in the column headed "The general property tax"
they are operated by independent school districts.
For most cities, therefore, amounts aro reported in
only one of the two columns mentioned. For a few
cities, however, the table shows amounts in both
columns, as in Cincinnati, Ohio, where the schools are
operated by an independent school district, with the
exception of the University of Cincinnati, which is
operated as a department of the city corporation.
For the cities in which the schools were operated as
departments of the city corporation, the amounts
reported in the column headed "Revenue appropria
tions of city" represent as accurately as could be
ascertained the school income from the general prop
erty tax.
Liquor taxes as school revenues.—Only a few cities
reported receipts for school purposes from liquor
taxes. In most states receipts from this source are
applied to purposes other than the support of schools.
JUisceOaneous taxes as school revenues.—The receipts
reported in the column headed "Other taxes" were
from the following sources: Mortgage and bank taxes
in New York cities, newsboys' permits in Salem,
DIAOBAU 2 0 . — I N C B E A S E OP PROPERTY T A X LEVIES -WITH
Mass., dog licenses in Terre Haute, Ind., vessel
INCREASE m SIZE OF CITIES: 1912.
tonnage tax in Duluth, Minn., and poll taxes in a
number
of cities.
OVER &00000
■HI^H1^HHHH~1
Subventions from other civil divisions.—The principal
300000 TO & O O O O O ) H | | H H H H | ^ | I
I
IOOOOO TO 3 0 0 0 0 0 ■ ■ ! ■ ■ ! ■ ■ I
I
I
revenue receipts for schools, other than the general
50000 ToioooooiBHlm^B
property tax, are from subventions by the states or
30000 TO 50000 ■ ■ ■ I M I J H
I I
counties. In some states subventions are appor
tioned upon the basis of the number of children of
TABLE 35.
school age or the number of days of school attendance,
Summary of appropriations, receipts, payments, and while in others a part is apportioned in one of the ways
balances for schools.—Table 35 presents a summary of mentioned and the remainder in proportion to the
school appropriations, receipts, payments, and balances number of teachers or otherwise. The amounts thus
for the 195 cities covered by this report. School appro apportioned are derived largely by the state and county
The rates given in Table XXXIV are all on the basis
of assessments made for the city corporation, and
thus in some cases differfromthose shown in Table 34,
some of which are on the basis of the city corporation
assessment and some on other bases.
In like manner the tax levies shown in Table XXXIV
differ in the case of Berkeley and Los Angeles, CaL,
Chicago, EL, Seattle and Tacoma, Wash., East St.
Louis, HI., and Davenport, Iowa, from the aggregate
levies shown in Table 34 for the same cities. In the
case of the cities mentioned the figures of Table 34
include, for one or more divisions of the government
of the city, levies upon property situated outside of
the territorial limits of the city corporation, while those
of Table XXXIV do not.
The amounts given under the general heading "Levy"
on the lines of Table 34 for the several divisions of
the city's government are, except as indicated by
footnotes, amounts levied for the maintenance of those
divisions within the territorial limits of the city cor
poration.
Per capita property taxes.—The last column of
Table 34 gives, for the individual cities and for the five
groups of cities classified by population, the per capita
levies of property taxes. Thesefiguresshould be con
sidered in connection with the other per capita figures
of this report, including those given in Tables 5, 13,
and 29. Thesefiguresare much more comparable than
those given in next to the last column of Table 34,
which shows the per capita assessed valuation of prop
erty subject to taxation in the individual cities. They
are more comparable, owing to the fact that the bases
of assessment for the various cities vary so much that
they form a very imperfect measure of the relative
true value of property in the several cities. The per
capita of property taxes levied were $18.34 for the 195
cities covered by the report, and $23.42, $19.29, $14.36,
$12.68, and $11.93 for thefivegroups arranged accord
ing to population. The per capita for the group with
the largest population was nearly twice as great as that
of the one with the smallest. The increases of per
capita tax levies thus shown are graphically presented
in Diagram 20.
G « O U M OF C l T l t a WtTH
•PCCIF1CD POPULATION 0
DOLLAR*
( 0
^
DESCRIPTION OF
ffiNERAL
TABLES.
119
from the general property tax and from interest on demption of city and district debt obligations," (5)
permanent school funds, although in some states they "For investments and supplies," and (6) "Forvother
are in part derived from poll taxes.
objects."
School fees and charges, including tuition fees.—The School payments for governmental costs.—The terms
amounts tabulated in the column headed "Fees and "expenses," "outlays," and "interest" are here used
charges, including tuition fees," were derived largely with the same significance as in other tables of this
from tuition fees. The other receipts so tabulated report. The payments therefore comprise those which
represent amounts received as compensation for dam in this report are given the designation "govern
ages to books and other property as reimbursement for mental cost payments." In the column headed "For
expenses, and as teachers' examination fees, laboratory- expenses " are presented as nearly as can be determined
fees and charges, library fees and charges, fees for the actual costs of school administration and instruc
tion, and of the maintenance and operation of school
diplomas, use of telephone, etc.
Rents and interest as school revenues.—In the columnbuildings. The column headed "For outlays" in
headed "Rents and interest" are included receipts cludes payments for the purchase of land, the con
from interest on bank balances and the income of struction of new buildings, the alteration of old build
trust and investment funds which are in the custody ings, and new equipment. The payments recorded in
of the school authorities* The column does not these two columns are the only ones in the table that
include all interest received on permanent funds set are strictly comparable for all cities. The column
apart for educational purposes, since a part of these headed "For interest" includes only those payments
funds are under the control of officials other than the for interest which were made by school districts or
school authorities, their revenue being tinned over directly from school appropriations by cities operate
to the city and later appropriated to the schools. It ing their schools as departments of the city corpora
will be observed that most of the entries in this column tion. In this connection it should be noted that in
most cities with schools operated as a department of
are for cities having independent school districts.
Other generalfund revenues of schools.—The amountsthe city corporation, payments on account of the prin
tabulated in the column headed "Other general fund cipal and interest of public debt incurred for school
revenues" were receipts from sales of old material, purposes are never stated separately, and hence are
receipts of trust funds used for school purposes, and never shown as payments on account of school debt
amounts balancing payments by health departments in the reports upon which these statistics are neces
sarily based.
for physical examination of children and for nurses.
Nongovernmental cost payments of schools.—The
Nonrevenue receipts of schools.—The nonrevenue
nongovernmental
cost payments included in the col
receipts included in the table are those obtained (1)
umn
headed
"For
redemption of city and district debt
from the issue of city or district debt obligations;
(2) from the sale of property, investments, and sup obligations" were for the redemption of general bonds
and revenue loans, and for the redemption of warrants
plies; and (3) from other sources.
School receipts from issue of debt obligations.—The of former years. The amounts reported in the col
amounts reported in the column headed "Receipts umn headed "For investments and supplies" repre
from issue of city and district debt obligations" were sent nongovernmental cost payments for investments
derived (1) from the sale of general bonds, (2) from acquired for profit, and for the purchase of such books
revenue loans, and (3) from warrants issued for school and supplies as were designed to be sold to teachers
purposes and remaining unpaid at the close of the and pupils. The column headed "For other objects"
includes nongovernmental cost payments for a num
year*
School receipts from sales of property, investments, and ber of purposes, the principal of which were payments
supplies —In the column headed "Receipts from sales in error, refunds, payments of special assessments,
of property, investments, and supplies" are included payments for increasing stocks of supplies, and can
receipts from sales of real property and securities, celed appropriations.
and of such books and supplies as were sold to teachers
TABLE 36.
and pupils.
School receipts from other sources.—In the column Payments for school expenses.—Table 36 presents in
headed "Receipts from other sources" are included considerable detail the payments for school expenses
the nonrevenue receipts that can not be classified for the 195 cities covered by this report, including the
under either of the two headings immediately preced payments for expenses of school administration,
ing. Among these receipts are receipts in error, instruction, operation of school plant, and maintenance
refunds, receipts from a decrease in stocks of supplies, of school plant, together with other school expenses
and receipts from premiums and accrued interest on grouped under the designation "Miscellaneous ex
penses." With the exception of the payments for
bonds sold, and from fire insurance adjustments.
School payments.—Payments for school purposes expenses of administration, the payments for school
are classified under six headings: (1) "For expenses," expenses, as given in Table 36, are classified according
(2) "For outlays," (3) "For interest," (4) "For re- to the kind of school or other educational activity for
120
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
which they were made. The payments thus presented included payments for such supplies as maps, charts,
are as nearly comparable as it has been possible to globes, paper, pencils, erasers, rulers, and chalk; the
make them from data derived from local accounts, in wood, clay, metal, and tools used in art and manual
which they were usually classified on a different basis training instruction; the cloth, scissors, and cooking
from that employed in the table. The school authori supplies used in domestic science instruction; type
ties of many cities have expressed great interest in the writers and supplies used in instruction in commercial
classification employed by the Bureau of the Census, branches; laboratory apparatus and supplies, includ
and promise to cooperate in establishing standard ing chemicals and biological material; gas, electricity
accounts with classifications more or less in harmony and fuel for cooking and manual training; and all
with that used in Table 36. To the extent that this materials destroyed in the using, as well as tho charges
cooperation is secured it is believed that the corre for freight, express, and cartage on such supplies.
In the column headed "School libraries" are included
sponding tables of future reports will contain statistics
more accurate and more nearly comparable than those the salaries and other expenses not only for libraries
maintained exclusively for the benofit of the teachers
given in Table 36.
Payments for expenses of general administration ofand pupils of certain schools, but also for those main
schools.—The expenses of general administration tained by boards of education for tho use of the goneral
include all "overhead charges," or "general expenses," public. The expenses for the two classes of libraries
as they are frequently called in the commercial world. can readily bo distinguished by the fact that those
They are the costs that can not readily be assigned to for libraries maintained for tho use of the school and
functional groups and classified according to the kind the public are tabulated on a lino by themselves with
of school or educational activity for which they are the designation "Library" in tho stub, whilo those for
incurred. The various expenses included in this group school purposes only are tabulated with tho expenses
are described in the text accompanying Table 37, and of the particular class of schools using them. Table
the payments for each subdivision or class are given in 36, by including statistics of the cost of operating and
maintaining these public libraries and other excep
that table.
Paymentsfor expenses ofinstruction.—The payments tional institutions and branches of service, gives a
for expenses of instruction, as shown in Table 36, are complete statement of the expenses of all tho different
arranged in seven groups under specific and descriptive activities under school authorities and financed from
titles. The first two groups, with the titles "Salaries school revenues or appropriations; but in computing
and other expenses of supervisors of grades and sub the cost of school instruction per pupil those special
jects" and "Salaries and other expenses of principals " costs must be disregarded, or tho figures obtained will
comprise the payments for the expenses of supervision. not be comparable.
The payments for thefirstof these groups are not given
In tho column of this table headed "All other" are
separately for all cities. In some of the cities for which included those costs of instruction, such as expenses
no payments for "Salaries and other expenses of super connected with graduation exercises and flags for
visors of grades and subjects" are shown, the school school buildings, which aro not assignable to any of
principals act as supervisors and the amounts shown in the other columns in this division of tho tabic
the column headed "Salaries and other expenses of
Payments for expenses of operation of school plant—
principals" include the payments for both classes of Under tho foregoing heading are shown all payments
supervision. In a second class of cities the supervision for the operation of the school plant, including those
of grades and subjects constitutes a part of the duties for salaries and wages of janitors, onginocre, and othors
of the general superintendent of schools, and the pay omployed in this branch of the school sorvico, together
ments for this class of expenses are included among the with the payments for janitors' and other supplies,
expenses of general administration. In a limited num fuel, light, water, and power.
ber of cities the total payments for the expenses of
Payments for * expenses of maintenance of school
supervision referred to are included under one or the plant.—Under the heading "Expenses of maintenance
other of the two titles above mentioned by reason of of school plant" are shown payments for the main
the fact that the local accounts are so kept that no tenance of the buildings and grounds of tho school
proper segregation of the two classes of expenses could systems, including those for repairs and insurance,
be secured. It should be noted that the expenses of which are tabulated in columns with descriptive
the supervisors of grades and subjects and those of headings.
principals include the salaries of the clerks employed
Payments for miscellaneous schod expenses*—Under
to assist them.
the heading "Miscellaneous expenses" are tabulated
The character of the payments shown in the columns the payments to private schools and institutions and
headed "Salaries of teachers" and "Free textbooks" to schools and institutions of other civil divisions for
is fully indicated by their titles. In the column with the instruction or care of children who from choice or
the title "Other supplies used in instruction" are necessity are attending or are confined at the school
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
for which, or to which the money is paid; payments
for the transportation of pupils to and from school;
payments for pensions granted to teachers and em
ployees; and payments for rent of school buildings.
In the case of a few cities payments for other objects
are tabulated under the heading "All other," because
the method of keeping the accounts in these cities
CLASS OF E X T E X S E .
Total
General administration
,
Instruction
Operation of school plant...
Maintenance of school plant
Miscellaneous
121
was such that those payments could not be otherwise
classified.
Summary of payments for school expenses, by object of
expense.—The following statement summarizes the
payments for expenses presented in Table 36 for the
principal objects or classes of expense by groups of
cities, according to population:
All cities.
Group L
$150,598,763
172,933,754
$18,446,834
$27,806,218
$17,606,501
$13,805,456
6,653,307
115,323,922
15,461,659
7,327,410
2,832,465
3,093,340
58,111,044
6,727,032
2,930,703
2,071,635
758,157
14,502,490
1,727,212
1,195,085
263,890
1,150,531
21,758,890
3,155,084
1,469,502
272,211
869,149
13,443,452
2,184,081
966,615
143,204
782,130
10,508,046
1,668,250
765,505
81,525
Group II.
Group m .
Group IV.
Group V.
Average of school expenses for specified objects.—The Distribviion of scliool expenses, by object.—The per
following statement gives the average payments for cent distribution of school expenses, by object of ex
specified objects of expense per 100 inhabitants for the pense, is shown in the statement which follows.
five groups of cities and the total of the same. The
averages are based in all cases upon the preceding
AU Group Group Group Group Group
IV.
cities.
II.
V.
I.
in.
statement, and differ slightly from those contained in
Table 13, inasmuch as the figures upon which they are G*»nf>nU administration
4.1
4.2
4.4
4.1
4.9
5.6
:
78.6 i 79.7 78.7 78.3 76.4
76.1
based include certain payments by independent school Instruction
Operation of school plant...-.
9.4 11.4 12.3 , 12.1
10.3 | 1 9.2
of school plant
6.4
5.5
4.9
5.3
4.0
districts and others for the conservation of child life Maintenance
1.4
1.8
1.0
0.8
0.6
Misrt^lanwniSx
2.8
and for the care of children in institutions that in
Tables 12 and 13 are not classified as school expenses.
The relative portions of all school expenses repre
sented by those for instruction and miscellaneous ob
AU Group Group Group Group Group
jects increased with the size of the city, the percent
IV.
III.
II.
V.
cities.
ages for the several groups rising in an unbroken series.
J514 $578 $537 $459 $432
Total
$437
In contrast, the expenses for operation and mainte
24
General administration
22 1 24"
21
22
19
nance of school plants increased from the larger to the
333
Instruction
330
423
404
359
461
53
54
60
52
53
53
Operation of school plant
smaller cities, though not in either case with a uni
24
24
35
24
Maintenance of school plant
25 1 23
3
3
7
5
10 |
17
formity such as is found in the case first mentioned.
The percentages for expenses of administration ex
From the foregoing statement it is seen that the hibit a number of marked variations, but those per
average expense of administering schools per 100 in centages are larger for the smaller than for the larger
habitants is practically the same for the two groups of cities. The facts above referred to are shown graph
cities containing from 30,000 to 50,000 and from 50,000 ically in Diagram 22.
to 100,000 inhabitants, and that the expenses for
22,—PEE CENT DISTRIBUTION OF THE EXPENSES OP
instruction and miscellaneous purposes increase reg DIAGRAM
SCHOOLS FOR STATED OBJECTS IN GROUPS OP CITIES WITH
ularly from group to group from the fourth to the
SPECIFIED POPULATION: 1912.
first group. While subject to minor variations, the
other average expenses are not greatly different for
Y/S/S/SS/S////////S/SS////////////S/S////%
the various groups. The facts shown in the foregoing
Y/S/SSSS/S/////SS////S/////////////S//SSM
statement are presented graphically in Diagram 21.
Y///>Y/////////S////////////////////////m
CLASS OF E X F E N S E .
CLASS O F KXTKNKE.
GROUPS or Cants WITH
SPECIFIED POPULATION
0
OVER 600000
DIAGRAM 21.—AVERAGES PER 100 INHABITANTS OP THE EXPENSES
FOR STATED OBJECTS OP THE SCHOOLS IN GROUPS OP CITIES WITH
SPECIFIED POPULATION: 1012.
YS///////////S/////////////////////////M$
V////////////////////S//////S/S/////S/M&
fc£2S23 INSTRUCTION
J OPERATION OF SCHOOL PLANT
J MAINTENANCE OF SCHOOL PLANT
] GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
• * * » * » PorucAtlON,
100
tOO
»QO
■ ^ H
MISCELLANEOUS
woooo TO » O O P C ^ ^ / ^
100000 TO sooooogsswca^va/^
eoooo to 100000 )?7ztyssfys7fyss}ss/J/fJj/&smA
TO aoooo
yjj^iM^jj^m^A^/Ji)^/A
OPMAtlOft OF «CHOOL PLANT
MAWftNAHCt OP SCHOOL PLANT
OtKtftAi.AM*H*r*ATlOH
Average expenses for specified Tcinds of schools.—The
average functional expenses of schools, by which is
meant expenses per 100 inhabitants for the schools
other than for general administration, are given in the
statement which follows for elementary day, second
ary day, and night schools, and for all other educa-
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
122
tional activities, the last named being given on the
line with stub "All other."
AH
cities.
KIND 01* SCHOOL.
491
~375
84
10
22
All schools.
Elementary day.
Secondary day...
Night
All other.
expenses by kinds of school for all cities and for the five
groups of cities:
Group Group Group Group Group
V.
IV.
HI.
II.
1.
554
413
440
515
~337
426
81
11
36
87
8
11
317
81
6
7
"313
93
3
4
All
cities.
E N D OF SCHOOL.
Group Group Group Group Group
IV.
III.
II.
V.
75.1
17.5
1.8
4.0
76,9
14.0
2.1
0.4
78.5
17.2
1.0
4.4
Elementary day
Secondary day..
Night
Another.
70.0
19.6
1.8
2.7
77.2
10.8
1.5
1.0
75.7
22.5
0.7
1*1
These percentages bring out more clearly than do
the
averages the tendency for the relative expenses of
The average for all schools, elementary day schools,
secondary
day schools to decrease with the size of
night schools, and "All other/' with one exception each
cities,
being
largest in the smallest cities, and smallest
in the case of all schools and night schools, makes an
in
the
largest.
There is a reverse tendency in the case
unbroken series rising from the group of smallest cities
of
the
expenses
for night schools and "All other"
to the group with the largest, showing that for these
which
are
largest
in the column with tho greatest
schools at least there is a marked tendency for school ex
penses to increase with the size of cities. There is no population. The percentages of all school expenses in
evidence of a like tendency in the case of the secondary curred for the elementary day schools are not greatly
day schools, the averages for which are quite irregular, variant in the different groups, the variation depend
with those for the smallest group the largest. The dif ing more upon the relative portion of expense incurred
ferences in the average payments for school expenses for the other kinds of education. Tho tendencies
classified by object of expense are graphically pre above noted are illustrated graphically by Diagram 24.
sented for the several groups of cities in Diagram 23. INGRAM 24,—PER CENT DISTRIBUTION OF THE EXPENSES OF
DIAGRAM 23.—AVERAGES PER, 100 INHABITANTS OP THE EXPENSES
OF STATED KINDS OF SCHOOLS IN GROUPS OF CITIES WITH SPECI
FIED POPULATION: 1912.
'mow* OF e m u WITH
•PCCWICD PorvumoH 0
THREE KINDS OF SCHOOLS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF EACH OF
THOSE KINDS IN GROUPS OF CITIES WITH SPECIFIED POPULATION*
<MOU*S or e m u WITH
PtMCtttr
t f Y C * « 0 KMV1ATIOM o
H
«
„
OVER 500000
YS//SJS///J//S»»»7JSSSJJS//777777777$
—
.-
300000 TO 6O0OO0JS////////////////////////SS////SS//SSSS
100000 TO 30OO00|YS/M//////////S//SJS/SSSS7//Z?777^
OVER 0OO0O0
60000 TO 100000
'//////////////////////////////////ss/ss.
10000 TO 60000 fsM/////////////////////S////S///////,
XBZZk «U£*tt*TA*T PAT
■^■IWOHT
f £ ^ ] Alt OTMCR
Payments for expenses of schools for colored pupils.—
Distribution of school expenses, by Tcind of school.—
The payments for the expenses of schools for colored
The relative portions of the aggregate functional ex pupils in the 46 cities for which separate statistics
penses of schools that are incurred for the various could be obtained are presented in Tablo XXXV,
kinds of schools are shown in the statement which which follows. This is an exhibit table, all tho data
follows, which gives the per cent distribution of those being included in Table 36.
City
num !
ber.
Table X X X V
Textbook*
Salaries for
and
instruction* schoolroom
supplies.
Total pay
ments for
expenses.1
CITY, AND KIND OP SCHOOL FOB COLOEED PUPILS.
$2,193,423 1
$1,735,951
$74,046
16 New Orleans, La
.
Elementary
Secondary
tmm #
'mm[
17
Night
School gardens
Playgrounds....
*
„
*.**!!
21
Night
$3,654
$3,256
$248,658
r"i"
St. Louis, M o . . . . . .
I"!.™.""
!
162,691
52,232
127,657
33,025
7,787
4,395
3,392
93,133
75,169
2,757
93,138
75,169
2,757
686,155 [
547,260
34f4Sl
521,113
135,027
20,053
8,667
364
931
406,276
114,487
19,113
7,384
30,460
3,529
120
372
101,308
75,211
72,707
25,711
2,121
54,246
18,979
1
155
ST
95
$106,425
$21,433
12,043
9,799
2,244
6,139
4,706
3,123
7,383
4.706
375
1,206
71,137
23,335
7,024
I
266
244
67,714
12,321
6,744
280
i
"364*
332
19,653
3,259
15
241
1,712
907
805
670
432*
2,028
146
15,532
8,481
Ms*
COOf
1,184
663
160
2i
0
137
10,908
4,147
475
2
6,360
1,785
1
......••*•••
w"
1
»Exclusive of payments for expense of general administration.
Miscella
neous.
,-■■.
II! §
4
Expenses Expenses
Other ex*
for main
School
pentesof
operation
1 tenance of
libraries. Instruction.
of school
school
plant.
plant*
336
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
1 Table XXXV-Continued.
City
num
ber.
27
Secondary
34
37
30
Night
46
Night
50
58
65 tf*»tt*City,
Kan*
,
69
71 Norfolk, Va
.
72 Oklahoma City, O k l a . . . .
75 fit. Joseph, Mo
85 Evansvflle, I n d . . . .
Secondary......
.
Elementary* ii4iii j. ii4 .,..i . ^ w
$07,252
^$4,471
96,296
18,345
1,812
6,026
75,808
15,072
1,572
4,800
3,195
1,121
84
71
54,706
44,475
2,469
50,743 1
4,053
41,325
3,150
84,321
74,175
10,146
1,635
1,221
2,366
103
15
4,295
686
1,541
04
1,216
71,224
1,014
50
9,572
2,461
63,248
7,076
50
8,075
1,497
69,333
40,789
588
426
3,787
52,473
15,910
950
36,676
12,213
900
2,264
1,473
50
77,605
60,143
71,523
5,474
698
55,041
4,454
648
31,186
27,028
29,961
1,225
25,828
1,200
8188 j
1,623
8
$848
848
61
135
85
50
8,119
2,264
m 197
6,521
V62
957
5,304
1,217
1,515
451
9,067
6,519
1,334
131
50
248
203 i
8,448
619
6,452
67
125
2,945
1,088
100
25
2,945
1,088
4,483
2,731
4,483
2,731
7,755 [
3,000
082
982
28,450 j
10,490
1,746
28,450
10,490
1,746
51,390 j
39,616 |
806
33,813
16,011
675
27,187
11,763
666
93
704
9
4,504
3,251
1,809 1
1,191
20,457
17,037 J
275
2,545
550
14,707
5,750
12,587
4,500
200
75
1,520
1,025
400
150
27,433 j
22,185 |*
784
27,433
22,185
784
3,672
185
3,672
185
18,315 j
14,415
13,710
4,506
10,679
3,736
27,909 j
22,960
19,410
8,490
11,253
15,794
7,175
1
|
1
]
2
1
1,
783
1
725
1
2
1
199
84
|
475
250
22,250
21,200
.
22,250
[
*
222
1
3,374 |
1,090
3,374
1,090
220
3
2,848
204
433
2,848
204
433
2,784
833
2,211
573
630
203
3,690
525
2,700
990
450
75
1,279
819
1,279
819
1,050
"
1,050
26,248 |
10,337
501
108
4,107
2,098
05
22,788!
3,186
272
16,014
3,149
174
464
37
103
4,009
2,008
95
16,475
15,200
16,475
157200
153
153^
.
1,122
1,122
9,542
7,720
272
20
1,232
298
0,542 ~
77720^
272
20
1,232
298
36,012
i
4,981
978
100
j
5
15 1
978
03
108
3,829
340
8
8,177
01
104
$4,233
10,993
1,629
140
1,089
8,177
00
81,631 j
$13,851 |
11,253
80
Elementary.
8122,479
*
88 Harrtsburg, Pa
Expenses Expenses
Other ex*
for main
pensesof operation tenance of I Miscella
neous.
instruction. of school
school
plant. I plant.
Textbooks
Salaries for
and
School
Instruction. schoolroom libraries.
supplies.
Total pay
ments for
-expenses.*
CITV, AND KIND OF SCHOOL FOE COLOBED rXTTtLS.
123
98
30,010
36,012 "
30,019
16,246
12,407
754
14,001
2,245
10,657
1,750
366
388
12,103
10,610
601
flni
10 610 j
12,103 1
* Exclusive of payments for expense of general administration.
15
- 2,595
4,283
15
2,595
4,283
1,785
1,193
1,785
1,193
107
107
685
195
12
685
195
12
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
124
T a b l e XXXV—Continued.
City
num
ber.
Cm,
Textbooks
and
Salaries for
instruction. schoolroom
supplies.
Total pay*
ments for
expenses. 1
JLXD KIND OF SCHOOL FOB COLOEED PUPILS.
[
116
121
122
14,190 1
6,628
25,071
8,511
13.322
13,322
25,686
20,252 •
462
22,902
2,143
636
18,171"
2,061
445
. ....
1,050
i
6S6
50
636
17
2,216
2,040
2,246
2,040
2,765 [
2,198
147
'
367
53
2,720
45
2,153
iS
147
|
367
53
3,636
102
25
1.009
112
102
25
1,009
112
1
4,460
ISO
129
$70
4,839
4,460
ISO
129
70
,
6,588 j
4,386
266
£03
133
4,386
266
£03
133
..............
92,429 j
'82,643
7,725
1,375
686
66,233 |
26,196
59,663
22,980
4.650
3,075
1,231
141
6S6
,, , r
,T
5,588
144 Montgomery, A l a . . . . .
6,476
217
it
4,839 \
133
T...,,-..,,.,.*,,t
$6,693
3.50S
1,475
Miscella
neous.
1,050
14.402 |
4,884
139 Wheeling, WT VftT
$4,083
$77
897
114
14,402 j
4,884 \
131
Expenses
for main
tenance of
school
plant.
$1,011
$20,818
$33,582
115
Expenses
for
Other e x - operation
School
libraries. ! pensesof of school
instruction.
plant.
Elementary
151 Roanoke. V a . . . . . . . .
Elementary
153 Huntington. W. V a
Elementary
155
10,449 |
8,683
2(6
$40
1,136
344
10,449 \
8,683
246
40
1,134
344
6,713 j
5,233
450
4,281 [
1,430
3,803
1,430
450
12,700
10,468
122
1,662
12,700
10,468
122
1,662
448
157 Lexington, K y
24,329 J
17,966
1.413
50
2,236
2,664
14,766
3,200
917
496
60
1,7*3
453
365
2,299
158 Springfield, Mo
17,831 '
6,498
'9,385
6,420
1,575
850
540
4.570
1,850
1,400
175
800
50
wo
832
280
Elementary
i
159 1
160 Charlotte, N . C
7,310
2,075
5,302
3,950
5,302
3,950
240
_
11,903
9,865
285
11,903~
9,865
285
1,643
1,643
9,189 J
6,726
87
1.030
9,189
6,726
«7
1,020
181
1,893
1,474
143
236
1,893
1,474
14^~
183
22,522 J
18,187
557
13,514
8,708
11,240
6,947
363
191
13,416 |
11,403
150
1,863
125
25
1,493
370
166
Elementary
Elementary
188
448
110
lib"
1,038
50
226*
2,514
-
.
1,444
1,070
1,264
767*
497
■■
Elementary
11,446
1,970
9,828
1,5751
3,569
2,661
33
45
695
Elementary
Secondary
2,719
850
14,792
i,sir
^
45*
—
235
2^5
285
46
1.445
481
2S5
46
_-. -
189
192 Lynchburg, V a
14,797
1
1,038
318
—*
"" '"
850
12,535
12,535
Exclusive of payments for expense of' general administration.
* Includes expenses for " Textbooks an<id schoolroom supplies;" "School library;" and * Other expenses of instruction/
_
_^_,^,
DESCRIPTION OF
School expenses and interest on the value of school
properties.—In tho commercial world it is a well recog
nized accounting practice to include interest on the
capital invested in an enterprise, as well as all current
expenses, in computing current costs of the services
rendered. A complete statement of the current costs
of schools for a given city or group of cities would there
fore include, in addition to the payments for expenses
shown in Table 36, an amount equal to the interest upon
the investment in school property. Such additional
data were presented on pages 75 and 76 of the report
for 1910.
iENERAL TABLES.
125
elude both salaries and miscellaneous payments, and
represent the total cost, as nearly as could be deter
mined, of the board of education and the secretary's
office, school elections and the school census, finance
offices and items of accounts, general legal services, the
operation and maintenance of office buildings, offices
in charge of buildings, and offices in charge of supplies.
The principal purposes of the payments shown in the
column "All other/' under "Business administration,"
were telephone service and the printing of reports.
In making use of Table 37 for the study of the com
parative payments by the different cities for the ex
TABLE 37.
penses of the business administration of their schools,
Payments for expenses of general administration of consideration should be given to the fact that the
schools.—Table 37 presents a detailed exhibit of the schools of the various cities fall into three different
payments of the 195 cities having a population of over classes according to the method of administration, as
30,000 in 1912 for tho general administration of all follows: (1) Independent municipal organization or
schools, including the various educational activities corporation, (2) department or division of the city
and extensions. Tho expenses of general administra corporation, and (3) in part department of the city
tion are classified by object under the two headings corporation and in part independent school district.
"Salaries and wages" and "Other objects." They are The table presents for the cities whose schools are of
also classified by branch of administration as "Business the first class statistics of all their payments for the
administration" and "Educational administration." expenses of business administration. It is quite other
The expenses of each branch of administration are wise with the cities whose schools are of the other
further classified by office or item of account for which classes. Most, if not all, of the expenses of these cities
incurred, the expenses of the first branch being segre for purposes such as those shown in the table in the
gated under eight separate headings and those of the columns headed "Finance offices and accounts" and
"General legal services" are treated not as school
second under four.
expenses,
but as the expenses of the offices of city
The total payments of the 195 cities covered by the
treasurer,
city
auditor, or city attorney. The same is
table for the expenses of general administration of
true
to
a
lesser
extent
of most of the other classes of the
schools amounted to $6,653,307, of which $3,093,340,
expenses
of
business
administration.
or 46.5 per cent, was reported by the cities of Group I ;
Payments for expenses of educational administration
$758,157, or 11.4 per cent, by the cities of Group I I ;
$1,150,531, or 17.3 per cent, by tho cities of Group III; of schools.—The payments for expenses of educational
$869,149, or 13 per cent, by the cities of Group IV; and administration are presented under four general head
$782,130, or 11.8 per cent, by the cities of Group V. ings. The expenses shown under the heading "Office
The city qf New York paid for general administrative of superintendent of schools" include the salaries of
expenses $974,388, or 14.6 per cent of the total for the the superintendent and the employees connected with
his office, together with the other expenses of the office.
195 cities.
Of the total expenses of general administration so far In like manner, the expenses shown under the three
as segregated, $4,997,521, or 76.6 per cent, was paid for other titles include both salaries and wages and other
salaries and wages, and $1,526,856, or 23.4 per cent, for expenses. The total expenses for educational ad
other objects. The salaries and wages were those of ministration amounted to $3,356,678, of which
the board of education, where such officials received $1,804,438, or 53.8 per cent, was for the superin
compensation, and of all others regularly employed by tendent's office; $659,802, or 19.6 per cent, for en
the school departments or districts in connection with forcement of compulsory education and truancy laws;
the general administration of the public school system. $781,977, or 23.3 per cent, for general promotion of
The column with the title "Other objects'/ includes health; and $110,461, or 3.3 per cent, for other exr
all payments other than those for salaries and wages penses of educational administration. Payments made
for the promotion of health were for the salaries of
which were incident to general administration only.
Payments for expenses of business administration of physicians and dentists employed to examine school
schools.—The payments for expenses of business admin children, determine the condition of their health, and
prescribe treatment for those found defective, and for
istration are presented under eight separate headings,
the salaries of nurses. As a rule, both physicians and
the first seven of which specifically describe subdivi
nurses were paid from health department appropria
sions of the business administration, while the last
tions, such payments being incorporated in the school
covers such expenses of business administration as can
statistics by methods already explained on page 119.
not be classified under any of the seven preceding
The principal purposes of the payments for expenses
headings. The expenses shown in these columns in-
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
126
Payments for the construction of new buildings
constituted by far the most important class of pay
ments for outlays, forming more than two-thirds of the
total for Groups II, III, and IV. Payments for land
ranked next in relative amount in every group except
Group V, in which payments for equipment ranked
second.
Payments for outlays, classified by Hnd of educa
tional activity.—Of the total amount paid for outlays,
§27,552, or 0.1 per cent, was expendod for general
administrative outlays; 824,984,134, or 63.7 per cent, for
elementary school outlays; §12,436,726, or31.7 per cent,
for secondary school outlays; and $1,498,002, or 3.8
per cent, for other school and educational activities.
Payments for outlays for miscellaneous schools and
educational activities.—Tho objects of the payments
TABLE 38.
reported in the column headed "All other schools and
Payments for school outlays.—During the year 1912 educational activities" are shown in tho following
the payments for outlays for the schools in 189 of the table. The outlays for normal schools amounted to
195 cities of over 30,0Q0 inhabitants amounted to 31.3 per cent of the total outlays for all such schools
$39,220,407. Six cities reported no payments for out and educational activities—those for -educational ex
lays. The payments for outlays per 100 inhabitants tension to 23.7 per cent and those for night schools to
for the 189 cities for which the outlays are shown in the about 0.5 per cent.
table amounted to $135, the averages for the different
groups being as follows: Group J, $111; Group II,
Table X X X VII
B N D Of SCHOOL.
$202; Group III, $166; Group IV, $120; and Group V,
City
All
$119. The cities of Group I paid for outlays num-j
schools.
ber.
Normal. Night.
Other.
$13,942,614, or 35.6 per cent of the total; those of
Group II, $6,931,634, or 17.7 per cent; of Group III,
$10,031,333, or 25.6 per cent; of Group IV, $4,778,836,
87,575 8356,053 1664,853
JS1,498,002 $469,516
Total.
or 12.2 per cent; and of Group V, $3,535,990, or 9 per
64,314
36,710
380,785 279,761
1 New York. N . Y 10,020
10,020
2 Chicago. Ill
cent.
20,030
20,030
3 Philadelphia, Fa.
373
Louis, Mo
373
Payments for school outlays, classified by object—Of £4 St.
28,300
29,612
1,200
112
Boston, Mass
29,855
38,621
6 Cleveland, Ohio..
8,760
the total payments for outlays by the 189 cities report
1,364
7 Baltimore, Md....
1,364
116
8 Pittsburgh. Pa
22
2,522
2,6G0
ing such payments, $6,460,131, or 16.8 per cent, was
0 Detroit. Mich
2,259
2,259
279,923
12 Milwaukee, Wis
279,923
for the purchase of land; and $24,747,668, or 64.3 per
118,239
13 Cincinnati, Ohio
118,239
14 Los Angeles, Cal
1,619
1,619
cent, for the construction of new buildings. The pay
15 Newark.N.J
3,921
9,977
45,724
31,538
288
16
188
188
New
Orleans,La....
ments for outlays for equipment, amounting to
17 Washington, I). C . . .
116,021 114,7*3
1,238
IS Minneapolis, Minn..,
866
23,500
24,366
$3,249,621, or 8.4 per cent, are tabulated in three
20 Seattle, Wash
.126
126
21
14,810
16,477
48
1,619
Kansas
City,
Mo
columns; the first including the payments for equip
22 Indianapolis, I n d . . . .
180,899
186,899
23 Providence, It. I
617
617
ment of new buildings; the second, for the equipment
24 Portland, Oreg
69,564
69,735
171
25 Bochester,N.Y
3,696
12,325
6,459
1,014
1,156
of old buildings exclusive of replacements; and the
26 Denver, Colo
3,704
1,021
4,745
20
27
U,643
1,(55
Louisville.
Ky
12
third, the payments for special equipment, which com
30 Toledo, Ohio
'81
3,403
3,377
31 Oakland, Cal
6,000
6,000 * , *
prise payments for automobiles, carriages, and all
33 Worcester, Mass.....
8,915
8,915
34 Birmingham, Ala....
500
500
other equipment for use outside of buildings.
35 Syracuse, N . Y
12,000
2,000
43 Spokane. Wash
'822
822
The following table shows for each group of cities
51 New Bedford, Mass..
7,096
7,096
55 Albany, N . Y
16
42
27
the percentage of the total payments for outlays
60 Tacoma, Wash
23,437
32,235
8,798
65 Kansas City, Kans...
2,639
2,639
which were made respectively for land, for the con
66 Yonkers»N.Y
8,152
8,152
73 Schenectady.N.Y..
2,916
2,916
struction of new buildings, for the alteration of old
74 Somerville, Mass
3,784
3,784
S4
Erie, Pa
4,038
3,836
180
22
buildings, and for equipment:
87 Fort Wayne.Ind....
8,834
of educational administration reported under the title
"All other" were to provide lectures for teachers and
to defray the expenses connected with the meetings of
educational associations, including teachers' institutes.
Payments for expenses of general administration of
schools for colored pupils.—Thirteen cities reported
payments for administrative expenses for schools for
colored pupils, as follows: Washington, D. C, $11,713;
Kansas City, Mo., $6,268; Richmond, Va., $6,352;
Nashville, Tenn., $4,417; Camden, N. J., $40; Okla
homa City, Okla., $29; Covington, Ky., $112; Mobile,
Ala., $2,361; Little Rock, Ark., $4,991; Chattanooga,
Tenn., $1,466; Lexington, Ky., $284; Muskogee,
Okla., $80; and Newport, Ky., $32.
X / t J U Ulfc. « U W H U . . . . . . . .
Table X X X V I
PEE CENT Or TOTAL PAYMENTS FOB SCHOOL
OUTLAYS MADE JOB—
GEOTJP.
Land.
Alteration
New
of old
buildings. buildings.
Equip*
meni
189 cities
16.8
64.3
10.5
8.4
Group I
Group II
Group III
Group IV
Group V . . . . . .
23.9
11.4
16.6
8.1
10.4
54.0
72.9
67.0
79.2
60.4
110
11.0
9.7
4.7
13.6
10.1
4.7
6.6
8,0
15.7
88
92
109
110
122
135
136
138
139
141
142
154
162
165
170
176
180
1S5
Harrisburg.Pa
South Bend, I n d . . . .
Sacramento. C a l . . . . .
Saginaw, Mich.......
York, Pa
Flint, Mfch
Kalamazoo, Mich....
Superior, w i s
Wheeling, W. Va
Newton, Mass. *
Butte, Mont
East Orange, N . J . . .
Pasadena* Cal
Decatur, IU
Lansing, Mich
Jamestown, N . Y . . . .
Wmiamsport,Pa....
NewRocheUe,N.Y.
» Administration.
485
5,769
875
1,056
584
1,308
23,650
25
2,061
1,316
782
8,834
6,769
875
584
1,308
23,650
2,061
667
667
1,051
85
1,200
326
150
848
85
1,200
326
150
848
«1454 administration.
1485
i,066
#
^
25
i,316
*782
ii,06i
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
127
The amount shown in the column headed "Other" activity the payments for outlays for schools for
consists of $659,220 of outlays for various kinds colored pupils, reported by 19 cities.
of schools, and $5,633 of outlays for administrative j*
Table XXXVIII
KIND OF SCHOOL.
purposes. The following statement shows in de
City
All
tail the kinds of schools for which payments were num
CITY.
schools. Elemen Second Play
ber.
All
made:
tary, j ary.
grounds. other.
KIND OF SCHOOL, JLND CITY.
Total
Rochester, N.*Y.
New Bedford, Mass..
Albany. N . Y
Amount.
$659,220 |
KIND OF SCHOOL, AND CITY.
Vacation
$8,152
207,668 1 Youken*,N.Y
8,152
207,663
4,000
199,438
3,921
54
25
27,925
72,255
69,564
3,480
3,704
8,915
7,096
15
3,784
1,056
1,316
328
Tni&nt.. L ..
,..
Boston, Mass.
Rfattle, Wash..,
Cleveland, O h i o . . . . . . . . . . . . .
' 1,832
87
1,619
126
29,855 j
116
866
162
31
29,855
278
278
24,259
822
23,437
$637,234 ] $495,817 $137,645
$333
$3,439
333
3,325
102
12
" ■ ■
4
16
17
21
27
34
37
39
58
65
72
83
93
100
115
122
144
151
183
165,497 1
New Orleans, La.
2,035
280,153
19,033
Kansas City^ Ma
Louisville, Ky
55,372
2,030
Mftmpliifl, TPTHI , , . .
9,572
29,181 1
f!aTP«lAT1. "tf. J . . . . t
33,648
7,260
204
Oklahoma City, Okla....
345
1,740 !
Charleston, S. C
3,222
2,394
York, Pa
2,133
10,057
1,134
Roanoke,Va
Muskogee, Okla
12,224
162,358
2,035
161,352
17,758
55,224
2,030
8,075
29,181
33,648
5,345
204
345
1,740
3,222
2,394
2,133
7,053
1,134
586
3,139
115,143
1,173
136
1,497
1,915
3,66i
ii,638
1,175
Rochester. N. Y
QriAMal
Total
Amount.
Collegiate, New York, N. Y . .
Collegiate, Cincinnati, Ohio..
Horace Mann, Boston, Mass.
64,314
118,239
10
The amounts in the column headed "All other" in
Table. XXXVIII were for the following purposes:
Washington, D. C, normal school, $2,749, and night
schools, $576; Kansas City, Mo., normal school, $77,
and night schools, $25; Louisville, Ky., normal school.
TABLE 39.
Average attendance at schools.—Table 39 shows the
average daily attendance at all schools and upon all
school activities of the cities covered by this report,
for which more or less complete reports of school at>tendance were obtained. The aggregate attendance
thus shown was 3,588,427, of which 3,502,493, or 97.6
OBJECT AND CITT.
Amount.
OBJECT A N D CITT.
Amount.
per cent, was reported for elementary day, secon
dary day, normal, and night schools. Of the 195
Playgrounds—Contd.
1356,058 j
$5,856
cities
shown in the table, all reported attendance
1,021
238,651 j
Libraries
3,377
1 Toledo, Ohio
...
....
for
one
or more of the four kinds of schools men
2,916
TCftisns City, Mo*
14,810
20,314
Indianapolis', I n d . . . .
186,899
tioned
above,
and 58 reported attendance for one or
667
Oakland, Cal
6,000
326
iHrmingfiftnT, Alft^
600
more
other
kinds
of schools or educational activities.
848
Kansas"Cltv/Kans
2,639 New RochcOle, N. Y . . . . . . . . .
3,836
Erie, P a . . . . .
I.......
School attendance and population.—Table XXXTX,
8,834
Fort Wayne, Ind
36,945
South Bend, Ind
6,769
which follows, presents for the cities covered by this
875
36,710
York, Pa..I
"""'.*.."
£81
report
for which school attendance was reported the
150
1,308
Flint, Mich
85
average number of pupils in. attendance at elementary
3,336
Kalamazoo. Mich.
2,061
Wheeling, W.Va
day, secondary, day, normal, and night schools per
1,200
8,798
Playgrounds and vacation
100 inhabitants. The averages vary considerably
schools, Detroit, Miciu.....
68,802
2,259
Playgrounds
Lecture course, Rochester,
between
the individual cities, but to no great extent
603
Newark, N . J..
9,977 !
between the groups of cities, and the variations shown
23,500
Minneapolis, Minn..*
should be considered in interpreting the average ex
Payments for outlays for schools for colored pupils.— penses of schools as given in Table 40 and as they are
Table XXXVIH gives by kind of school or educational pointed out in detail.
The following statement shows the educational ac
tivities for which outlay payments are tabulated in the
column headed "For educational extension" in Table
XXXVII:
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
128
PERCENTAGE OP AGGBEGATE ATTEND
ANCE AT ELEMENTARY PAY, SECOND
Table X X X I X
Average
ARY DAY, NORMAL. AND NIGHT
school
City
SCHOOLS.
attendnum
ance per „
ber.
|lOOinhab-|| Elemen Second
itants, tary day ary day Normal Night
schools. schools.
schools. schools.
City
num
ber.
Total.
12.2
86.3
8.6
0.2
4.9
Group I....
Group H...
Group m . .
Group TV..
Group V...,
12.3
12.3
11.9
12.0
12.7
86.6
85.6
85.4
87.1
86.4
6.7
8.9
10.0
9.5
11.8
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0)
6.5
5.2
4.4
3.3
1.7
.....
6
7 Baltimore, Md
8 Pittsburgh, Pa
9 Detroit, Mich.
13.5
11.5
10.7;
11.3 |
14.5
87.0
87.2
89.5
87.4
79.2
5.5
6.8
6.0
7.1
12.0
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.2
7.2
5.8
4.1
5.2
8.6
14.0
10.3
11.6 1
9.9 !
84.5
87.1
86.6
84.5
9.5
6.8
6.3
9.5
0.3
0.3
0.2
5.8
5.7
6.9
6.0
Buffalo, N . Y
;
San Francisco, CaL
Milwaukee, w is
CiTieiTitiatf/fihio
rT
15 Newark, N. J
16 New Orleans, L a . . . . . . . . .
17
18
12.7
9.3
10.0
9.7
12.9
82.2
86.3
90.6
91.1
83.7
7.1
7.0
8.9
8.9
13.9
20.5
10.4
14.1
12.2
82.5
88.4
84.0
85.5
5.1
4.4
10.8
14.5
C1)
10.6
6.7
as
U.0
10.3
9.9
13.8
11.7
91.4 1
84.7 1
89.1 !
90.5
90.5
Oklahoma City, Okla...
Schenectady, K. Y . . . . ,
Somerville, Mass.
St. Joseph, Mo
Utica,N.V
12.6
12.5
14.5
1L7
11.5
92.7
84.5
79.6
SS.6
87.2
8.6
12.1
10.9
9.5
9.5
7.3
8.1
14.8
U.4
9*6
•Elizabeth, N. J . . . .
Waterbury, Conn..,
Troy, N . Y .
Akron, Ohio.
,
Manchester, N . H . ,
10.4
14.6
9.8
13.7
9.4
87.1
87.8
86.7
83.9
85.4
7.5
6.7
9.5
14.4
9.1
Hoboken,N.J.....
Wilkes-Barre, Pa.,
Erie, Pa
E vansville, Ind...,
Peoria, 111.
14.5
13.6
10.3
10.5
11.9
86.7
100,0
86.8
89.5
87.9
4.6
11 6
ias
10.4
0.3
L3
a2
1.5
Port "Wayne, Ind..
Harrisburg,Pa....
Savannah, Oa
90 East St, Louis, HI.
91 Jacksonville, x la..,
8.9
12.8
10.0
9.6
8.7
88.7
87.2
94.2
91.7
94.3
n.i
11.8
5.8
7.6
5.2
a3
0.4
0.6
South Bend,Ind..
Terre Haute, Ind..
Passaic, N.J
Johnstown, P a . . . .
Bayonne, N. J . . . . .
13.1
14.0
12.0
10.4
14.3
82.0
90.1
88.2
90.1
87.1
10.5
9.9
6.8
9.9
5.9
7.5
10.0
3.5
15.8
2.4
0.4
0.8
0.6
11.9
6.4
4.6
Jersey City, N. J..
Seattle, Wash..,.
Kansas City, Mo..
Jjidianapohsjtad..
Providence, B. L„
11.5
10.5
11.0
11.3
12.8
89.1
78.7
86.3
85.6
83.5
6.0
15.1
13.7
11.5
8.7
Portland, Oreg..,
Rochester, N. Y.,
Denver, Colo*...,
Louisville, Ky...
St. Paul, Minn..,
10.3
11.9
12.7
9.9
12.1
86.9
79.8
85.4
86.3
85.5
11.3
8.3
12.5
10. S
11.3
0.4
4.6
6.3
0.1
2.7
7.7
0.3
0.3
0.2
Columbus, Ohio
Toledo, Ohio
Oakland, Cat
Atlanta, Ga
Worcester, Mass....
11.4
14.2
10.9
11.8
15.4
85.3
76.8
85.5
92.1
83.6
Birmingham, Ala...
Syracuse, N . Y
New Haven, ConnMemphis, Term
Scranton, Pa
10.9
12.7
16.1
9.3
13.4
91.8
83.3
87.8
91.4
Richmond, Va.
Paterson.N. J
Omaha, Nebr.
Fall River, Mass
Spokane, Wash.
11.2
14.0
12.6
12.6
11.4
87.9
87.5
87.7
82.4
85.7
7.7
8.2
11.2
6.0
13.7
0.3
0.6
0.2
1.7
Dayton, Ohio
Grand Rapids, Mich..
Nashville, Tenn
Bridgeport, Conn.....
Lowell, Mass
10.9
13.7
11.9
12.7
10.9
87.3
80.1
90.7
93.0
74.9
12.2
10.1
7.4
5.3
10.8
0.4
Cambridge. Mass
San Antonio, Tex
New Bedford, Mass...
• Hartford, Conn
14.6
9.1
12.0
17.9
79.3
88.5
84.3
84.9
13.1
11.1
4.6
10.6
Dallas, T e x . . . . . .
Trenton, N.J
Albany. N . Y
Salt Lake City, Utah.
(
?,2
10.4
15.6
88.5
83.5
91.4
12.6
7.3
12.9
6.6
11.2
7.6
12.0
9.6
7.8
8.1
(3)
7.9
10.4
8.6
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
as
(*)
0.3
1.8
11.5
2.1
2.4
3.0
1.7
15.7
1.6
1.2
5.2
0.4
4.5
2.6
0.8
5.0
4.1
3.7
0.9
9.9
0.6
9.8
1.9
1.4
14.3
7.6
0.3
10.8
4.5
\ .
6.8
GROUP IV.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OP 50,000 TO 100,000 IN 1912.
57
58
59
60
61
Reading, Pa.
Camden, N . J
Tacoma, wash
Lynn, Mass
62 Des Moines, Iowa
63 Lawrence, Mass
64 Wilmington, Del
65 Kansas City, Kans
66
12.0
11.4
15.0
12.1
11.8
94.7
93.3
78.4
83.0
81.5
15.4
10.5
9.4
13.0 !
16.2 |
85.8
75.6
90.2
89.8
85.8
4.8
12.2
13.9
10.5
0.1
92
93
94
95
96
Brockton, Mass..
Portland, Me....
Holyoke, Mass...
Charleston, S. C .
Wichita, Kans...
17.6
13.6
12.2
7.6
12.4
79.6
81.3
74.4
92.7
88.2
10.4
15.2
9.8
7.3
11.8
102 Allen town. Pa...
103 Springfield, I1L..
104 Covington. Ky...
105 Altoona, P a . . . . .
12.1
11.9
8.3
12,5
100.0
£6.8
92.4
88.2
ii'i
Pawtucket,R. L .
Canton, Ohio
Mobile, Ala.
Sacramento, Cal..
12.2
12.7
9.3
11.6
82.9 j
87.5
88.6
83.8
7.6
11.8
8.0
12.5
11.4
13.5
12.3
14.3
13.2
12.1
84.1
84.8
87.0
87.2
15.6
13.6
11.4
7.9
97
CS
99
100
101
GROUP EL—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OP 100,000 TO 300,000 IN 1912.
53
1.7
9.4
3.0
7.9
14.2
8.2
**"io\2
10.2
10.2
8.5
5.*3
6.4
* Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent.
schools. schools. schools.
Youngstown, Ohio.
Houston, Tex
Fort Worth, T e x . . .
Duluth, Minn
Norfolk, Va.
GROUP IL—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OP 300,000 TO 500,000 IN 1912.
.10
11
12
13
14
schools.
HAVING A POPULATION OF 50,000 TO 100,000 IN 1912—OOBtd.
GROUP I.—CtttES HAVING A POPULATION OF 500,000 AND OVER IN 1912.
1 New York. N. Y
2 Chicago, HI
3 Philadelphia, Pa
4
5
CUT.
PERCENTAGE OP AGGREGATE ATTEND
ANCE AT ELEMENTARY DAT, SECONDAverage
ART DAT, NORMAL, AND NIGHT
school
SCHOOLS.
attend
ance p e r
lOOinhab-l Elemen Second
itants.
tary day ary day Normal Night
106
107
108
109
110 Saginaw, Mich.
111 Sioux City, Iowa...
112 Binghamton, N. Y .
113 Atlantic City, N. J..
3.2
ai
7.2
5.5
3.3
a6
4.8
5.5
3.4
1.5
5.5
0.4
as
8.6
0.8
a6
5.0
7.0
0,9
6.*2
iao
2,7
,
a3
f
L6
L6
49
GROUP V.—OTIES HAVING A POPULATION Of 30,000 TO 60,000 IN 1912.
114
115
116
117
118
RockJbrd,Hl
Little Rock, Ark...
Augusta, Ga.
Springfield, Ohio...
Lancaster, Pa
14.2
12.2
7.8
14.6
11.3
83.3
87.2
92.4
88.5
87.4
15.3
12.8
7.6
11.5
10.6
119
120
121
122
123
Pueblo, Colo
New Britain, Corm.
Chattanooga. Tenn.
York, Pa.!?:
Maiden, Mass.
9.4
12.6
11.7
12.0
14.6
87.6
84.2
93.2
90.2
78.5
12.4
9.8
6.7
9.8
124
125
126
127
128
Berkeley, CaL
Bay City, Mich..
Haverhku.wK
Topeka.Kans,
Salem, Mass,
12.8
11.9
13.2
13.9
11.2
75.8
88.3
81.0
83.8
86.4
23.1
11.5
10.7
129
130
131
132
133
Lincoln, Nebr....
Davenport, Iowa.
El Paso, Tex.
San Diego, CoL.
Tampa/Fla.
14.7
13.5
9.6
13.2
8.8
84.8
88.7
93.5
84.4
92.7
13.7
11.3
6.5
15.6
7.3
134
135
136
137
138
McKeesport,Pa...
Flint, Mich..
Kalamazoo, Mich..
Racine, W6
Superior, Wis
14.4
10.2
11.7
12.7
11.7
87.8
89.5
85.5
89.4
86.8
8.6
10.1
14.5
10.6
13.2
0.5
0.4
139
140 Macon, G: a
141 Newton, Mass
142 Butte, Mont
143 Woonsocket, R. L .
1L0
15.7
21.0
10.0
8.9
91.4
91.7
76,9
89.1
86.2
8.4
7.8
18.3
10.9
6.0
0.2
89.2
92.4
76,3
87.9
10.8
7.6
17.8
12.1
144
145
146
147
148
Montgomery, A l a . . .
9.2
Chester, Pa.
10.9
Pitchburg,Mass.....
la 6
Dubuque, Iowa
7.4
Galveston, Tex
9.1
* Not reported.
1.4
2.0
"6.*0
8.3
13.2
1.1
0.3
16.2
11.3
*2."3
1.5
0.6
3.1
4.8
7.8
6.0
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
Table X X X I X
PEBCEKTAGE OF AGGREGATE ATTEND
ANCE AT ELEMENTABY DAY, SECOND
GEOTJP V.—OTIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912—COntd.
West Hoboken, N. J.
New Castle, l*a
Roanoke. Va
Elmira f N.Y.
Huntington, W. Va.
13.3
13.9
12.6
11.3
10.8
94.4
89.3
87.6
77.3
93.8
29
10 7
8 ft
17.9
6.2
154 East Orange. N . J . . .
155 Knoxville, Tenn.....
156 Hamilton, Ohio
157 Lexington. Ky
158 Springfield, Ohio....
159 Quincy,lU
13.2
13.2
11.0
1L7
15.9
9.6
87.2
86.9
86.9
90.4
86.2
86.8
12 8
13 1
13 1
9 6
13 8
13.2
160
161
162
163
164
165
Charlotte, N. C
Joliet.111
Pasadena, Cal
Auburn, N. Y
Everett, Mass
Decatur, H i
1L3
14.9
12.5
10.7
17.8
14.4
8L2
81.0
79.1
82.3
87.9
1A 4
19.0
14.8
11 1
12 1
166
167
168
169
170
171
Portsmouth, Va
Pe*th Amboy, N. J..
Taunton, Mass
Qulncy, Mass.
Lansing, Mich
Plttsfleld, Mass
10.7
14.4
13.9
16.3
12.0
15.2
92.2
9L6
60.1
82.6
87.1
84.9
68
8 4
1? 1
12.7
12.9
11.8
149
150
151
152
153
PERCENTAGE OF AGGREGATE ATTEND
ANCE AT ELEMENTARY DAY, SECOND
Average
ARY DAY, NOE11AL. AND NIGHT
school
SCHOOLS.
City
attend
num
ance per,
ber.
100 inhab Elemen Second*
itants.
Normal Night
tary day arvday schools.
schools.
schools. schools.
City
num
ber.
3.9
4.5
2.4
0.4
Average
ARY DAY, NORMAL, AND NIGHT
school
SCHOOLS.
attend
ance per
100inhab-| Elemen Second
itants. tary day ary day Normal , Night
schools. schools. schools. schools.
GROUP Y.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OP 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912—COntd.
2.6
0.3
129
5.8
6.5
1.0
7.7
4-6
3.3
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
1S6
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
Cedar Rapids, Iowa..
Oshkosh,Wis
San Jose, Cal
Amsterdam, N. Y . . . .
Jamestown, N. Y
Mount Vernon, N. Y .
Niagara Falls, N . Y . .
Jackson, Mich
Williamsport, Pa
Joplin, Mo
Lima, Ohio
Muskogee, Okla
Chelsea, Mass.
NewRochelle,N.Y..
Aurora, HI
Lorain, Ohio
Austin, Tex
Newport, Kjr.
Orange, N.J.
LaCrosse, Wis
Lynchburg, Va.
Sfi
.,._., La.
ihreveport,
Colorado Springs, Colo..
- Bluffs,
- tfis,Toi
Council
Iowa...
15.6
12.3
14.5
8.7
16.0
16.0
14.9
12.0
14.4
16.0
13.4
12.6
18.9
14.3
9.9
11.6
11.8
9.1
12.5
12.4
12.5
16.3
14.9
16.6
85.1
82.2
78.9
87.1
82.0
84.7
86.0
88.8
86.1
87.1
86.5
85.4
85.2
85.4
81.5
88.9
83.3
90.7
94.1
84.7
89.2
82.5
85.8
88.3
13.3
14.9
20.1
9.9
13.6
11.1
11.2
11.2
10.9
12.9
13.3
14.6
6.7
10.9
18.5
10.8
16.7
9.3
5.9
15.3
9.1
17.5
14.2
11.7
0.2
1.6
2.9
1.0
3.0
4.2
4.2
2.8
3.0
0.2
8.2
3.7
0.3
1.7
Cities with highest and lowest average attendance.—
Average attendance at elementary day schools.—The
The cities of the several groups with the highest and reported average daily attendance at elementary day
lowest average school attendance per 100 inhabitants, schools was 3,022,977, or 84.2 per cent of the reported
attendance at all the schools for which Table 39 con
as shown in Table XXXIX, were as follows:
tains statistics. The percentage shown for elemen
tary day schools in Table XXXIX was 86.3. The corre
Average
Average
sponding percentages for the individual cities also given
attend
GROUP.
attend
Highest city.
Lowest city.
ance
ance*
in Table XXXIX show no great variations among the
several cities. Excluding two cities showing 100 per
I.„.
9.9
14.0
9.3
Newark. N.J
20.5 San Francisco, Cal
cent
because the attendance at the different kinds of
n
9.1
17.9
m
IV
7.6
17.6
schools
is not reported separately, and one otherwhere
V
7.4
21.0
the figures for elementary include those for secondary,
the two cities showing the greatest variation are West
Per cent distribution of school attendance, by Tcind ofHoboken, N. J., and Berkeley, Cal., reporting 94.4 and
school.—Table XXXTX, in addition to giving the aver 75.8 per cent, respectively. In the latter city the influ
age attendance per 100 inhabitants for the four kinds of ence of the University of California doubtless assists in
schools, gives the per cent distribution by kind of sustaining the high percentage, 23.1, of attendance at
school of the total attendance of the four kinds of the secondary scHbols, thus reducing the percentage
schools mentioned. The percentages vary consider attending the elementary schools.
Average attendance at secondary day schools.—The
ably between the several groups, as well as between
reported
average daily attendance at secondary day
the individual cities. The significance of these varia
schools
in
the 190 cities reporting such schools was
tions and their influence upon the averages shown in
300,817, or 8.4 per cent of the reported attendance at all
Table 40 are fully set forth in the text for that table.
schools. The percentage given in Table XXXIX for
The cities of the several groups with the highest and
secondary schools was 8.6. As indicating the relative
lowest percentages of attendance at secondary and importanceof the secondary schools in theschool system
normal schools when considered together, as shown in proper, the percentage of Table XXXIX is more signifi
Table XXXIX, were as follows:
cant than the one first given. The percentages for sec
ondary day schools of Table XXXIX make an irregular
series
rising from Group I to Group V, being nearly
Percent
Percent*
GBOVP.
Lowest city.
Highest city.
age.
age.
twice as great in Group V as in Group I. From these
percentages it can be seen that the relative number of
I
5.8
12.2 NewYork,N.Y
Boston, Mass
5.2
pupils in regular attendance upon secondary day
13.9
ni.::;;;;;;;* SeatUe/Wash
5.6
15.1
schools decreases in marked degree as the size of the
4.6
IV*..-.
15.6
5.9
23.1 Orange, N . J
Berkeley, Cal
city increases.
_
■■■
28056*—14
9
130
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
Average attendance at normal schools.—As has been The character of the other schools and educational
previously mentioned, the average daily attendance at activities for which Table 39 gives the average daily
normal schools was not reported for a number of cities attendance is shown in Table XL, which gives the re
and was imperfectly reported for others, and hence the ported attendance for each kind of school or educa
statistics in the column showing the attendance at such tional activity.
Average attendance at night schools.—Payments were
schools are less complete than those for elementary and
secondary day schools. Of the 57 cities for which Table reported as having been made for the expenses of
36 contains normal school statistics, data as to attend night schools by 117 cities, distributed in the five
ance were secured for 52. The reported attendance groups, as follows: Group I, 9; Group II, 7; Group
for the 52 cities for which Table 39 gives figures was TTT, 34; Group IV, 34; and Group V, 33. Reports of
6,496, or 0.2 per cent of the total daily attendance at attendance were more generally obtained from cities
all schools. Had complete reports been secured for all having a considerable attendance at night schools,
the 57 normal schools, this percentage could not have such as those of Groups I and II, than from those with
been greater than 0.3.
a smaller attendance, and hence tho total average
Average attendance at other day schools.—The average
attendance reported is a much closer approximation to
daily attendance at day schools other than elementary, the total actual attendance at all night schools than the
secondary, and normal schools was secured for only 58 number of cities reporting would indicate. The total
cities, although a somewhat larger number of cities average attendance as shown in this table was 172,203,
maintained other schools and school activities.
which represented 4.8 per cent of the total reported
attendance at all schools and 4.9 per cont of the
Table XI*
For
attendance at the four principal kinds of schools. If
neg
For lect
complete reports from all cities having night schools
de- Vaca
Paren Indus
trial, deaf, ed,
lh>
tion Open All
tal trade,
City
blind,
had
been secured this proportion would probably have*
and
and
CITY.
num
and quent,
and
and
tru voca
sum air. other.
ber.
crip
been
a little less than 5 per cent.
ant. tional. pled. back mer
ward
Number
of school sittings.—The total school sittings
chil
dren.
reported numbered 3,772,556. Of this number, 3,395,563, or 90 per cent, were reported for elementary day
1,332 6,550 2,081
Total
77 43,300 210 32,309
schools
and 345,969, or 9.2 per cent, for secondary
1 NewYork.N.Y
418
188
774
61
2 Chicago. Ill
451
7,919
841
day
schools.
The sittings in elementaiy day schools
3 Philadelphia. Pa
240
4 St. Louis, Mo.
22
51
341
290
7,018
exceeded
the
average
attendance in those schools by
5 [ Boston, &ass.. ■ 600 120
179
6 Cleveland, Ohio
57 O 7S7
66 3,645
136
154
372,586,
or
12.3
per
cent
of the average number in
7
36
........::: attendance. In like manner, the sittings in secondary
9 Detroit. Mich
308
49
445
3,731
10
11 San Francisco, C a l . . . .
23
49
day schools exceeded the average daily attendance in
12 Milwaukee, Wis
186
226
296
49
13 Cincinnati,'Ohio
1,920
those schools by 45,152, or 15 per cent of the average*
14
47
1,779
15 Newark. N . J
9,437
10,987
attendance in those schools. The sittings in normal
16
2,667
• 20
103
TO
schools exceeded the average daily attendance in such
21
48
72
23
259
schools by 107.5 per cent, while the sittings reported
44
24
219
23
25 Rochester, N T V
30 2,862
340
for
schools other than'elementary and secondary day
9
26
25
28
1,636
1,571
schools
and normal schools were materially less than
29
51
30 Toledo, Ohio
9
22
340
359
the
average
daily attendance. The specially large
33
350
205
35
10
23
excess
of
sittings
reported for normal schools may
42
435
43
34
include
for
some
cities
the seats provided for the grade
7
44 Dayton* Ohio
26
45 Grand Rapids,Mich...
11,139
53
23
pupils
in
model
schools
as well as for the normal
49
679
51
580
schools
proper.
The
figures
for the number of sittings
62
411
40 3,543
55 Albany, N . Y
122
16
in
other
schools
can
not
properly
be compared with
59
66
176
60
10
10
17
tho
attendance
at
such
schools,
as
shown
in the table,
63
163
66 Yonkers.N.Y
140
1,236
for
the
reason
that
many
of
them,
including
all the
70
40
74 Somerv'ille, Mass
83
night
schools,
are
maintained
in
buildings
which
are
78 U t i c a . N . *
45
*21
77 Elizabeth, N . J
devoted
primarily
to
elementary
or
secondary
day
11 1,471
82 Hoboken,N.J
238
88
49
schools and whose sittings are therefore included in
97
89
110
28
6
thefiguresfor such schools.
125 Bay City, Mich
8
136
4
Number of school buildings.—Tho total number of
20
137
138
6
school
buildings reported in Table 39 is 7,308, of which
141
480
(»)
142
21
2,202, or 30.1 per cent, were in cities of Group I; 581,
165
11
168 1
16
or 8 per cent, in cities of Group II; 1,782, or 24.4 per
173
10 .... * I ..
1S5 NewRochelle.N.Y...
20
*"")
cent, in cities of Group HI; 1,474, or 20.2 per cent, in
191
8
)1 ' "
cities of Group IV; and 1,269, or 17.4 per cent, in
1
* 1911 report incorrect. The figures given for "Vacation schools" were average
cities of Group V. The average number of school
daily attendance plus approximate daily attendance on playgrounds.
> Probation school eliminated by board of education.
sittings per building for all cities and for the five groups
* Industrial and backward not reported.
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL TABLES.
of cities was 516, 738, 516, 430, 408, and 378, respec
tively. From this it appears that the seating capacity
of school buildings increases with the size of the city,
being 95 per cent greater in the cities of Group I than
in those of Group V. The greater capacity of the
school buildings in the larger cities as compared with
those of the smaller cities probably explains to some
extent why the expenses other than those for instruc
tion, as shown in Table 39, do not tend to increase as
rapidly with the size of cities as do the expenses for
instruction.
Of the school buildings reported in the table, 6,765,
or 92.6 per cent, were for elementary schools, and 448,
or 6.1 per cent, for secondary schools, the number of
sittings per building being 502 and 772, respectively.
Numler of schoolrooms.—Under the heading' 'School
rooms/' in table 39, is shown the number of rooms
used for recitation, laboratories, shops, assembly pur
poses, and gymnasiums. The rooms used for recita
tions, laboratories, and shops are all tabulated under
the generic designation "Classrooms." Such rooms
constitute 97 per cent of all rooms reported. The
rooms reported under the designation "Assembly
rooms" constitute 2.1 per cent of the total, and those
classed as "Gymnasiums," 0.1 per cent of the total.
Of the total number of rooms reported, 83,674, or
85.3 per cent, were used for elementary schools;
13,202, or 13.5 per cent, for secondary schools; 588,
or 0.6 per cent, for normal schools; and 640, or 0.6
per cent, for other schools.
131
for such cities could not be presented in Table 40.
For these cities the average payments for expenses of
general administration were computed on the basis
of the figures for those classes of schools for which
statistics of attendance were available.
Average payments per 100 inhabitants.—The aver
age payment for the expenses for the three kinds of
schools per 100 inhabitants for the 195 cities for
which figures are presented was $491. The averages
for the cities of Groups I and II, $541 and $513, were
considerably larger than the averages for the cities
of Groups III, IV, and V, which were $447, $426, and
$433, respectively. The highest and lowest averages
in the different groups were as follows:
GEOXTP.
I
II
Ill
IV
v
Highest city.
Los Angeles, Cal
Salt Lake City, Utah..
Springfield, Mass
Mount Vernon, N. Y . .
Average.
Lowest city.
693
655
702 Atlanta, Ga..i
672
814 TjmipajTJa
Average.
342
813
286
169
173
The foregoing averages measure approximately the
relative payments by the several cities and groups of
cities for the expenses of the three kinds of schools that
are met fromschoolrevenuesand school appropriations.
They are not, however, measures of the costs of main
taining what are ordinarily referred to as the "public
schools," since the figures upon which they have been
based include, in the case of some cities, payments for
the maintenance and operation of libraries, the de
livery of lectures, and the maintenance of social centers
for the general public, and also the payments for the
TABLE 40.
orphan asylums and playgrounds, which in other cities
Average payments for school expenses.—Table 40 are made from appropriations other than those for
shows the average payments for the expenses of ele schools, and hence are not included in these tables,
mentary day, secondary day, and night schools per 100 although shown in the averages given on page 121 in
inhabitants and per 100 pupils in regular attendance. connection with the text for Table 36. As measures
In the first column are presented the average expenses of the comparative cost of maintaining the "public
per 100 inhabitants, and in other columns are shown the schools/' these averages are less comparable than those
average payments per 100 pupils in regular attend based upon school attendance.
ance for all the expenses of the three kinds of schools
Inaccurate averages per 100 inhahitanis.—The aver
taken together, and the averages payments for each ages of school expenses per 100 inhabitants in Table 40
of the three kinds of schools, exclusive of those for and the per capita school expenses given in Table 13
general administrative expenses shown in the column are based upon comparable data for the great majority
headed "General administration." I t has been as of cities, including all cities in which schools are ad*
sumed that the administrative expenses of these dif ministered by the city corporation proper, and also all
ferent kinds of schools formed the same proportion of cities with independent school districts which have the
the total administrative expenses for all schools and same territorial area as the city corporation. In the
educational activities that the combined expenses of case of independent school districts with territory ex
the three kinds of schools for instruction, operation, tending beyond the boundary of the city corporation,
and maintenance of plant, and miscellaneous objects and thus having a population exceeding that of the
formed of the corresponding totals for all schools and city corporation, the averages of the two tables men
educational activities. The portion of the aggregate tioned are larger than they should be. Data are want
administrative expenses included in the computation ing for computing more accurate averages.
Average payments for schools for colored pupils.—The
of the column mentioned is also used in the compu
tation of the first column—that showing the average following table shows for the 46 cities which reported
separate schools for colored pupils the average pay
payments per 100 inhabitants.
. For some cities it is impossible to secure data re ments per 100 pupils for expenses of elementary and
lating to attendance at night schools, so that averages secondary day schools:
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
132
Table X L I
City
num
ber.
90
91
93
100
104
108
115
116
121
122
131
133
139
144
151
153
155
157
158
159
160
166
181
183
188
189
192
ELEMENTARY DAY
SCHOOLS.
All
Total. Instruct
tion. other.
St. Louis, Mo
New Orleans, La
Washington, D. C
Kansas City, Mo
Louisville, Ky
Birmingham, A l a . . . . .
Memphis, Term.
,
RichmondjVa
Nashville, Tenn
San Antonio, Tex
Camden, N. J
Kansas City, Kans
Fort Worth, Tex
Norfolk, Va
Oklahoma City, Okla.,
St. Joseph, llo
Evansville, Ind
Hairisburg, Pa
Savannah, Ua.
East St. Louis. Ill
Jacksonville, Fla
Terre Haute, Ihd
Charleston, S. C
Covington, Ky
Mobile. Ala
Little Rock-, Ark
Augusta, Ga
Chattanooga. Tenn....
York, P a . . . .
El Paso, Tex
Tampa, Fla
Wheeling, W. Va
Montgomery, Ala
Roanoke, Va
Huntington, W. V a . . .
KnoxvUle, Tenn
Lexington, Ky
Springfield, Mo
Quincy,Hl
Charlotte, N . C
Portsmouth, Va
Joplin, Mo
Muskogee, Okla
Austin, Tex.,
Newport, Ky..,
Lynchburg, va
3,557
11,818
8,261
(0
0)
1,382
2,891
3,442 1,169
2,048
490
1,103
166
9,965
6,745
5,679
4,763
5,602
2,751
3,500
9,092
2,790
7,666
6,021
1,676
3,968
4,837
2,406
3,500
6,703
2,304
2,389
486
157
367
798
5,817
4,835
982
*9*i03
9,103
8,635
8,635
3,519
2,669
1,137
1,979
1,183
1,746
3,341
4,611
2,538
1,269
962
387
3,853
2,683
2,235
&,
Instruc-j All
tion. other.
786
3,397
1.362
1,141
3,214
Total.
C)
4,183
1.628
1
I)
SECONDARY DAY
SCHOOLS.
to
979
1,703
880
805
20'
3.055
836
434
158
276
303
364
450
2,299
724
4,003
795
765
345
ft8 ft ft 8
1,087
2,339
775
54
875
57
474
509
832
2,954
2,734
4,795
2,480
2,225
3,775 1,020
897
1,730
1,237
1,372
2,190
1,041
1,144
1.115
3.854
3.208
831
1^7
66
689
93
257
6,036
4,836
3,025
3,025
ftl0)6)
0)
1,200
reported for all cities. For a few cities no report for
administrative officers was secured.
Supervisors, teachers, and other school employees.—
The supervisors and teachers reported for the 182
cities numbered 110,662, of whom 46,265, or 41.8 per
cent, were in the cities of Group I; 9,900, or 9 per
cent, in the cities of Group II; 23,601, or 21.3 per
cent, in the cities of Group HE; 17,560, or 15.9 per
cent, in the cities of Group IV; and 13,336, or 12
per cent, in the cities of Group V. Of the total num
ber of supervisors and teachers, 85,559, or 77.3 per
cent, were employed in elementary schools; 12,643, or
11.4 per cent, in secondary schools; 593, or 0.5 per
cent, in normal schools; 3,137, or 2.8 per cent, in other
day schools; and 8,730, or 7.9 per cent, in night
schools. The 12,784 "Other employees" include the
janitors, clerks, and such other employees as were not
engaged in administration, supervision, or instruction.
TABLE 42.
6)
Teachers9 pensions.—Pensions and gratuities are
W
paid to the teachers and former teachers of the public
1,338
190
1,769 | 223 10,214 10,214
1,992
schools by two methods: (1) From or through the
1,016 ! 202
1,218
1.275
1.450
4.162 3,058
175 7.220
agency of public trust funds established for that pur
6)
2,812
3,558
746
pose, and (2) directly from the school district or city,
982
145
837
982
254
728
corporation treasury. Table 42 presents for cities
1,618 1,382
236
933
1,073
1,278
4,251
205 5,184
having
public trust funds for teachers' pensions a
1,175
1351
597
2,581
176 3,178
2,589
8,500
1,799
790 8,500
summary
of the receipts and payments of such funds,
1,267
1,102
165
together with the cash balances at the beginning and
i Number of pupils in regular attendance not reported.
close of the year, and the total assets at the close of
the year. For cities paying teachers' pensions and
TABLE 41.
gratuities, but not having permanent pension funds
School employees.—In Table 41 are presented statis for teachers, the table shows the amounts of payments
tics of school employees classified according to the made for the specified purpose, balanced by receipts
character of the service performed and the kind of to a like amount in the column headed "From city,"
school in which employed. Table XLII, which fol indicating that the pensions and gratuities paid were
lows, shows for the 182 cities for which statistics of from the general appropriation of the city corporation
school employees were secured and for the five groups or from the general fund of the school district. Of
of cities, the percentage which each of the principal the 195 cities reported, 53 made payments for teachers'
classes of school employees constituted of the total.
pensions and gratuities, and five others had funds for
that purpose. Of these 58 cities, 38 had permanent
pension
trust funds, and 20 did not. The total pen
Adminis
Super
Table XLII
Other
tration visors and
sions
and
gratuities paid in 1912 by the .53 cities
officers.
teachers. (employees.
amounted to 81,702,811, of which $1,622,426, or 95.3
182 cities.
89.0
0.7
10.3
per cent, was paid by the cities maintaining teachers'
Group I
0.3
11.0
88.7
retirement funds with investments, and $80,385, or
OroupII.......
0.6
90.6
8.8
Group III
0.8
89.6
9.6
4.7 per cent, was paid by the other 20 cities.
Group IV
1.1
las
Group V
1*5
Cities without permanent teachers9 pension funds.—
9.9
The cities paying pensions but maintaining no permar
School administrative officers.—The percentage of nent retirement funds with investments were: Pitts
persons employed as administrative officers increases burgh, Pa., Newark, Paterson, Trenton, Camden,
from Group I to Group V, being five times as great in Elizabeth, Hoboken, Bayonne, and East Orange, N. J-,.
the latter as in the former group. The largest actual Denver, Colo,, Atlanta, Ga., Lynn, Maiden, and Pittsand relative number of administrative officers reported field, Mass., Charleston, S, C, Mobile, Ala., New
for any individual city was for New York, N. Y., in Britain, Conn., Topeka, Kans., Niagara Falls, N. Y.,
which there were 63 such officers, constituting 7.5 and La Crosse, Wis. It will be noted that this list
per cent of the total number of such school employees includes all the cities of New Jersey in which payments
A.
646
0)
"(I)"
DESCRIPTION OF
1
for teachers pensions were reported* A number of
the cities reported only small payments, indicating
that the pension system was not fully established in
those cities, and that the only payments made by
them were special ones in the shape of grants to par
ticular individuals or in exceptional cases.
Cities with permanent teachers1 pension funds.—The
38 cities having permanent funds with investments
for the payment of teachers' retirement pensions re
ported assets in ihose funds at the close of 1912
amounting to §4,134,488. These funds paid out
$1,622,426 in pensions, $13,072 for expenses of fund
management, and $1,398,717 for investments pur
chased. They received during :the year an aggregate
of $1,968,977, of which amount $1,085,295 was reve
nue or fund income. Of this latter amount, $162,048,
or 14.9 per cent, was derived from the income of invest
ments; $5,995, or 0.6 per cent, from gifts; and
$917,252, or 84.5 per cent, from teachers' contribu
tions to pension funds; while $883,682, or 44.9 per cent
of the total receipts other than from the sale of invest-
IENERAL TABLES.
13B
ments, was contributed from the general funds of the
school district or appropriated by the city corporation
from the general fund.
School pensions in cities classified according to popu~
lation.—Of the 9 cities of Group I, 8 reported the pay
ment of pensions, the amount paid by them consti
tuting 81.2 per cent of that paid by all. Of the 9
cities of the second group, 5 reported the payment of
pensions amounting to only 9.1 per cent of the total.
Pensions were paidjby 17 of the 38 cities of Group m ,
by 15 of the 57 cities of Group IV, and by only 13 of the.
82 cities of Group V, the amounts so paid representing
6.2, 2.3, and 1.2 per cent, respectively, of the aggre
gate payments for pensions and gratuities reported.
The payment of pensions, as well as the establishment
of teachers' retirement funds, has been adopted as a
policy by the larger cities to a much greater extent
than by the smaller. Of the total payments for pen
sions, $989,324, or 59.3 per cent, was paid by New
York City alone, which city also reported 25.8 per
cent of the. assets of pension funds.
GENERAL TABLES
(135)
GENERAL TABLES.
137
TABLE 1.—DATE OF INCORPORATION, POPULATION, AND AREA OF CITIES HAVING AN ESTIMATED POPULATION
OF OVER 30,000 ON JULY 1, 1912.
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 63.]
DATE or
INCORPORATION
A 3 A CITY.
City
waaA
ber.
First. Latest.
Grand total.
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
I....
II...
III.
IV..
V...
AREA (ACEES) JTTLY 1 , 1 9 1 2 .
Estimated
as of
July 1,1912.
Decennial census.
Total.
Apr. 15,1910. June 1,1900.*
Land.
Water.
29,320,579
27,633,557
20,415,942
* 2,894,411.0
2,631,636.0
262,775.0
12,608,847
3,433,254
6,053,814
4,067,032
3,157,582
11,977,607
3,216,294
5,682,114
3,792,155
2,965,387
9,193,545
2,-423,475
3,947,444
2,684,417
2,167,061
563,471.6
497,747.8
722,945.3
538,346.3
571,900.0
551,403.4
391,012.2
651,931.0
503,562.8
533,726.6
12,068.2
106,735.6
71,014.3
34,783.5
38,173.4
GROUP I.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 500,000 AND OVER IN 1912.
New York, N.Y,
Chicago, HI
,
Philadelphia, Pa,
St. Louis, M o . . .
Boston, Mass.....
Cleveland, Ohio.,
Baltimore, Md...
Pittsburgh, Pa..,
Detroit, Mich...
1653
1837
1701
1822
1822
1901
1875
1887
1876
1909
5,064,237
2,294,711
1,606,102
712,027
711,128
4,766,883
2,185,283
1,549,008
687,029
670,585
3,437,202
1,698,575
1,293,697
575,238
560,892
183,555.0
122,448.3
84,933.0
39,277.0
30,295.0
183,555.0 j
118,233.1
83,340.0 !
39,100.0
27,612.0
4,215.2
1,593.0
177.0
« 2,683.0
1836
1796
1816
1824
1891
1898
1901
1883
596,970
569,560
550,667
503,445
560,663
558,485
533,905
465,766
381,768
508,957
6 451,512
285,704
29,469.0
20,255.0
26,666.7
26,572.6
29,299.0
19,290.0
24,871.7
26,102.6
170.0
965.0
1,795.0
470.0
26,983.0
81,280.0
15,607.9
42,464.0! i
68,877.0 j
24,894.0
29,76a 0
15,283.9
42,446.9
67,884.0
2,089.0
51,520.0
324.0
17,1
993.0
14,976*0
169,323.0
44,316.9
33,920.0
14,826.0
125,440.0
38,403.4
32,069.0
150.0
43,883.0
5,908.5
1,851.0
GROUP IL-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 300,000 TO 500,000 IN 1912,
Buffalo, N.Y
1832
1850
1846
1819
1851
1891 I
1910
1874 ]
1908
1911
439,666
433,488
400,279
387,543
386,014
423,715
416,912
373,857
363,591
319,198
352,387
342,782
285,315
325,902
102,479
15 Newark. N . J
16
17 Washington, D. C
18 Minneapolis, Minn
1836
1805
1802
1867
1836
1912
1878 !
1881
369,317
350,695
342,776
323,476
347,469
339,075
331,069
301,403
246,070
287,104
278,718
202,718
10
11
12
13
14
Pan Francisco. Cal
Milwaukee, Wis
Cincinnati, PMo
Los Angeles, Cal...
tl.
GROUP in.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OP 100,000 TO 300,000 IN 1912.
281,497
277,420
265,977
246,928
235,222
267,779
237,194
248,381
233,650
224,326
206,433
80,671
163,752
160,164
175,597
12,288.0
60,466.0
38,193.0
21,658.7
11,700.2
8,320.0
37,481.0
37,443.0
21,338.7
11,352.2
3,968.0
22,985.0
750.0
320.0
348.0
234,546
230,414
230,249
229,323
226,300
207,214
218,149
213,381
223,928
214,744
90,426 :
162,608 1
133,859;
204,731
163,065
33,205.0
13,351.5
37,600.0
15,871.0
35,480.0
31,738.0
12,876.3
37,028.0
13,317.7
33,388.0
1,467.0
475.2
572.0
2,553.3
2,092.0
Portland, Oreg.
Rochester, N T V
Denver, Colo
Louisville, Ky
St. Paul, Minn
1851
1834
1859
1824
1854
1889
1889
1903 H
1905 n
1866
1903
1908
1911
1893
1910
Columbus, Ohio
Toledo, Ohio
Oakland, Cal
Atlanta, Ga
Worcester, Mass
1816
1837
1854
1847
1848
1834
1837
1911
1874
1894
193,822
176,698
167,401
167,041
152,150
181,511
168,497
150,174
154,839
145,986
125,560
131,822
66,960
89,872
118,421
14,061.7
18,265.6
38,561.0 |
16,428.0
24,634.0
13,904.3
16,025.6
31,591.0
16,422.0
23,731.0
157.4
2,240.0
6,970.0
6.0
903.0
Birmingham, Ala....,
Syracuse, N . Y
,
New Haven, Conn...,
Memphis, Tenn
Scran ton, Pa
,
1871
1848
1784
1849
1866
1871
1901
1905
1909
1901
150,249
143,602
139,325
137,469
135,894
132,685
137,249
133,605
131,105
129,867
38,415
108,374
108,027
102,320
102,026
30,912.0
11,583.6
14,34a 0 !
12,719.0
12,508.9
30,881.2
11,083.6
11,46a 0
12,352.0
12,361.7
500.0
2,880.0
367.0
147.2
Richmond, Va
Pateraon.N.J
Omaha, Nebr
Fall River, Mass
Spokane, Wash
,
1782
1851
1857
1854
1883
1867
1871
1905
1903
1910
131,453
130,167
128,912
122,521
120,994
127,628
125,600
124,096
119,295
104,402
85,050
105 171
102,555
104,863
36,848
7,028.0
5,357.0
15,680.0 I
26,156.0
25,120.0
6,388.0
* 5,157.0
15,400.0
21,723.0
24,819.0
640.0
200.0
280.0
4,433.0
301.0
Dayton, Ohio
Grand Rapids, Mich..
Nashville, Tenn
Bridgeport, Conn
Lowell, Mass
1841
1850
1806
1836
1830
120,364
118,163
112,744
108,999
108,768
116,577
112,571
110,364
102,054
106,294
85,333
87,565
80,865
70,996
94^969
10,637.0
11,040.0 |
11,648.0!
11,426.0
9,098.0
10,061.0
10,731.0
11,393.0
9,330.0
8,308.0
576.0
309.0
255.0
2,096.0
790.0
Cambridge. Mass......
San Antonio, Tex.....
New Bedford, Mass..,
Hartford, Conn
1846
1837
1847
1784
1903
1905
1883
1895
1911
1891
1903
1847
1880
107,734
106,295
104,302
103,177
104,839
96,614
96,652
98,915
91,886
53,321
62,442
79,850
4,180.8
23,040.0
20,873.0 !
11,065.6
4,014.3
22,905.0
12,206.0
10,155.6
166.5
135.0
8,667.0
910.0
Dallas, Tex
Trenton, N.J
,
Albany. N . Y
Salt Lake City, Utah.
1856
1792
1686
1851
1907
1874
1908
1888
102,690
102, OH
101,726
101,207
92,104
96,815
100,253
92,777
42,638
73,307
94,151
53,531
10,606.9
4,903.0
10,070.1
31,188.7
10,491.7
4,490.0 1
9,774.4
30,488.7
1827
1 1869
1853
1831
1832
Jersey City, N. J
Seattle, Wash
Kansas City, Mo
Indianapolis, lnd
Providence, R. I
,
1
1.
* Includes population of cities as enumerated, except a* stored to footnote.
•Includes
land area of New York City, tor which, total area was not reported.
s
Not reported.
« Water area contains 1,546 acres of land submerged at high tide.
»Includes population of territory annexed since 1900.
so.8
115.2
413.0
295.7
700.0
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
138
TABLE l . - D A T E OF INCORPORATION, POPULATION, AND AREA OF CITIES HAVING AN ESTIMATED POPULATION
OF OVER 30,000 ON JULY 1, 1912—Continued.
[FU a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number assigned to each, see page 20.
DATE OP
1NCOBPORATION
AS A CITY.
City
num
ber.
JLKKA (ACRES) JULY 1 , 1912.
POPULATION.
CUT*
First. Latest
For a text discussion of this table, see page 63. J
Estimated
as of
July 1,1912.
Decennial census.
Apr. 15,1910. | June 1,1900.* 1
Total.
Land.
Water.
GROUP IV.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 50,000 TO 100,000 IN 1912.
Reading, P a . . . .
Camden, N . J . . .
Springfield, Mas
Tacoma, wash..
Lynn, Mass.....
1847
1S2S
1852
1875
1850
1847
1871
1852
1909
1911
99,896
98,697
94,933
94,067
£3,991
96,071
94,538
88,926
83,743
78,961
75,935
62,059
37,714
68,513
4,122.0 I
5,023.5 !
24,661.0
27,920.0
7,243.0
4,122.0
4,474.5
23,461.0
25,168.0
6,943.0
5510
1,200.0
2,752.0
305.0
Des Moines, Iowa...
Lawrence, Mass
Wilmington, Del
Kansas City, Kans..
Yonkers,N.Y
1857
1853
1832
18S6
1872
1907
1911
1832
1910
1895
91,785
91,103
89,849
* 89,008
86,363
85,892
87,411
82,331
79,803
62,139
62,559
76,503
51,413
47,931
35,309.2
4,577.0
6,515.0
10,364.0
11,840.0
34,423.2
4,135.0
4,026.0
9,774.0
11,440.0
836.0
392.0
12,489.0
590.0
400.0
Youngstown, Ohio..
Houston, Tex
Fort Worth, Tex....
Duluth, Minn
Norfolk, Va
1868
1839
1872
1870
1845
1868
1905
1907
1900
1906
86,557
86,316
84,427
84,168
83,470
79,066
78,800
73,312
78,466
67,452
44,883
44,633
26,633
52,960
46,624
7,142.0 (.
10,171.5
10,607.0 *
43,116.8
5,966.6
6,992.0
10,031.4
10,392.4
37,715.2
4,773.8
150.0
140.1
214.6
5,401.6
1,192.8
Oklahoma City, Okla.
Schenectady, N . Y . . . .
Somerville, Mass
St. Joseph, Mo
Utica,N.Y
1891
1798
1871
1853
1832
1891
1909
1899
18S5
1908
83,194
82,103
80,723
« SO, 188
78,429
64,205
72,826
77,236
77,403
74,419
10,037
31,682
61,643
102,979
56,333
11,440.0
5,075.0
2,700.0
8,350.0
7,703.8
11,401.0
6,000.0
2,600.0
8,430.0
7,509.0
39.0
75.0
100.0
■400.0
Elizabeth, N . J
Waterbury, Conn
Troy,N.Y:.
Akron, Ohio
Manchester, N, H.
Hoboken,N. J
Wilkes-Barre, Pa...
Erie, Pa.
Evansville, Ind
Peoria, UL
1855
1853
1316
1836
1846
1863
1896
1911
1865
1846
78,135
78,061
77,204
74,957
72,987
73,409
73,141
76,813
69,067
70,063
62,130
* 51,139
•75,057
42,723
66,937
6,230.0
18,043.0
6,035.2
7,347.0
21,700.0
6,191.0
17,931.0
6,964.8
7,259.0
20,119.5
39.0
67.0
70.4
8S.0
1,580.5
1855
1871
1851
1847
1845
1855
1898
1874
1905
1892
72,774
70,544
69,603
69,604
63,554
70,324
67,105
66,525
69,647
66,950
69,364
51,721
62,733
59,007
66,100
1,220.0
3,433.0
4,960.6
5,440.0
6,020.0
830.0
3,233.0
4,730.6
5,400.0
6,020.0
390.0
200.0
130.0
40.0
Fort Wayne, Ind...
Hairisburg, Pa.
Savannah, Ga.
East St. Louis, HI..
Jacksonville, Fla...,
1839
1860
1789
1865
1822
1904
1860
1789
1888
1887
67,890
66,971
66,029
64,296
64,245
63,933
64,186
65,064
68,547
67,699
45,115
60,167
64,244
29,655
23,429
6,292.0
6,540.7
4,300.0
7,850.0
7,900.0
6,171.0
3,448.8
4,053.0
7,828.0
6,060.0
121.0
2,091.9
247.0
22.0
1,840.0
South Bend, Ind....
Terre Haute, Ind....
Passaic, N.J
Johnstown, Pa
Bayonne, N. J
1865
1833
1873
1889
I860
1901
1905
1873
1889
1872
61,296
60,977 j
60,809
60,7621
60,649
53,684
68,157
64,773
65,482
65,645
35,999
36,673
27,777
35,936
32,722
9,318.4
6,463.0
2,087.7
3,197.3
3,938.0
9,117.8
6,008.0
1,998.7
2,997.3
2,677.0
200.6
Brockton, Mass.,
Portland, Me.....
Holyoke, Mass...
100 Charleston, S.C.,
101 Wichita, Kans..
1881
1832
1873
1783
1871
1881
1863
1897
1783
1886
60,637
60,455
60,413
59,509
* 69,222
66,878
68,671
67,730
62,450
40,063
60,145
45,712
65,807
24,671
13,793.4
14,325.1
14,535.0
3,276.8
12,330.0
13,703.4
13,790.7
13,423.0
2,406.4
12,67a 0
102
103
104
105
AUentown, Pa...
Springfield, HI..
Covington, Ky...
Altoona, P a . . . . .
1867
1840
1834
1868
1889
1911
1894
1868
57,090
54,979
54,648
54,451
51,913
51,678
63,270
62,127
35,416
34,159
42,933
38,973
3,815.0
6,504.0
3,093.0
2,114,6
3,705.0
5,504.0
3,033.0
2,114.6
106
107
108
109
Pawtucket, R. I . . . ,
Canton, Ohio
Mobile, Ala
Sacramento, CaL....
1886
1854
1824
1863
1886
1854
1911
1911
54,391
54,00053,647
« 53,340
61,622
60,217
51,521
44,696
39,231
30,667
33,469
29,232
6,725.0
6,964.0
11,200.0
8,394.0
6,498.0
5,929.0
8,040.0
8,830.0
227.0
35.0
2,560.0
110
111
112
113
Saginaw, Mich
Sioux City, Iowa...,
Binghamton. N. Y..
Atlantic City, N. J..
1889
1857
1867
1854
1908
1886
1907
1902
52,334
51,118
50,409
50,244
7,897.1
28,645.0
6,400.0
3,060.0
7,657.1
23,020.0
6,913.6
2,760.0
240.0
625.0
436.4
300.0
6,159.0
6,320.0
6,196.0
7,223.0
2,560.0
ooooo
67
87
60,510
47,823
48,443
46,150
42,345
33,111
39,647
27,833
139.8
460.0
89.0
• 200.0
1,361.0
90.0
1,034.4
1,162.0
870.4
260.0
110.0
"*"io.*6
64.0
114
115
116
117
118
Rockford, HI
Little Rock, Ark..
Augusta, Ga
Springfield, Ohio..
Lancaster, Pa
1852
1831
1798
1850
1818
1880
1875
1798
1903
1818 1
49,491
48,710
43,660
48,568
48,517
45,401
45,941
41,040
46,921
47,227
119
120
121
122
123
Pueblo, Colo
,
New Britain, Conn...
Chattanooga, Tenn...
York, Pa.
Maiden, M a s s . . . . . . .
1873
1871
1851
1887
1882
1911 1
1905 |
1911
1337
1882
47,975
47,430
47,339
47,206
46,805
44,395
43,916
44,604
44,750
44,404
124
125
126
127
128
Berkeley, Cal
Bay City, Mich
Haverhill, Mass
Topeka, Kans
Salem, Mass
,
31,051
33,307
3*9,441 j
33,253
*1,459
ill!
GROUP V.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 66,000 IN 1912.
30.0
7,303.8
8,438.5
3,231.8
2,200.0
3,072.0
7,218.3
8,423.5
3,031.8
2,165.0
3,060.0
90.0
10.0
200.0
35.0
1X0
1878
1909
46,558
40,434
13,214
10,720.0
1865
1907
46,153
45,166
* 40,747
7,072.0
1870
1870
45,665
44,115
37,175
22,000.0
1857
1907
•45,478
43,684
33,608
5,652.0
| 1836
1836
45,427
43,697
35,956 1
5,250.0
i Includes population of cities as enumerated, except as stated in footnotes,
i Includes 1,460 acres of marsh land.
*«««•
» State census, March 1,1912.
B
th0
8
1
^ o n population
W 8 °I
??: 1 9 1 0annexed
' o n a***"*
of the
* Includes
of Jterritory
since
1900.defective work of the enumerator
«*uuwr»wr in
w 1900.
« A revised estimate gives Sacramento, Cal., a population of 58,539.
5,230.0
6,316.8
20,500.0
5,332.0
5,100.0
5,440.0
'755.2
1,500.0
320.0
150.0
28,157
25,998
30,154 j
33,708
33,664
GENERAL TABLES.
139
T A B L E 1 . — D A T E O F I N C O R P O R A T I O N , P O P U L A T I O N , A N D A R E A Of* C I T I E S H A V I N G A N E S T I M A T E D
O F O V E R 30,000 ON J U L Y 1, 1912—Continued.
POPULATION
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number assigned to each, see page 20. Tor a text discussion of this table, see page 63.]
DATE OF
INCORPORATION
ASAOTY.
City
Dum
ber.
First. Latest
AREA (ACRES) JULY 1, 1912.
POPULATION.
Estimated
a.sof
July l f 1912.
Decennial census.
Apr. 15,1910. June 1,1900.
Total.
Land.
Water.
GROUP V.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912-Continued.
129
130
131
132
133
Lincoln, Nebr.....
Davenport, Iowa..,
El Paso, Tex
San Diego.Cal....
Tampa, Fla
1S71
1S51
1873
1850
18S7
1887
1857
1907
1909
1887
44,873
44,766
44,645
44,470
44,428
43,973 |
43,028 !
39,279
39,578
37,782
40,169 ,
35,254
15,906
17,700
15,839
4,891.2 l,
5,280.0
5,836.8
47,323.1
7,680.0
4,888.6
5,280.0
5,724.3
47,323.1
5,760.0
1,920.0
134
135
136
137
138
^eesport,
Flint, Mfch
Kalamazoo, Mich.,
Racine, Wis
Superior, Wis
1S91
1855
18S4
1848
1SS9
1891
1909
1907
1905
1891
44,413
44,322
42,798
42,585
42,462
42,694
38,550
39,437
38,002
40,384
34,227
13,103
24,404
29,102
31,091
2,240.0
8,346.0
5,307.0
3,840.0
27,000.0
2,236.8
8,306.0
5,216.0
3,750.0
23,400.0
3.2
40.0
91.0
90.0
3,600.0
139
140
141
142
143
Wheeling, W.Va..
Macon, Ga
Newton, Mass.....
Butte, Mont
Woonsocket,R.I.
1S36
1S32
1873
1879
1SS8
1907
1S93
1902
1SS8
1SSS
42,257
41,364
41,195
40,540
40,342
41,641
40,665
39,806
39,165
38,125
38,878
23,272
33,587
30,470
28,204
2,050.0
5,310.0
11,406.0
3,300.0
5,632.0
1,345.0
5,260.0
11,106.0
3,300.0
5,532.0
705.0
50.0
300.0
144
145
146
147
143
Montgomery, Ala.
Chester, Pa
Fltchburg, Mass..
Dubuque, Iowa...
Galveston, T e x . . .
1837
IS66
1872
1810
1839
1911
18S9
1872
1840
1903
39,773
39,553
39,233
38,981
38,716
38,136
38,537
37,826
38,494
36,981
30,346
33,983
31,531
36,297
37,789
4,211.2
3,000.0
18,163.0
8,320.0
4,9S9.3
4,211.2
2,9S5.0
17,963.0
8,290.0
4,989.3
15.0
200.0
30.0
149
150
151
152
153
West Hobokcn, N . J .
Newcastle, Pa
Roanoke, va
Elmira,N.Y
Huntington, W . V a . .
1SS8
1869
18S4
1864
1872
1888
1889
1S92
1906
1909
38,155
38,005
37,864
37,512
37,404
35,403
36,280
34,874
37,176
31,161
23,094
28,339
21,495
35,672
11,923
546.0
5,915.0
3,462.4
4,747.0
7,920.0
546.0
6,815.0
3,394.5
4,546.0
7,892.0
100.0
67.9
201.0
28.0
154
155
156
157
158
East Orange, N. J..
KnoxviUe,Tenn..,
Hamilton, Ohio...
Lexington, Ky....,
Springfield, M o . . . ,
1899
1815
1854
1S32
1855
1909
1912
1854
1894
1885
37,246
37,174
37,13S
37,051
37,030
34,371
36,346
35,279
35,099
35,201
21,506
32,637
23,914
26,369
23,267
2,480.0
2,551.0
3,460.0
3,200.0
5,039.1
2,480.0
2,541.0
3,320.0
3,200.0
5,039.1
10.0
140.0
159
160
161
162
163
Qumcy,Hl..
Charlotu
""
_loUe,N.C.
Joifct.IlL
Pasadena, Cal...
Auburn, N . Y . .
1839
1816
1S52
1S86
1848
1895
1851
1876
1909
1906
36,079
35,858
35 843
35,633
36,587
34,014
34,670
30,291
34,668
18,091
29,353
9,117
30,345
5,224.6
8,192.0
2,520.0
7,170.8
5,440.0
3,798.6
8,167.0
2,430.0
7,170.8
5,390.0
1,426.0
,25.0
90.0
164
165
166167
163
Everett, Mass
Decatur, III
Portsmouth, V a . . . .
Perth Amboy, N . J .
Taunton, Mass
1892
1856
1858
1S71
1864
1892
1SS1
1858
1871
1910
35,529
35,526
35,465
35,345
34,979
33,484
31,140
33,190
32,121
34,259
24,336
20,754
17,427
17,699
31,036
2,176.0
3,186.5
1,680.0
3,804.0
31,264.0
1,988.0
3,179.9
1,545.0
2,844.0
28,320.0
188.0
6.6
960.0
2,944.0
169
170
171
172
173
Qulney,Mass
Lansing, Mich
Pittsfleld.Mass
Cedar Rapids, Iowa..
Oshkosh/Wis
1889
1S5S
1891
1850
1853
1889
1858
1 1891
1908
1911
34,596
34,526
34,435
34,410
34,130
32,642
31,229
32,121
32.S11
33,062
16,485
21,766
25,656
28,284
17,186.0
4,800.0
22,900.0
8,397.0
5,446.4
10,736.0
4,500.0
21,925.0
7,909.0
5,036.8
6,450.0
300.0
975.0
483.0
409.6
174
175
176
177
178
San Jose, CaL
Amsterdam, N. Y . . . .
Jamestown, N. Y
Mount Vernon, N . Y . ,
Niagara Falls, N . Y . .
1850
1885
1886
1892
1892
1906
1885
1907
1911
| 1892
33,457
33,343
33,176
33 085
32,901
28,946
31,267
31,297
30,919
30,445
21,500
20,929
22,892
21,228
19,457
3,965.0
3,732.0
6,410.4
2,694.4
6,970.0
3,965.0
3,485.0
5,351.4
2,644.4
5,900.0
247.0
59.0
50.0
1,070.0
179
180
181
182
183
Jackson, Midi
WiWamsport, Pa.
Joplin,Mo
Lima, Ohio
Muskogee, Okla...
1843
1866
1873
1871
1898
1905
1889
1900
1871
1911
32,831
32,553
32,480
32,425
32,183
31,433
31,860
32,073
30,508
25,278
25,180
28,757
26,023
21,723
4,254
5,760.0
4,544.0
9,600.0
3,770.0
5,358.7
5,628.0
4,485.0
9,600.0
3,690.0
5,358.7
132.0
59.0
Chelsea, Mass
NewRochelle,N.Y.
Aurora, III.....
187 Lorain, Ohio
1857
1899
1857
1894
1894
1910
1887
1 1894
32,092
32,029
31,840
31,756
32,452
28,867
29,807
34,072
14,720
24,147
16,028
1,440.0
6,345.0
4,420.0
6,235.0
1,270.0
6,325.0
4,245.0
6,115.0
170.0
20.0
175.0
120.0
188
189
190
191
Austin, Tex....,
Newport, K y . . ,
Orange, N . J . . .
La Crosse, Wis.
1839
1850
1872
1856
1 1909
1894
1872
1869
31,622
31,057
30,857
30,757
29,860
30,309
29,630
30,417
22,258
28,301
24,141
28,895
10,561.0
843.0
1,400.0
5,866.5
8,282.0
2,279.0
114.0
192
193
194
195
Lynchburg, Va
Shreveport, La.
Colorado Springs, Colo.
Council Bluffs/Iowa...
1805
1839
1878
1853
1896
1839
1909
! 1853
30,720
30,582
30,463
30,072
29,494
28,015
29,078
29,292
18,891
16,013
21,085
25,802
3,000.0
6,380.0
5,241.3
12,627.2
2,800.0
6,080.0
5,241.3
11,616.0
184
185
186
729.0
1,400.0
5,330.9
2.6
112.5
100.0
50.0
135.0
80.0
535.6
200.0
300.0
1,01L2
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
140
TABLE 2.—SPECIFIED CITY OFFICIALS, NUMBER, TERMS OF OFFICE (IN YEARS),
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number assigned to each, see pago 20. For a text dhciisntaa
JLLDEEMZN A N D COUNOLMEN.
City
num
ber.
Num Term
of
ber. office.
Method of election.
Members of lower house.
Members of upper house.
Members of single chamber.
cur.
Term
of
Salary. Num
ber. office.
Method of election.
Term
Salary. Num
of
ber. office.
Method of
election.
Salary.
GROUP I.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 500,000 AND OVER IN 1912.
1 New York, N . Y .
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Detroit. Mich
73
70
0
32
0
36
2
2
3
$2,000
3,000
47
12
4
4
%o
84
28
2
2
By wards.,.
By wards...
1300
4 8 by districts, 1 at large.
1,000
24
4 By wards...
i,666
27
2
By wards... $1,000
1,500
2 26 by wards, 6 at large... 1,200
6,500
4 A * lftwta
2 By w a r d s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,200
9
GROUP II.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 300,000 TO 500,000 IN 1912.
10
ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Minneapolis, Minn
18
37
32
9
52,400
25 by wards, 12 at large . 1,000
1,150
26 by wards, 6 at large... 2,400
2
32
2
500
26
4
1,200
9
11,000
4
GROUP m.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 100,000 TO 300,000 IN 1912.
19 Jersey City, N. J
20 Rpattle, w a s h . , , . . . . . . .
21
22
23
25
9
24 Portland, Oreg. T. . . . . . .
25
26
27
28
15
22
29
30 Toledo, Ohio
31
32
33
19
18
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 Grand Rapids, Mich...
46
47!
4S
49
50
51
52
53
54 1
55
66 Salt TflVfl CAtv Utah
9
19
21
2 24 by wards, 1 at large... $500
3,000
3 At large
4 By districts
600
4 10 by wards, 5 at large...
2 By wards
300
750
4
2
7
12
9
2 By districts
2 By wards..,.
2 At large.
10
11
2
1 10 by wards, 1 at large..
14
4
11
1
6
20
1
2
»$5j
16
2
By wards...
*$S
500!
40
2
By wards...
300
"1,200
10
24
12
2
2
2
By wards... »1,000
By wards...
By wards...
300
20
30
2
2
By wards... "
By wards...
0)
20
2
By wards...
(»)
22
1 Bywords...
<*)
24
40
i
8-
By w a r d s * . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.....i
2 16 by wards, 3 at large...
650
15 by wards, 3 at large... »550
"300
2 By wards
"750
2 15 by wards, 6 at large... <»)
5
4
2,000
22
2
500
27
2 18 by wards, 9 at large...
1
16
24
25
24
2 12 by wards, 4 at large... "450
2
350
2 By wards
2
12
2 8 by wards, 4 at large....
19
16
10
0)
C)
8
2
"10
| »500
i None.
* Chairman's salary, $4,500; deputy's salary, $4,200.
« Not reported
« Chairman's salary, $3,300.
* No specified term.
* Nine for 2 years, nine for 4 years.
» Twenty-five for 2 years, twelve for 4 years.
* Deputy commissioner of public finance is acting comptroller and acting treasurer.
* Chairman's salary, $3,500*
100
0)
1
By wards...
By wards...
GENERAL TABLES.
141
METHOD OF ELECTION (BY WARDS OR AT LARGE), AND ANNUAL SALARIES: 1912.
ol this table, see page 64. Appointed officials are indicated by "a" in the column headed "Term of office;" all others are elected.]
j
MA TOE.
COMMISSIONERS.
Term
J Num Term
of
Salary,;
of
ber. office.
office.
CITT CLERK.
iTerm
Salary.
of
office.
Salary
COMPTROLLER,
AUDITOR.
TREASURER |
COLLECTOR OF
I O B CHAMBER
REVENUE.
LAIN.
Term
Term
of
Salary. 1 of
Salary.
office.
office.
Term
of
Salary.
office.
CITY ATTOR
NEY OR
SOLICITOR.
ASSESSORS.
Term
Term
of
Salary. N u m ' Of
Salary.
ber.
office.
office.
Term
Salary.
of
office.
City
num
ber.
GROUP I.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 500,000 AND OVER IN 1912.
4
*
4
4
4
2
4
2
$15,000
18,000
12,000
5,000
10,000
06
2
*
10,000
6,000
10,000
5,000
18,000
5,000
o3
3,000
5,000
a2
4,000
o3
2
«%>;
4
o4
4
4
o4
4
o3
$15,000
10,000
8,000
5,000
!
$4,500: i
04
4
a4
4,000
6,000
2
5,000
4,000
5,000
4,000
o 4 $12,000
2 12,000
10,000
5,000
5,000
o4
2
o4
04
2
!
4,750
3,500
5,000
4,000
04
4
*
o4
o4
$6,000
10,000 I
10,000 |
5,000
4
3,600 j |
3 * 4,000
o 4 $15,000
4 10000
4 10,000
o4
5,000
c4
9,000
1
2
3
4
5
4 *2,700
3
3,000
2
04
o4
o4
6,000
4,500
5,000
5,000
6
7
8
9
4
4
4
2
2
$5,000
5,000
4,000
5,000
4,000
10
11
12
13
14
o(«)
a4
0(6)
a2
9,000
6,000
4,500
6,000
15
16
17
18
$6,000
4,800
4,500
4,000
04
3 7,500
19
20
21
22
23
2
o2
04
04
fl2
2,400
5,000
4,600
5,000
5,000
24
25
26
27
23
3,500
4,000
5,000
3,300
3,800
29
30
31
32
33
3,600
4,000
3,500
3,600
2,500
34
35
36
37
38
5,000
3,500
3,600
2.500
fa
39
40
41
42
43
4,000
3,000
2,500
3,000
2,500
44
45
46
47
48
3,500
3,600
2,500
5,000
49
50
51
52
2,700
3,000
4,000
3,000
53
54
55
56
06
4
1
o7
o9
o3
$7,000 j
2,000
GROUP I I . - € I T I B S HAVING A POPULATION OP 300,000 TO 500,000 IN 1912.
1
i
|
$6,000 1!
5^000
4
3
5
3
4
4
2
2
2
$5,000
6,000
4,000
10,000
4,500
2
4
5,000
10,000
2
5,666
o2
02
02
04
02
$3,000
3,600
2,500
4,100
2,400
4
$1,000
2
4,666
7,500
05
4,000
2
5,000
i a( s >
$2,500 i
4,000 |
2
2
5,000
3,000
2
o4
4,500
3,500
4,000
4
4
2
2
04
o3
4,000 {
2
i
$5,000:
4,000
5,000
5,000 j
2)400
4
3
1
$4,000
3,000
04
4.500
(»)
I
3,000
6,000
-
6
4
$4,000! I
8,000
I
i
2
3,666
05
5
3,500
3
ol
• 2,666
2
4,200
GROUP III.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 100,000 TO 300,000 IN 1912.
1 1
.
*
2
2
2
4
2
$5,000
7,500
5,000
4,000
5,000 1
2
2
4
4
2
4.800
5,000! |
6,000
5,000
2,500 |
2
2
4
1
5,000;
4,000!
4,200]
4 000!
4,000
3,000;
2
2
4
4
■■
]
i
;
.
5
3
5
4
3
4
$3,600
3
4,566
5
5
5,000!
1*
5
5
6
4
3,666
ai
4,266
o2
2
2
04
2
c2
4
2,666
3,000
c2
2,506 1
2
a2
2
ol
2,400
2,500
3,000!
3,000
2,500 1
4,000
3,500
6,000;
5,000
a2
2
04
o2
2,800;
2,000!
3,000
2)000
4
2
3
2
5
5,000
2,000
5,000
3,000
6,000
02
03
3,000 1
03
1500!
o(»)
2,500
2,850
2,400
2
2
2
2
5,000
2,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
o2
2
2
02
2,000
2,500
2 500
3,000
1,800
3,500
5,000
6,000
3,500
03
02
3
2
3,300:
1 S00j
2,700
2,000
4,000
3,500
4,000
4,200
ol
1,800
2,000
2,500
2,400
2
2,500
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
4
$5,000
o2
04
2
2
7,000
7
2
oA
3,000
3,000 j
3,600
2
4
2
4
2
02
02
$3,000
4,200
4,000
3,000
3,500
3,500
3,666
4,000
3,500
3,000
4
2,500
2
3
3
3,500 1
2
2
4
4
2
2,400
3,500
4 600
3,500
4)000
3
1
01
4
4
4
3,600
4,600 i
3,500
3,000
2,000
3,600
2
2
15
2
"3
2
ol
3
2
3,666
2,700
3,100
2,675
3,600
1 000
3,400)
2
2
04
a4
3,000:
1,000 I
3,000
4,000
3
a3
2,040
1,800
1,000
2,6C0
2,400
4,566
2
3,000
4
4
4,600
2,750
2
2
4
ai
o2
2
o<*)
2
2
Ol
2
1,800|
3,000
"
2
$3,000
4 200
4,000
1,500
4,200
$3,666
3,500
2
2
2
4
a2
2
2
2
2
o2
2,500
2,500
3,000
2,500
2,600
2,400!
n
»
o<»)
2
2
4
2,666| 1
2
i,soo; I « ( * )
3,000
a3
2
1
2,500
2,000
2,500
al
2
1
2
a2
3,000
2
2,500
2
3,500
2
2,400
2,650
2,500
2,500
800
2,500 j
3,000
1,200
3,500
4,000;
1*5
2,000
3,000
2,400
4
$3,500
$3,666
2
4,000
4
05
1
c7
2
6
4
4
2,700
2,000
4,000
1,500
4
o3
3,600
2,000
1
a5
4
5
1,500
2
2,300
o3
3
1,700
a3
2
2,500 1
2
2,500
04
a3
3
1
I
3
3
a(')
2,000
ol
o3
4
1 _-
» Per meeting.
H President's salary, $1,500.
w President's salary, $1,200.
M President's salary, $1,000.
M Per day.
J* Commission.
,
.
. . . -,
" Solicitor receives $1,800 per annum, out of j*hich he pays salaries of all employees of his office.
v President's salary. $500.
« Bank official acts as treasurer.
^ ^
» Commissioner of revenue and finance acts as comptroller.
3
4
2
a2
2
2
2
2
1 *(*)
|
2
ol
o(»)
02
02
04
04
02
a3
B(»)
a2
o(»)
2
2
1,750
2,500
•1,800 1 0 2
2,250
o(»)
2,000
3
2,000
2
3
2,000
3 ,2,500
1
1
2,100
1,500
2,500
a3
2
1
02
ol
o(*)
c(0
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
142
TABLE 2.-SPECIFIED CITY OFFICIALS, NUMBER, TERMS OF OFFICE (IN YEARS),
(For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number assigned to each, see page 20. For a teit discussion.
ALDEBMEK AND COUXCtUCEK.
City
num
ber.
Term
Num
of
ber. office.
Salary.
Method of election.
G R O U P IV.—CITIES H A V I N G A
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
26
2 "Y+io*wtt*"*
*
10 b y wards, 1 at large...
• 500
Youngstown, Ohio
12
2
9 b y wards, 3 at large....
150
Tlntnth Minn
Norfolk. V a
16
2
ii
2
1
4
2
v
Utica,N. Y
77 Elizabeth, N.J
78
79 Troy N x
80
81
....
82 Hoboken, N. J . . . . . . . . .
2
300
87
88
89 Ftavfvnnah Oft.
90
91
92
93
94
95 Johnstown, Pa
96 Bayonne,N.J
,
2
2
2
2
10
2
10
16
4
2
7 b y wards, 3 at large....
15
4
10 b y wards, 5 at large...
200
12
16
By wards...............
18
2
2
2
•10
•3
•10
10
10
4
4
7 b y wards, 3 at l a r g e . . . .
7 b y wards, 3 at l a r g e . . . .
200
200
11
2 10 b y wards, 1 at large...
21
24
100
101
c->4
8 b y wards, 4 at large,...
•500
U150
113
Sioux City. Iowa
Binghamton,N.Y
500
16
2
By wards...
c> |
8
2
(0
18
2
By wards...
"ci [
25
4 By wards...
30
2
By wards...
8
16
12
2
2
By wards...
By wards...
4
0)
20
2
By wards...
4
(■)
21
2
By wards...
"<«)
8
21
27
3 By wards...
1 By wards...
8
(»)
15
4
10
2
16
6
4
2
13
21
(>)
0) I
*
•S3
150
20
2
•5
2]
3
By wards.....
.........
1
8
2 7 b y wards, 3 at large....
0)
8
(l)
*
7
9
14 b y wards, 7 at large...
10
****14"
(»)
200
•3
105
- 110
111
112
4
400
103 ,
104
107
108
109
1G
0)
102
106 i
Salary. 1
•10
•500
1
97
98
99 j
Method or
election.
•500
14 b y wards, 7 a t large...
21 [
5
16
24
15
IS
12
. 83
84
85
86 Peoria, BL
Salary*
2,500
240
2
"VnntAre \ f
Method of election.
[
|
**
4
12
11
72 Oklahoma City, O k l a . .
73
74
75
76
1500
2
N u m Term
of
ber. office.
Term
Nam*
of
ber. office.
P O P U L A T I O N O F 50,000 TO 100,000 I N 1912.
57
58
59
60
61
Members of lower house.
Members of upper bouse*
Members of single chamber.
CITY.
14
4
5
12
2
4
6
2
A t large
.....*.. •
.
2
12
24
300
18
2 At large
2 By wards...
2 By wards...
0)
(*) 1
By wardj...
28
•3
f
1
(0
t
2001
1
•
""*300*
»
1
1
j
>—•""[
r*
i— J
G R O U P V . - C I T I E S H A V I N G A P O P U L A T I O N O P 30,000 TO SOJOOQ I N 1912.
114
115
116
us
15
16
18
2
2
3
•S3
300
150
10
2 7 b y wards, 3 at large....
150
9
4
(>)
27
2
By wards...
6
2
(0
24
2
By wards...
13
7
4
1
8
26
21
2
1
By wards...
By wards...
119
120 N e w Britain, Conn
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
"
Vi
8
•2
128
* None.
No specified term.
Commissioner of finance acts as treasurer.
*
Chairman's salary, $1,400.
8
Plus commission.
*r President's salary, $1,000.
Commission of nine-sixteenths of 1 per cent*
1
3
7
24
0) 1
1 i
i By wards...
• Chairman's salary, $1*800.
• Per meeting.
» President's salary, $500; aldermen's, none.
" President's salary, $250.
« Assessors' salaries. $1,200 every third year.
** Seven, elected at large, for 1 year; fourteen, elected by wards, for 2 years.
w1
GENERAL TABLES.
143
METHOD OP ELECTION ( B Y WARDS OR AT LARGE), AND ANNUAL SALARIES: 1912—Continued,
ol this table, see page 64. Appointed officials are indicated by "a " in the column headed "Term of office;" all others are elected.]
B
1
i
!
MAYOR.
COMMISSIONERS.
Term
of
office.
Term
Num
Salary.
of
ber. office.
CITY CLERK.
COMPTROLLER.
Term
of
Salary.
office.
Salary.
AUDITOR.
Term
of
Salary.
office.
Term
of
Salary.
office.
TREASURER.
OR CHAMBER
LAIN.
COLLECTOR OF !
REVENUE.
Term
of
Salary.
office.
Term
Salary.
of
office.
CITY ATTOR
NEY OE
SOLICITOR.
ASSESSORS.
N u m Term
of
Salary.
ber. office.
Term
of
Salary.
office.
Ciiy
num
ber.
G R O U P I V . - C I T I E S HAVING\ A P O P U L A T I O N O F 50,000 TO 100,000 I N 1912.
- 5
5
4
2
$3,600
3,000
5
2
3,000
5
2
4
3
2
4
2
2
22
2
2
3,000
2
5
5
5
2
2
4
4
2,400
3,000
4,000
3,600
1
*■
5
2
i,800
5
4
3,500
3
5
5
5
3
5
2
4
5,666
3,600
S3,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
3,500
4
o3
3
«(*)
3,500
3,500
2,000 1
4,000 !
3,500;
$1,200
3,000
2,800 1
1,800
2,250
1,700
2,000
1,500 j
1,500
3,000
(,)
o 2o
a2
<*)
o2
02
2
2
4
4
4,500
4,000
3,600 j
4,000
2,500
o2
04
3,600
4
2
1
2
2
4,000
3,500
2,500
3,600
3,500
o2
2
o3
o2
a2
2,400
2,000
2,700
1,800
2,200
2
2
2
2
2
2,000
3,000
4,000
3,000
3,000
a3
2
c2
02
o2
2
4
4
4
2
2,000
3,000
2,500
4,000
3,500
4
4
2
2
2
3,000
3,000
3,600
5,000
3,000
4
4
2
4
1
3,000
3,000
2,500
2,500
2,500
1
1
1
4
2
4*
4
4
4
J
1,500
2,100 j
2,666
4
2,400
o"(J)
02
1
3,666
1 o2
2
2,400 1
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,200
1,200
2,000
o3
2
2
4,000
2,000
3,500]
03
3
03
04
2
3,500
2,500 i
2,000
2,000
2,000!
a3
03
4
o4
02
3,500 |
1,800
2,000:
2,500 j
2,000!
4
c4
o2
04
4
3,000
2,000
2
2,000 !
1,800 i
2,400
1,800
o2
1,800
4
2,000 j
o4
02
4
c3
2,500
2,000
1,800
1,200
2,500
j
2,i66
2,000
2,000
2,000
3,500
2,500
o3
ol
2,500
2,000
4
o2
2,350 1
1,500
2,000
4,000
3,000
2,500
3
800
4
2,800
1,200
1,225
2,400
1
03
o2
1,000 !
2,100 1
2,400
2
2
2
4
1,000
3,000
1,500
4,000
02
02
2
a4
1,500
1,500
1,500 1
2,400
2,666
o(»)
2,200
1,500 ! a ( * )
2
1,500
02
1,500
2
2,400
a2
a 3.
2
800
2,400
al
2
2
a 32
02
1,800
04
500
03
Ol
03
1,000
1,600
2,500
a2
1,200
02
1,800
1,500 j
ol
2
03
a(*)
02
2,100
c2
04
1,600
1,600
°
«<*)
1,500
1,800
2,100
2,700
1,500
o(')
a5
03
o3
1,075
2,000
2,000
1,200
1,200
2,500
1,800
2,500
3,000
2,400
2,500
2,400
2,000 1
2,000
{)
2,400
600
300
2,000
1,000
a2
3 $2,500
a l i 2,700
2,500
2
o2
02
o2
a4
3,000 |
2,000
1,800
1,800
4
4 $1,500
3
2,500
2 3,000
o(*)
;
1
'4
04
$2,500 |
o2
02
2
o2
o2
o4
o3
0')
2
3,666
2
a2
02
3,666
2,766!
02
1,500
3,000
5,000
3,600
3,666
o3
L:::::.2
2
• 2
3
5
2,500
$1,500
3,000
o3
03
2.
4
o !
|
i
!
.
5
3
a4
a3
al
$i,5oo
2,400
(*)
i,666
(l)
<i,2o6
«(*)
0(1)
a(»)
a(*)
a2
02
a2
$1,500
4,500
2,400
4,800
3,000
57
58
59
60
61
4,000
1,300
2,500
3,000
4,500
62
63
64
65
66
2
«1,125
4
4
2,400
1
1
al
1
2
2
2
4
3,600
2,500
4,200H
100
2
2
a2
a2
04
2,000
5,200
2,500
4,000
3,000
67
68
69
70
71
4
a5
al
4
4
3
2
2
1,800
«800
2,100 1
2,000
a2
02
ol
o2
o2
2,400
3,500
2,100
3,600
3,500
72
73
74
75
76
a (5)
o2
a2
2
a2
2,000
3,000
4,000
2,400
1,200
77
78
79
80
81
2,500
750
2
2
2
a2
2,666
3
4
2,666
1,500
2,000
a3
4
a2
2,666
a3
6
i,5oo
3
4
a4
2
4,000
2,000
3,000
3,000 |
1,500
3
4
4,000
2,000
3
3
3
4
1,500
"800
a5
a3
03
ai
2
3,500
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
82
83
84
85
86
i
2
2,300
2
2
3,000
04
o4
a2
2
a2
2,500
3,500
2,400
2,000
5,000
87
88
89
90
91
3
3
ol
2
4
1
1,250
600
1,800 |
04
a4
o2
4
o3
2,000
2,000
1,500
1,500
2,000
92
93
94
95
96
«3
o3
a3
al
1,500
3
1,200 !
3
3 15 1,400
2,700
4
al
1,200
1,200
1,200
2,400
2,000
97
98
99
100
101
4
4
a2
2
2
3,000 1
2,000
*1,500
2,500
3,000
3,000
a4
2
02
4
o3
2,000
3,000
1,500 j
1,500
2,000
02
a3
ol
3
a4
02
2,500
3.000!
03
4
a4
2,000
1,500
2,700
300
*
4
al
2
1,500
1,500
(»)
2,800
1,200
2,000
1.450
(")
a(»)
240
2
02
2
2,800
1,500
1,600
a3
a(«)
2,500
2,100
3
3
7,000
i
4
2,400
o3
3
1,000
2
2
4
3
2,000
2,700
ai
al
a l3
a3
o3
1,800
1,800
1,200
1,800
a
a^
l
a4
a2
aZ
1,200
ai
1,500
0 2 1 2,700 |
a 3 j 1,500
al
2
a3
a(s)
a2
a2
2
o3
102
103
104
105
2,000
2,000
3,600
3,900
106
107
108
109
1,800
2,000
2,000
6,000 1
110
111
112
113
GttOUP V.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912.
........
5
6
4
4
2
2
3
2
4
'Jffi
1,200
3,000
2,000
1,200 j
2,250 |
4
1,800 1
5
5
2
2
1,800
1,800
02
a2
2
$2,000
5
2
$2,000
4,000
3,000
2,400
3,000
2
2
2
2
1
2,400
1,000
2,500
2,500
E
1,500 1
ft 1
a2
2
1,500
1,100
1,500
1,800
a3
03
900
2,000
4
a4
a4
2
1,800
a3
a2
a3
ol
2
a3
2
$1,850
!
2,666
1,500
1,900
2
;
$400
2,100
2,200
2,000
$1,800
2,100
1,000
4
2,000
a3
2,000
2
1,800
500
3,666
a3
a2
al
1,600 i
1,350
1,800 j
» Treasurer receives $4,000, out of which lie pays salaries of 2 clerks*
u Chairman's salary, $1,500.
» City clerk receives $3,700, out of which he pays salary of deputy.
*• Auditor acts as treasurer*
. ,
,
, . .
" Assessor receives $7,000, oat of which he pays salaries of assistants.
2
Ol
$420 |
2,700
1,800
1,100
2
4
4
al
600
2,000 i " *
50
2,850
2
al
«2
al
2,100
3,500 !
2,000 1j
1,200
1,400 |
2
a 32
a2
p
2
2
$1,800
j
i
3
$2,400
a3
2
ai
4
»750
a3
3
nSOO
o2
a 4
a2
,4
a3
al
2,888 i
al
a3
a3
o3i
W
2.100
2
v")
3 *« 1,000!
3
02
al
a2
i,266| 1 a l
*• Auditor ac ts as city clerk.
« Chairman's salary, $850.
*> Chairman's salary, $600.
x* One each at $1,500, $1,000, and $800.
*« Chairman's salary, $1,200.
" Plus fees.
$1,000
2,100
2,000
2,000
900
114
115
116
117
118
3,000
2,400
3,000
1,800
1,£00
119
120
121
122
123
2,400
1,500
1,000
1.800
»250
124
125
126
127
128
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
144
TABLE 2.—SPECIFIED CITY OFFICIALS, NUMBER, TERMS OF OFFICE (IN YEARS),
[For a list of the cities alphabetically arranged by states, with the number assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion
ALBEBMEN AND COUNCILMAN.
City
Hum*
ber.
Term
N u m L of
ber. office.
Method of election.
Members of lower house.
Members of upper house.
Members of single chamber.
crrr.
Num- Term
of
Salary. ■ ber.
office.
Method of election.
Salary.
Num Term
of
ber. office.
Method of
election.
Salary*
G R O U P V.—CITIES H A V I N G A P O P U L A T I O N O F 30,000 TO 50,000 I N 1912—Continued.
129
130
131
132
133
134
.135
136
137
13S
"Flint Midh
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
8
2
$300
10
4
(*)
12
10
15
2
2
2
12
21
16
2
2
2
300
■>
300
149 West Hoboken, N . J . . .
150
151
152 Elmira,N.Y
153
6
2 B y wards
400
2
200
159
160 Charlotte, N. C
161 Joliet. 111.'
162
163
*
164
165
166
167 Perth Amboy, N. J . . . .
168
2
150
16
2
200
14
21
14
7
11
2
2
2
2
2
6 by wards, 1 at large....
10 b y wards, 1 at large...
6 b y wards, 1 a t large....
169
179
171
172
173
23
12
i
18 b y wards, 5 a t large...
2
174
175
176
177 Mount Vernon, N. Y...
178 Niagara Falls, N . Y . . . .
5
8
12 .
10
14
185
186
187
New Rochelle, N. Y...J
4 4 b y wards, 1 at large....
2
2
2
2 13 by words, 1 at large...
16
2
18
10
2
2 6 hy wards, 4 at large....
184
8
14
10
W
2
192
193
194
195
21
By wards...
(•)
.16
4
(«)
23
2 By wards...
(•)
5
2
15
2 By wards...
11
6
4
1
8
22
18
2 Bywards...
1 By wards...
8
14
4
4
8
16
22
2 Bywards...
4 Bywards...
S
2
12
2
5 b y wards, 4 at large
2
6 b y wards, 4 at large.*..
8
8
M3
Bywards...
U3
300 '
500
400
7
2
(0
18
1 Bywords...
4
(•)
22
4
Bywords...
w
7
1
(«)
14
2 Bywords...
"(•)
26
2
Bywards...
w
15
4 Bywords...
(«)
300
300
ISO
500
*500
is 2
*K0
(l>
.. * "
13
4
"
;j
i
500
COO
113 ;
»150!
»2
200
3
4
6 by wards, 2 at large..*.
i City clerk acts as auditor.
1
No specified term.
* Auditor acts as assessor.
* Not reported.
* Plus fees.
* None.
i Commission of 1 per cent of taxes collected.
* City clerk acts as assessor.
200
12
9
Colorado Springs, Colo.l
Council Bluffs, Iowa...
300
»3
300
300
75
2
188
189
190
191
2
(0
2
2
181 1
182
183
22
»3
By wards..
7
9
179
ISO
(•>
$300
500
B y wards
2 6 b y wards, 3 at large....
9
4
300
2 5 b y wards, 2 at large....
10
1300
11
!
7 by wards, 14 at large...
7
154
155
156
157
158
2 By wards...
4
100
300
200
147
148
12
7
7
4
<*>
250
• Comptroller acts as city clerk.
w treasurer receives 112,000, out of which he pays salaries of all employees of his office.
"Chairman's salary, $3,000,
'
" Plus commission. Treasurer pays salaries of all employees of his office.
M Two for 2 vears, one for 3 years.
" Chairman's salary, f l i o o .
"Per day.
GENERAL TABLES.
145
M E T H O D O F E L E C T I O N ( B Y W A R D S O R A T L A R G E ) , A N D A N N U A L S A L A R I E S : 1912—Continued,
of this table, see page 64. Appointed officials are indicated by "a" In the column headed "Term of office;" all others are elected.]
—
MAYOE.
c u r CLERK.
COMMISSIONERS.
Term
Num
Salary.
of
ber. office.
Term
of
office.
Term
of
Salary.
office.
Salary.
COMPTROLLER.
Term
of
Salary.
office.
TREASURER
OB CHAMBER
LAIN.
AUDITOR.
COLLECTOR OF
REVENUE.
CTTTATTOItN E T OR
SOLICITOR.
ASSESSORS.
Term
iTerm
Term
of
Salary.
Salary. N u m
of
of
Salary.
ber.
office.
office.
office.
Term
Salary.
of
office.
Term
of
Salary.
office.
City
num
ber.
G R O U P V.—CITIES H A V I N G A P O P U L A T I O N O F 30,000 T O 60,000 I N 1912—Continued.
5
5
3
5
5
2
4
6
4
2
2
2
2
2
4
$i,s66
2,000
4,500
3,000 1
!
|
i,200
|
4
3
i,s66
5
4
3,666
'
5
4
3,666
2
$1,000
2
1,500
3,000
2,000 | a ( * )
3,000
a2
4
1
1
2
6
2,000
100
500
800
5,000
4
2
2
2
2
3,000
3,000 |
2,500
2,000
1,800
4
4
1
2
2
4,500
1,500
2,000
1,400
2,000
a4
a2
a3
2
2,400
700
1,500
1,400 1
2
4
4
2
3
400
2,000
i,soo
1,500
2,100.
3
al
2
4
2
2
2,500
3,500
3,000
3,000
1,800
2,800
a2
1,800
o4
1,000
o2
2,000
4
a 2 «1,020
2
2
2
2
2
2,000
2,000
2,400
1,500
1,000
1
1,200 1
3,500
1,200
1,725
1,200 1
5
4
5
5
4
2
2
2
4
1,800
3,500
2,500
2,000 1
3,000
2,666
2,000
<•)
a3
2,000
1,500 i
(*«) !
1,500
2
2
4
1,500
1,500
1,800
a3
04
a4
a2
a3
1,300
1,500
1,620
780
2,000
2
6
2,500
al
2,000
2
1,000 1
a3
2,500 1 a(»)
4,000
1,400
1,800
1,300 J
1,500
1,500
2
2
2
2
2
2,000 11
2,000 I
1,000
3,500
2,5001
2
a2
2
1,500
1,500
1,500
al
2,000
2
2
2
2
1,000
900
1,800
2,000
3,000
2
'a 4
2
1,600
1,000
1,500
900
1
2
2
2
1,500
3,000 1
1,000
2,500 |
a3
°2
2,000
2,500
1,800 |
2
al
1,800
1,200
3
2
2,500
3,500
1,800
1,000
4
2
4
2
2,000 i
3,000 1
3,600!
1,800
12
ai
a2
4
a3
4
-10
al
i,566
4
2,500
1,400
3,666
i,666
2,666
j
ai
a2
2,400
2,000
o4
1,600
a3
2
a2
i,4oo
1,400
1,500
4
a2
i
1
1
;
a2
i,§66 1
03
1,200
a2
a4
2
fl2
2,800
3,300
2,000
2,000
a2
a l
o2
1,500
a4
1,500
«(*)'
ai
900
2
3,000
i
1,200
2
o2
4
4
o3
o3
o2
a 42
1,200
500
1,680 1
2,000
1,680
3,400
1,800
1,000
1,800
1,000
(")
" 4
2,000
al
4
a2
1,500
2,500
2,500
02
1,800
2 1 1,500
1,500
2
1,600
a2
1,500
2
2,500
2
2
4
ai
1,500
04
1,500
1 »(*>
2
1,800
1,200
Q»)
1,200
1,800
1,700
*25
600
900
2,200
1,600
al
(M)
2
1,500
al
aO) , 1,500
0
1,400
1,500
2
1,500
1,600
900
1,300
1,500
1,200
$2,000
2
(u)
al
al
a3
f
3
1,650
02
o3
1,500
1,620
i
2
22
1,500
2,500 |
1,800
(")
2
2
«( )
3,500
1,000
600
900
1,200
al
2
2
2
2,600
2,000
300
1,200
2
a(»)
a3
2
1,200
2,700
Pi
1,800
1,800
1,800
1,200
(n)
<>)
$1,200
1,500
2l
2,000
o2
*a3
"•
. 500
"2,000
o3
3
i,666
3
a3
1
2
1,000!
1,500
o3
3
"2
4
"900
W3I
a3
3
«6o6]
a5
3
1,300
i
4
2
2,666
3,600
1,200
2,000 !
1,500!
2,000
134
135
136
137
138
1,500
2,400!
3,500
3,000
1,500
139
140
141
142
143
a4
o3
al
2
a2
1,500
2,500
1.000
1,800
1,200
144
145
146
147
143
a2
o4
a2
o2
a3
900
2,000
3,000
1,500
1,800
149
150
151
152
153
a2
a2
a(»)
aa 2l
466
,
a2
a 42
154
3,000
1,800
155
i 2,000
156
a 2 I 2,400 L 157
153
2 * 1,000
1,100
2
2
2
(')
3
3
1,000
a3
1
»850
i
a3
3
a3 1
3
a3
1
al
i 1,300
*i,666
129
130
131
132
133
a2
a4
o3
al
al
2
al
•8
al
0 44
4 1 600
500
2
"450
3
a2
al
al
al
al
c(*>
al
•
1,000
1,300
1,200 |
2,500
1,750
159
160
161
162
163
1,200
2,100
1,800
900
1,000
164
165
166
147
168
1,400
1,700
1,000
2,500 1
1,500
169
170
171
172
173
3
3
3
2
1
»700
1,200
1,500
2.000
1,200
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
»400
»720
1,800
500
a2
a2
a2
02
al
1,500
1,800 '
1,200
5,000
2,500
174
175
176
177
178
2 !
1
2
2
i,666
2
o4
1,000
1,350 !
1,200
1,800 |
179
180
181
182
183
1,500 1
3,000
0 2 i 825
1,500
2
i 1,800
a2
1,800
o(»)
1,800
a 3 I 1,500
a2
a4
1,500
1,800
tt4
2,400
2
1,500
184
185
186
187
1
2
2
$1,800
2,400
3,000
3,000
* 1,800 1
:8
< > I 1,200
i % \
1,200
1,800
i 1
a l , 1,400
ai
4
2
2
2
2
1
2
al!
2,100
3,250
3,000
2,250
ai
a3
2,100
1,500
1,800
1,200
3
ai
i,2oo
2
2
100
4
1,300
i
2
1,800
1,700
al
1
1,200
2,500
1,600
al
a4
4
a3
a2
$1,800
2,500
1,500
2,000
1,800
2
02
2,400
04
4 "1,000
2,000
a l 1,600
1,200
2
2,050
4
1
1
2
al
2
>• Auditor acts as city clerk.
if Chairman's salary, $1,500..
» Per meeting.
"Commission.
» Chairman's salary, $1,000.
n Bank official acts as treasurer.
» Commission of three-fourths of 1 per cent.
28658°—14
2,666
1
4
2
2
2
2
2
$1,800
1,800
3,600
$1,800
1,500
1,200
2
2
CO)
a 4
ai
2
al
ai
2,400
1,900
1,800
2,000
1
2
2
6
1,500
2,000
1,500
fl2
o3
al
4
2
2
5
3
c2
1
al
(l)
$1,500
1,800
2,100
2,000
2
(*)
2
2,500
a3
al
3 | "800
2,500
3
al
al
a3
2
1,800
1,200
800
1
4
(")
*
al
* Chairman's salary, $600.
" President's salary, $700.
** Plus commission.
x President's salary. $300.
» Solicitor receives $3,600, out of which he pays'salary of assistant.
» Two at large for 2 years, others for 1 year.
» President's salary, $200.
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
146
TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, PAYMENTS, AND CASH BALANCES: 1912.
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 66.]
crjr.
Cash
balances
at beginning
of year.
Total.
Revenue.
(Table 4.)
Grand total
Groupl
Group II
Group III
Group IV
Group V
1265,806,848 $1,852,009,848
128,827,120
47,554,285
46,124,796
25,283,240
18,017,407
1,059,006,706
238,754,218
281,087,373
158,517,864
114,643,687
Aggregate of
receipts and
cash balances
Nonrevenue. at beginning
of year.1
(Table 19,)
Total.
Govern
Nongovern
mental cost. mental cost.
(Table 4.)
(Table 10.)
$849,037,104 [$1,002,072,744 12,117,816,696 [$1,848,521,897 j| $959,233,261 $SS9,2S8,636
439,721,268
107,083,242
152,703,407
86,453,683
63,075,504
619,285,438
131,670,976
128,383,966
72,064,181
51,568,183
1,187,833,826
286,308,503
327,212,169
183,801,104
132,661,094
481,773,521
128,615,803
180,426,136
07,643,327
70,774,379
1,057,411,521
235,764,247 !
282,650,740 '
161,191,166
111,405,223
675f633,000
107,148,349
102,233,CO4
63,547*830
40,720,844
GROUP l.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 500,000 AND OVER IN 1912.
New York. N.Y,
Chicago, 111
.
Philadelphia, Pa.
St. Louis, Mo
Boston, Mass
$27,680,346
24,533,350
21,913,553
12,230,290
12,617,201
$625,431,740
166,089,222
63,741,197
28,596,815
57,259,087
Cleveland, Ohio.,
Baltimore, Md...
Pittsburgh. Pa..,
Detroit, Mich...,
15,272,464
1,875,360
10,386,818
2,308,738
43,179,022
22,167,750
33,776,356
18,765,517
$205,480,025 $419,951,715
74,787,553
91,301,669
40,705,472
23,035,725
21,335,928
7,260,887
34,025,037
23,233,150
15,153,495
14,182,340
21,33S,9S9
12,711,529
28,025,527
7,985,410
12,437,367
6,053,083
$653,121,086
190,622,572
85,654,750
40,827,105
60,876,288
$623,197,307
167,018,122
65,932,843
30,523,613
58,211,800
58,451,486
24,043,110
44,163,174
21,074,255
39,148,866
21,622,011
32,149,460
19,607,485
$243,206,430 $379,988,877
67,801,057
99,216,165
43,311,948
22,620,895
21,580,181
8,943,437
25,658,034
32,553,175
18,554,874
18,090,899
22,836,171
13,835,886
20,593,992
3,531,112
9,313,2S9
5,771,599
GROUP H.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 300,000 TO 500,000 IN 1012.
Buffalo, N . Y
San Francisco, Cal.
Milwaukee, Wis...
Cincinnati, Ohio...
Los Angeles, Cal...
$2,325,9S9
7,966,337
1,540,698
10,612,315
10,429,157
$32,692,687
20,781,580
16,881,587
30,959,060
43,748,378
$12,409,698
13,691,292
10,107,150
13,150,516
16,247,031
$20,2S2,9S9
7,090,283
6,774,437
17,799,544
27,501,347
$35,018,676
25,747,917
18,422,285
41,671,375
54,177,535
$31,934,779
21,976,118
16,896,314
• 31,577,266
38,349,067
$I3,8S5,6SO
18,788,982
10,373,414
14,929,267
23,710,495
$18,049,099
3,187,130
6,522,900
16,647,990
14,638,592
Newark, N.J
New Orleans, La..
Washington, D. C.
Minneapolis, Minn.
3,567,277
8,529,438
456,664
2,126,410
30,574,563
16,569,022
17,202,267
20,345,074
10,284,591
7,896,963
U, 413,643
8,873,358
29,289,972
8,672,059
2,788,624
11,471,716
43,141,840
25,098,460
17,658,931
22,471,434
39,889,915
17,160,478
17,109,020
20,871,270
13,955,856
8,878,170
12,921,865
11,172,169
25,934,059
8,282,308
4,187,155
9,699,101
GROUP m.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 100,000 TO 300,000 IN 1912.
Jersey City, N. J..
Seattle, Wash
Kansas City, Mo..
Indianapolis, Ind.
Providence, R. I . .
Portland, Oreg....
Rochester, N . Y . .
Denver, Colo
Louisville, Ky
St. Paul, Minn....
$1,511,279
4,893,944
2,353,872
1,027,704
1,004,081
$11,590,805
18,423,487
12,770,115
7,309,262
10,954,027
$6,123,182
11,404,021
9,801,969
5,846,592
6,159,900
$5,467,623
7,019,466
2,963,146
1,462,670
4,794,127
$13,102,034
23,317,431
15,123,987
8,336,966
11,953,103
$11,541,255
19,301,455
12,789,251
6,739,718
10,581,842
$6,423,276
13,234,476
10,383,257
5,425,024
5,439,003
$5,117,979
6,066,979
2,400,994
1,314,694
5,142,839
4,582,674
2,777,113
1,066,367
2,232,690
1,028,297
16,370,512
18,438,077
13,510,743
11,212,629
7,682,060
9,626,973
6,352,455
6,299,765
5,597,021
4,507,051
6,743,539
12,065,622
7,210,973
5,615,608
3,175,009
20,953,186
21,215,190
14,577,110
13,445,319
8,710,357
16,314,461
18,581,793
13,563,455
9,932,402
7,867,409
12,469,020
8,234,809
9,268.251
5,943,624
4,686,470
3,345,441
10,346,034
4,295,204
3,933,778
3,180,939
Columbus, Ohio...
Toledo, Ohio
Oakland, Cal
Atlanta, Ga
Worcester, Mass...
1,436,730
2,491,668
1,227,328
849,390
700,884
12,984,342
7,331,400
7,487,985
4,473,134
8,460,697
4,668,244
4,060,484
5,295,662
3,665,334
4,039,122
8,316,093
3,270,916
2,192,323
807,800
4,421,575
14,421,072
9,823,063
8,715,313
5,322,524
9,161,581
12,983,414
7,773,048
7,034,032
4,544,003
8,605,036
6,347,024
4,841,157
6,258,155
3,658,108
4,376,725
7,636,390
2,931,891
775,877
885,900
4,228,311
Birmingham, Ala...
Syracuse, N . Y
New Haven, Conn..
Memphis, Term
Scranton, Pa
515,497
1,183,196
185,313
747,574
726,529
3,591,469
7,868,408
4,469,864
5,776,152
2,440,163
2,107,403
3,510,835
2,606,715
3,315,090
1,850,581
1,484,066
4,357,573
1,863,149
2,461,062
539,582
4,106,966
9,051,604
4,655,177
6,523.726
3,166,692
3,754,276
7,642,349
4,449,917
5,655,393
2,422,815
2,485,616
3,602,779
2,633,768
4,255,359
1,966,699
1,263,660
4,039,570
1,811,149
1,400,039
456,116
544,710
212,907
1,489,563
. 675,405
1,646,352
5,487,125
5,189,011
13,663,785
4,306,282
7,272,264
3,553,158
1,965,384
3,705,008
2,349,379
4,071,421
1,933,967
3,223,627
9,958,777
1,956,903
3,200,343
6,031,835
5,401,913
15,153,343
4,981,687
8,918,616
5,699,809
5,120,583
13,823,871
4,492,512
8,054,288
3,836,669
2,222,997
10,785,522
2,398,667
6,023,913
1,863,140
2,897,586
3,038,349
2,093,945
2,025,375
Dayton, Ohio
Grand Rapids, Mich.
Nashville, Tenn
Bridgeport, Conn....
Lowell, Mass
883,047
741,732
997,621
142,731
168,929
4,238,622
5,570,470
2,142,294
2,170,127
4,235,445
2,206,596
2,277,609
2,085,703
1,869,571
2,114,654
2,032,006
3,292,861
56,591
300,556
2,120,791
5,121,669
6,312,202
3,139,915
2,312,853
4,404,374
3,742,103
6,998,164
2,520,739
2,032,696
4,174,249
2,597,008
3,159,360
2,413,823
1,807,056
2,127,624
1,145,010
2,333,804
106,916
225,640
2,046,625
Cambridge. Mass
San Antonio, Tex
New Bedford, Mass...
Hartford, Conn
,
390,432
690,551
410,699
521,185
4,790,226
1,507,792
6,867,799
4,575,707
2,780,775
1,483,520
2,676,250
3,041,405
2,000,451
24,272
4,191,549
1,534,302
5,180,653
2,198,343
7,278,498
5,096,892
4,976,294
1,483,623
6,342,403
4,731,074
2,810,220
1,343,484
3,566,950
3,035,313
2,166,074
145,139
3,275,453
1,695,761
Dallas, Tex
,
Trenton,N.J
,
Albany.N.Y
Salt Lake City, Utah..
1,333,520
762,488
1,331,010
639,784
3,421,764
4,366,105
4,472,606
3,664,618
2,531,130
1,968,130
2,270,922
2,914,393
890,634
2,397,975
2,201,684
750,225
4,755,284
5,128,593
5,803,616
4,304,402
3,660,864
4,341,057
5,134,396
3,748,676
3,319,879
2,148,388
3,167,234
2,714,439
340,935
2,192,669
1,967,162
1,034,237
Richmond, V a . . .
Paterson.N. J . . .
Omaha, Nebr
Fall River, Mass.
Spokane, Wash...
Also the aggregate of payments and cash balances at the close of the year.
GENERAL TABLES.
147
TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, PAYMENTS, AND CASH BALANCES: 1912—Continued.
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 66.1
PAYMENTS.
Cash
balances
at beginning
of year.
Total.
Revenue.
(Table 4.)
Aggregate of
receipts and
cash balances
Nonrevenue. at beginning
of year.1
(Table 19.)
Total.
Nongovern
Govern
mental cost. mental cost.
(Table 4.)
Cash
balances
at close of
year.
(Table 19.)
GROUP IV.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 50,000 TO 100,000 IN 1912.
$462,840
472,159
1,221,791
2,256,016
241,649
$1,480,371
2,752,960
4,896,369
7,598,224
4,533,886
$1,258,054
1,465,466
3,098,101
3,883,673
2,039,311
Des Moines, I o w a —
Lawrence, Mass
Wilmington, D e L . . . .
Kansas City, Kans...
Yonkers,N.Y
843,872
82,779
316,817
537,461
210,660
2,400,832
4,586,502
2,458,811
3,430,374
6,100,742
1,930,108
1,752,156
1,203,642
2,191,721
2,462,975
Youngstown, Ohio...
Houston, Tex
Fort Worth, Tex.....
Duluth, Minn.
Norfolk, Va
735,598
17,635
1,024,192
426,363
232,062
3,504,183
5,238,805
2,698,252
2,974,924
2,760,172
Oklahoma City, Okla
Schenectady, N. Y . . .
Somerville, Mass
St. Joseph, Mo
.Utica,N.Y
738,221
370,673
110,434
343,341
101,337
Elizabeth, N . J
Waterbury, Conn
Troy,N.Y.
Akron, Ohio
Manchester, N. H —
Reading, Pa
Camden, N.J
Springfield, Mass
Tacoma, Wash
Lynn, Mass
$1,943,211 I
3,225,119 I
6,118,160
9,854,240
4,775,535
$1,575,415
3,033,356
5,026,298
8,732,233
4,595,779
$1,237,856 |
1,550,335
3,455,433 I
6,186,579 !
2,267,617
$337,559
1,483,021
1,570,865
2,545,654
2,328,162
$367,796
191,763
1,091,862
1,122,007
179,756
470,724 i
2,834,346
1,255,169
1,238,653
3,637,767
3,244,704
4,669,281
2,775,628
3,967,835
6,311,402
2,831,238
4,405,441
2,471,640
3,257,906
6,205,472
2,486,640
1,572,721
1,238,907
2,428,560
3,335,078
344,598
2,832,720
1,232,733
829,346
2,870,394
413,466
263,840
303,988
709,929
105,930
1,724,982
1,855,345
2,070,742
2,496,861
1,764,930
1,779,201
3,383,460
627,510
478,063
995,242
4,239,781
5,256,440
3,722,444
3,401,287
2,992,234
2,904,600
4,290,728
3,590,697
2,937,828
2,861,520
1,954,438
2,110,920
3,016,084
2,592,593
1,878,484
950,162
2,179,808
574,613
345,235
983,036
1,335,181
965,712
131,747
463,459
130,714
6,264,307
2,873,183
3,073,420
1,733,988
3,535,540
2,941,707
1,697,121
1,775,167
1,330,435
1,545,486
3,322,600
1,176,067
1,298,253
403,553
1,990,054
7,002,528
3,243,861
3,183,854
2,077,329
3,636,877
6,604,643
3,162,693
2,959,957
1,760,187
3,410,171
3,100,443
1,725,342
1,788,934
1,265,655
1,347,024
3,504,200
1,437,351
1,171,023
494,532
2,063,147
397,885
81,168
223,897
317,142
226,706
351,434
474,371
710,815
761,236
478,681
2,211,203
2,066,988
3,346,821
5,964,408
2,268,205
1,168,660
1,377,863
1,925,376
1,321,728
1,244,925
1,042,543
689,125
1,421,445
4,642,680
1,023,280
2,562,637
2,541,359
4,057,636
6,725,644
2,746,886
2,127,950
2,231,391
3,758,083
5,809,247
2,391,987
1,122,020
1,611,641
1,959,669
3,107,231
1,363,495
1,005,930
619,750
1,798,414
2,702,016
1,028,492
434,687
309,968
299,553
916,397
354,899
Hoboken,N. J
Wakes-Barre,Pa...Eric, Pa
E vansville, Ind
Peoria, 111*
375,919
311,632
243,692
376,616
186,109
4,249,568
1,368,835
1,379,638
3,479,667
2,156,102
1,307,092
896,712
1,152,470
1,378,884
1,469,995
,2,942,476
472,123
227,168
2,100,783
686,107
4,625,487
1,680,467
1,623,330
3,856,283
2,342,211
3,930,109
1,372,768
1,337,752
3,479,428
2,178,824
1,576,523
1,220,059
1,116,430
1,352,733
1,538,931
2.353,586
152,709
221,322
2,126,695
639,893
695,378
307,699_
285,578
376,855
163,387
Fort Wayne, Ind.-...
Harrisburg, Pa.
Savannah, Oa
East St. Louis, 111....
Jacksonville, Fla
684,901
552,747
19,402
359,960
780,399
2,051,457
2,061,783
1,791,168
1,742,245
1,902,013
1,498,454
1,463,904
1,391,583
1,063,280
1,830,172
553,003
597,879
399,585
678,965
71,841
2,736,358
2,614,530
1,810,570
2,102,205
2,682,412
1,861,425
1,959,320
1,776,230
1,874,351
2,583,420
- 1,390,297
1,590,250
1,349,071
1,522,713
2,499,860
471,128
369,070
427,159
' 351,638
83,560
874,933
655,210
34,340
227,854
South Bend, Ind
Terre Haute. I n d . . . .
Passaic, N.J
Johnstown, Pa
Bayonne, N. J . .
267,285
585,421
77,361
182,344
568,989
1,415,126
937,543
2,608,686
731,154
3,677,465
1,077,409
885,549
640,788
596,539
1,532,25S
337,717
51,994
1,967,898
134,615
2,145,207
1,682,411
1,522,964
2,686,047
913,498
4,246,454
1,276,204
1,026,291
2,511,054
774,717
3,758,431
1,047,171
953,094
913,171
576,114
1,453,385
229,033
73,197
1,597,883
198,603
2,305,046
406,207
496,67a
174,993
138,781
488,02^
Brockton, Mass
Portland, Md
Holyoke, Mass
Charleston, S. C
Wichita, Kans
256,361
545,247
447,094
68,152
90,750
3,787,513
4,046,777
3,095,000
971,456
1,890,917
1,353,977
1,954,581
1,749,329
917,339
1,411,319
2,433,536
2,092,196
1,345,671
54,117
479,598
4,043,874
4,592,024
3,542,094
1,039,608
1,981,667
3,840,352
4,266,131
3,106,339
915,439
1,864,236
1,389,904
2,040,919
1,759,960
867,544
1,451,541
2,450,448
2,225,212
1,346,379
47,895
412,695
203,522
325,893
435,755
124,169
117,431
Allentown, Pa
8pringueld, HI
Covington, Ky
Altoona, Pa.
219,166
234,360
305,070
601,964
736,847
1,681,095
2,004,580
1,085,571
680,971
1,079,139
796,544
804,901
55,876
601,956
1,208,036
280,670
956,013
1,915,455
2,309,650
1,687,535
755,188
1,560,571
2,034,887
1,295,148
600,453
1,137,945
877,214
873,940
154,735
422,626
1,157,673
421,208
200,825
354,884
274,763
392,387
Pawtucket,R.I
Canton, Ohio
Mobile, Ala
Sacramento, Cal
277,688
600,344
155,171
573,119
2,954,293
1,669,728
1,352,965
2,344,837
1,240,665
901,040
1,122,298
1,831,580
1,713,628
768,688
260,667
513,257
3,231,981
2,270,072
1,538,136
2,917,956
2,889,668
1,530,795
1,389,859
2,046,400
1,329,840
1,018,305
991,682
1,923,632
1,559,828
512,490
39S,177
122,768
342,313
739,277
148,277
871,556
230,389
58,197
268,289
1,256,665
2,128,011
1,171,299
1,241,439
4,019,611
1,085,697
1,084,334
827,494
1,900,851
1.042,314
86,965
413,945
2,118,760
2,358,400
1,229,496
1,509,728
5,276,276
2,214,788
1,161,729
1,279,387
4,403,465
1,013,518
1,043,803
848,469
2,671,157
1,201,270
117,926
430,918
1,732,308
143,612
67,767
230,341
872,811
:.
Saginaw, Mich
Sioux City, Iowa
Binghamton, N. Y . . .
Atlantic City, N . J . . .
$222,317
1,287,494
1,798,268
3,714,551
2,494,575
98,992
GROUP V.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912.
Rockford,IU
Little Rock, Ark...
Augusta, Ga
Springfield, Ohio...
Lancaster, Pa
$86,944
320,418
93,356
296,503
124^565
$1,701,913
1,469,102
2 041,417
2,299,741
636,630
$930,905
987,575
929,069
815,036
594,444
$771,008
481,527
1,112,348
1,484,705
42,186
$1,788,857
1,789,520
2,134,773
2,596,244
761,195
$1,707,497
1,669,386
1,780,268
1,860,521
679,471
$1,101,256
1,315,708
1,208,718
926,911
631,942
Pueblo, Colo
New Britain, Conn.
Chattanooga, Term.
York,Pa.T/.
Maiden, M a s s . . . . . .
90,322
89,582
237,069
244,595
47,831
1,806,757
1,235,701
1,505,540
553,597
2,170,963
1,026,654
867,657
768,842
418,648
780,103
368,044
736,698
134,949
1,151,045
1,897,079
1,325,283
1,742,609
798,192
2,218,794
1,733,027
1,171,134
1,298,952
702,277
2,120,548
971,375
885,429
1,009,395
540,911
984,994
761,652
285,705
289,557
161,366
1,135,554
164,052
154,149
443,657
95,915
98,246
Berkeley, Cal
Bay City, Mich....
HaverhfUMass-...
Topeka, Kans
Salem, Mass.*.....
183,729
209,463
828,481
668,983
987,334
1,032,285
1,003,552
138.521
398,439
1,795,276
480,739
705,960 1
182,989
153,169
96,534
299,298
50,092
1,019,918
967,002
1,149,991
47,449
918,813
1,067,422
1,220,591
293,533
717,595
2,782,610
2,879,144
1,775,950
1,030,959
1,812,322
1,513,024
506,362
1,019,749
1,758,704
1,708,612 11
807,986
895,669
»Also the aggregate of payments and cash balances at the close of the year.
72,235
286,211
55,049
966,262
1,011,128
2,806,909
1,526,111
1,703,655
$606,241
353,678
571,550
933,610
47,629 i
$81,360
120,134
354,505
735,723
81,724
148
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, PAYMENTS, AND CASH BALANCES: 1912—Continued.
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 66.]
FATirarrs.
BECXIPTS.
City
num
ber.
Cash
balances
at beginning
of year.
CITY.
Total/
Revenue.
(Table 4.)
Aggregate of ;
receipts and
cash balances
Nonrevenue. at beginning
of year.1
(Table 19.)
Total.
Govern
Nongovern
mental cost. mental cost.
(Table 4.)
(Table 10.)
GROUP V.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TOfiO.000IN 1912—Continued.
$1,651,785
1,713,340
2,723,631
4,485,865
1,134,335
$1,255,683
1,279,865
1,832,605
2,709,992
877,741
$1,027,021
1,036.310
1,162,989
2,318,372
687,571
$228,662
243,555
719,616
391,620
190,170
1,226,094
1,462,052
1,466,193
1,112,066
1,569,740
897,406
1,038,232
1,134,577
1,083,171
1,292,122
709,270
717,439
699,133
713,532
819,734
188,136
370,843
435,439
374,639
472,388
287,764
261,319
2,186,339
690,747
840,159
1,472,046 1
1,239,958
4,135,318
1,735,851
1,641,021
1,147,437
1,164,636
3,989,977
1,551,031
1,578,397
837,002
1,052,711
1,592,511
823,336
644,389
310,435
111,925
2,397,466
727,695
934,008
729,672
446,435
866,787
679,815
883,573
500,559
552,035
2,017,287
243,311
219,066
1,363,073
1,405,703
2,946,512
1,127,123 1
1,355,033
1,305,756
933,782
2,813,460
849,377
1,061,928
817,267
745,303
1,033,971
627,319
869,191
488,489
188,474
1,729,489
222,058
192,737
974,060
541,990
783,697
940,358
635,378
375,318
382,331
619,374
613,343
577,041
593,742
159,659
164,323
327,010
58,337
1,103,242 j
814,783
1,318,970
990,435
939,668
984,830
736,613
013,229
930,696
814,523
525,833
615,707
637,228
677,916
668,315
458,997
120,906
276,001
252,780
146,208
530,235
167,598
261,343
170,255
101,932
3,172,299
1,365,983
1,059,176
1,164,537
765,123
1,002,363
834,937
712,725
651,390
616,832
2,169,936
531,046
346,451
513,147
143,291
3,457,184
1,261,599
1,130,364
1,138,365
684,775
1,326,845
762,743
743,130
711,242
620,467
2,130,339
493,856
337,184
427,123
64,308
~ 187,344
97,523
84,734 !
365,987
93,237
686,507
1,403,314
1,106,540
2,452,252
1,275,105
551,770
438,030
694,983
1,516,793
608,462
134,737
965,284 j
411,552 11
935,459 I
666,643
873,851 1
1,500,837
* 1,191,274
2,813,239
1,368,342
666,211
1,215,774
1,077,481
2,042,391
1,314,163
409,649
739,632
729,937
1,786,524
766,300
256,562
476,142
347,544
255,867
547,862
Everett, Mass
Decatur, HI
Portsmouth, Va
Perth Amboy,N. J.,
Taunton, Mass
126,142
131,150
139,231
203,395
89,000
1,596,898
767,135
816,239 j
1,527,040
1,710,521
772,064
594,904
343,464
537,054
831,770
824,834 [
172,231 1
472,775
989,986 I
878,751
1,723,040
893,235
955,520
1,735,435 I
1,799,521 \
1,621,111
784,365
736,132
1,553,091
1,685,265
776,509
611,173
546,333
663,087
793,780
844,602
173,192
189,799
890,904
891,485
Qnincy,Mass
Lansing, Mich
Pittsfield, Mass
,
Cedar Rapids, Iowa..
Oshkosh/Wis
137,058
71,583
121,889
222,206
69,760
1,934,552
1,065,104
1,525,077
1,048,725
749,509
900,075
771,360
738,800
909,332
487,549
1,084,477
293,744
786,277
139,393
261,960
2,121,610 i
1,136,692
1,646,966
1,270,931
819,269
1,943,983
1,008,093
1,536,900
1,087,479
746,299
1,020,433
623,900
1,083,324
977,078
456,091
923,556
379,192
498,576
110,401
290,208
San Jose, Cal
Amsterdam, N. Y . . . .
Jamestown, N. Y
Mount Vernon, N. Y..
Niagara Falls, N . Y . . .
107,643
18,185
107,622
455,477
914,238
1,114,158
826,486 1
1,379,578
2,443,140
1,907,436
724,287
449,990
704,122
1,074,654
1,209,354
339,871
376,496 !
675,456 j
1,368,436 1
698,082
1,221,801 j
844,671
1,487,200
2,893,617
2,821,674 !
814,394
787,754
1,365,986
2,229,358
2,096,189
772,796
401,120
831,102
1,367,983
1,436,887
41,598
386,634
534,884
861,375
659,302
Jackson, Mich
Wffliamsport, Pa.
Joplin, Mo
Lima, Ohio
Muskogee, Okla...
33,684
83,318
92,995
167,384
494,989 j
877,345
443,445
555,480
769,541
2,053,741
550,733
416,340
512,187
484,198
791,755
326,612
26,605
43,293
235,343
1,261,986 !
011,029
526,763
648,475
936,925
2,548,730
896,354
409,154
530,501
681,870
2,015,749
.655,739
337,484
457,544
401,105
1,671,733
240,615
71,670
72,957
280,765
344,016
Chelsea, Mass
New RocheUe, N. Y .
Aurora, 111
Lorain, Ohio
53,541
601,435
35,516
337,443
1,770,872
1,972,226
973,025
1,131,114
903,235
1,084,577
606,330
553,997
867,637
887,649
366,645
577,117
1,824,413
2,573,661 i
1,008,541 !
1,468,557
1,733,448
2,164,145
893,289
1,208,013
941,203
1,187,134
782,365
733,421
792,245
977,011
110,924
474,592
Austin, Tex.....
Newport, K y . . .
Orange, N . J . . . .
La Crosse, Wis..
136,619
83,256
311,255
282,601
1,666,751
711,055
1,911,553
1,315,223
704,413
461,892
600,513
561,703
962,338
249,163
1,311,040
753,520
1,803,370
799,311 !
2,222,808 i
1,597,824
006,452
657,664
2,175,322
1,011,846
658,148
473,948
634,801
671,192
248,304
183,716
1,540,521
440,654
Lynchburg, Va
Shreveport, La..*
Colorado Springs, Colo.
Council Bluffs, Iowa...
35,201
255,335
105,765
178,194
1,616,965
876,458
1,233,359
1,589,814
747,238
535,749
871,661
759,084
869,727
340,709
361,698
830,730
1,652,166
1,13^843
1,339,124
1,768,008
806,184
1,233,631
1,037,348
1,008,201
1,245,369 .
968,284
1,565,592 ! 1,311,125
427,447
79,147
277,085
254,467
Lincoln, Nebr
Davenport, Iowa'..
El Paso, Tex
San Diego. Cal
Tampa, Fla
$347,324
345,974
737,112
1,003,620
183,593
McKeesport, Pa...
Flint, Mich
Kalamazoo. Mich.
Racine, Wis
Superior, Wis
345,055
388,172
196,072
112,298
276,551
831,039
1,073,880
1,270,121
999,768
1,293,189
710,842
553,885
614,091
701,352
751,889
Wheeling, W.Va..
Macon, Ga
Newton, Mass...*.
Butte, Mont
Woonsocket,R.I.
454,554
97,223
135,474
173,179
154,257
1,017,492
1,142,735
3,999,844
1,562,672
1,486,764
729,728
881,416
1,813,505
871,925
646,605
Montgomery, Ala.
Chester, Pa
Fitchburg, Mass..,
Dubuque, Iowa...
Galveston, Tex
132,842
407,233
62,438
203,997
252,444
1,230,231
993,470
2,884,074
923,126
1,102,639
West Hoboken, N. J.
New Castle, Pa
Roanoke, va
Elmira,N.Y
Huntington, W. Va„
129,182
272,708 1
535,273 1
50,127 '
304,290
East Orange. N. J
Knoxville, Tenn
Hamilton, Ohio
Lexington, Ky
Springfield, Mo
.
Quincy.Ill
Charlotte, N. C.
Joliet, 111.
Pasadena, CaL.
Auburn, N. Y.,
$1,304,461 I
1,367,366
1,986,519
3,482,245
945,742
5998,599
927,077
1,065,700
2,118,230
747,209
$305,862
440,239
920,819
1,364,015
198,533
170,197
514,995
656,030
298,416
541,300 I
3,702,534
1,533,581
1,320,519
1,334,792
867,105
'
Also the aggregate of payments and cash balances at the close of the year.
Cash
balances
at close of
year.
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
150
TABUS 4.—SUMMARY OF R E V E N U E RECEIPTS A N D
GOVERNMENTAL
[Far a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number
GROUP L-£ITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 500,000 AND OVER IN 1912.
1 NewYork,N.Y
43,198,589
$,446,685
996,113 5,807,011
40,902,702 13,442,771
5,047,827
6,274,511
14,540,395 12,960,812
5,471,578, 1 5,100,596
7,598,3671 6,646,583
8,446,685
947,049 5,724,705
49,064
74,787,553
2
School district
$6,680,228 $803,643 $10,839,457
$205,480,025 $146,172,121 $5,060,799
-- .-
.*
3
Poor districts
** . . . . . . . .
4 St. Louis,Mo....,
40,705,472
22,421,028
32,438,344
8,183,665;
83,463
15,288,830
7,056,618
75,580
$705,370 $1,070,611
$5,519 $768,557^
497,580
744,915
5,024 • 299,873]
4S9,8S6
5,153
638
1,903
744,915
3,564
i77,3OT
41
80,2031
82,306
104,891
530,606
164,550 2,761,641
28,335
2,184,912
104,891
530,606
164,469 1,798,208
963,433
81
28,335
355,427
399,898
w,nd
399,898
14,712
$59,884 2,184,912
59,884
1,460 ~ 122,52a
80,203
666,220
1,993,001
136,238 2,297,143
08,076
16,816,572
• 4,519,356
8,072,848
3,420,839
163,845
502,375
1,993,001
136,238 2,297,143
85,653
12,423
5
34,025,937
21,857,282
2,487,822
1,139,049
105,628
556,882
108,923
47,770
527,217
50,803
6 Cleveland, Ohio
15,153,495 1 9,355,987
12,232
1,478,294
49,322
933,931
45,055
281,579
19,761
35,651
9,057,596
2,169,191
3,926,708
4,105,330
1,745,093
3,505,564
1,478,269
25
39,756
9,566
807,401
126,580
31,454
13,001
600
12,371
8,142
12,232
281,579
7,390
27,509j
7
14,182,340
8,434,848
168,717
1,227,123
25,890
61,098
5,990
562,291
13,226
17,394
8
21,338,989 J 13,943,023
839,708
54,743
530,871
116,557
870,450
7,894
12,068,790
2,958,366
6,311,833
7,479,275
1,856,809
4,606,939
775,580
64,128
46,308
8,435
530,871
80,004
36,553
108,870
447,877
313,703
7,894
12,711,529
7,717,206
53,344
814,328
20,050
874,821
39,918
904,979
4,975
23,021
11,525,139
l,186,390j
7,204,577
512,629
63,344
443,638
370,690
16,697
3,353
847,742
27,079
32,289
7,629
899,397
5,582
4,975
23,021
$301,683
$559
$53,791
School district
County
School district
City corporation
9
21,335,928 | 11,403,687
.
91,478
355,427
GROUP IL-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 300,000 TO 600,000 IN 1912.
10 Buffalo, N . Y .
City corporation.
County
."...
San Francisco, Cal.
Milwaukee, Wis:...
City corporation.
County
13 Cincinnati, Ohio
$12,409,698
$8,060,llri
$209,7451
$721,383
$41,388
$592,9501
$21»64ti
11,002,934
6,889,433
1,170*634
209,716
29
721,383
41,389
592,05«
15,418
6,22Sj
165,835
135,848]
55W
53,791
9,389,674
1,227,486
53,742
1,474,525]
49,445
788,206]
1,899]
34,59»
6,859,937
912,974
74,486
615,76«
52,493
432,993
938)
28,303
912,974
57,281
17,205
615,769)
52,423
70
29,10ffl
403,893
938}
28,303
2,393
1,136,499
77, 471
329,589
27, i d
174,69$|
110,731
35,53a
2,393
1,103,013
33,486
70,43H
7,032
329,589)
13,3121
13,825J
63,657
47,074
23,68rt
1,400,764
13,691,2921
10,107,15o|
7,957,505 J 5,305,235
2,149,645
1,554,702
13,159,516
7,345,477(
9,315,747
1,589,405
2,254,364
4,157,084
1,208,436
1,979,957
14 Los Angeles, Cal
16,247,031
8,040,304
772,182
125,336 3,193,1151
154,921
1,027,909)
5,556
2V2M
City corporation.
County
School district...
15 Newark, N . J .
11,744,709ft
1,728,85a
2,773,463'
4,840,709f
1,306,909
1,892,"-'
763,662j
8,520,
116,3601 3,193,115
8,976
118,704
36,217]
175,811
3,617]
848,481
40H
5,156
21,29M
City corporation.
County
School district...
City corporation.
County
10,284,591
8,503,911
1,780,680
7,896,9631
4,809,7151
3,390,282
1,419,433
174,598]
2,716
2,7ld
11,8521
56, OOOJ
662,369
30,351
988,315
25,2161
1,340,013
258
13,89tf
56,000
662,369
30,351
986,46Ci
1,855
16,792 1,229,973
8,424
110,040
25a
13,89ffl
16 New Orleans, La
5,179,4961
1 48,354
48,354|
900,492! 29,516J
15,810
100,2051
198,371: 216,001
17 I Washington, D. C
14,413,64311 5,281,6341
1
...I 1,336,590.
90,934!
14,2541
394,8451
25,6931
81,1081 6,145,334!
* For explanation of differences In amountsreported in this column and total payments for ontlaya reported In Table 18, see text discussion for Table 18, page 97.
GENERAL TABLES.
151
COST PAYMENTS, BY DIVISIONS OF CITY GOVERNMENT: 1912.
assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 67.]
REVENUE BECETFTS—continued.
From
general
depart
ments.
From
highway
privi
leges.
From
rents.
From
interest.
EXCESS OF BEVENTJE
BECEIPTS OVEB—
GOVZENMENTAL COST PAYMENTS.
From
earnings
of public
service
enter
prises.
Excess of
govern
mental
cost
payments
over
revenue
receipts.
For expenses and interest.
For
outlays.1
Expenses Expenses
of general of public Interest
service
depart
ments. [enterprises.!
TotaL
TotaL
(Table 9.)] (Table 10.) (TablelO.) (Table 10.) (Table 11.)]
City
Govern Payments num
ber.
for
mental
cost
pay
and
ments. interest.
(Table 12.) (Table 15.) (Table 170] (Table 18.)
|$20,956,524 |$12^27,793]$8,087,716;$24,259,721 [$85,174,713 |t959,233,26l| [$655,751,794]|$508,543,048 |$39,392,393||$107,816,353 $303,481,4671 $124,341,240 $14,145,083 $193,285,3iq
10,896,244 7,822,6601 7,287,361 16,637,583 41,767,6921 481,773,52ll
3,656,400 1,069,186] 1,423,190] 2,046,364 8,532,5Sd 128,615,898]!
3,273,680] 2,256,578| 140,628 3,277,944 16,017,314' 180,426,136
1,631,145 604,294
37,840] 1,306,904 11,544,297^ 97,643,327]
1,499,055 575,075
98, TOG
990,928 7,312,830] 70,774,37ffl
351,310,0041
83,158,491
109,920,796
64,172,562
47,189,941'
267,873,581
68,622,094
86,064,056
49,062,918
36,920,399
19,586,350l 63,850,073 130,463,517 60,510,611 8,458,35a 88,411,264
3,720,696] 10,815,701 45,457,4071 23,024,434 1,491,778] 23,924,751
6,841,789 17,014,951 70,505,340 29,281,017 1,558,288] 42,782,611
5,622,2781 9,487,366 33,470,765 12,415,194 1,225,550] 22,281,121
3,621,280] 6,648,262 23,584,438 9,109,984 1,411,109] 15,885,563
GROUP I.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 500,000 AND OVER IN 1912.
$31,834,641
1
$6,985,596 24,869,757
2
2,606,476]
4,814,532
3
244,253
6,324,233
4
1,472,762 6,754,825
6
2,891,932
0
$1,422,821 $1,646,119$2.482.140 $9,383,530 $17.539.110 $243,208,430 $173,645,3S4i $124,492,413 $7,874,059 $41,278,912 $69,563,043 $37,728,405
j 2,287,475 3,793,173
572,513
1,006,665 3,751,407
1,021,192
25,414
222,120
12,084
41,766
473,960
43,377
55,176
860,676
7,277,926;
466,917 6,459,255,
151,275
153,785
64,612
24,087
818,671
67,801,957 , 49,917,796
42,319,339
3,638,482
3,959,975]
17,884,161]
38,773,193
6,428,110
13,470,010
6,685,058
2,445,586
27,918,072
6,216,957
10,695,000!
3,231,104;
1,856,663
22,130,334 3,638,482
5,854,339
10,677,341
2,737,147
920,178
2,149,256!
362,618
17,659
493,957
936,485
10,855,121
211,153
2,775,010
3,453,954
583,923
| 2,123,122
621,600 3,142,151
1,484,976
4,997,573
43,311,948
35,890,040
28,857,858 2,827,029 4,206,053]
7,421,008]
2,101,822
13,820
'
7,480
621,600 3,141,021
1,130
1,416,193 4,997,573
68,380
403
35,210,032
8,020,009
81,907
29,373,067 22,350,358 2,827,029 4,195,680
6,435,906 1 6,425,966
10,000
81,534
81,907 1
373
5,836,965
1,584,043
j 541,240
462,356
128,305
523,258
17,982
462,356
41,140
87,165
315,785 2,310,695
61,659
61,4S6
17,318,426
4,261,755
11,563,793
3,447,902
9,359,735
3,3S4,718
853,075
120,004
871,221
1,946,371 3,262,412
32,553,175
650,583
10,179
41,472
565,727
1,673,672J
447,200
165,928
37,455
9,339
840
24,729
16,743
419,933
79,183
66,611
1,673,672
282,372
|
377,271
2,372,354 j 21,580,181 j 15,011,695 | 12,744,453 1,195,938
1,071,304
6,568,486
1,008,120
63,184
5,754,633
813,853
1,348,370 5,970,239
5,282,063
1,195,938
27,271,112
19,952,503
18,554,874 [ 12,261,563
9,610,153
724,234
1,927,176 |
6,293,311 | 3,401,379
11,170,361
1 2,866,308
4,518,205
7,276,583'
1,538,802
3,446,178
5,098,034
1,250,249
3,261,870
724,234
1,454,315
2SS,553J
184,308
3,893,778
1,327,506
1,072,027
571,361
35,381
932,868
1,843,781 ! 18,090,899
11,758,039
8,621,861
719,662 2,416,516
6,332,860
3,908,559
2,424,301
7
1 1,941,958
467,644
13,928
817,722
1,734,491] j 22,836,171
15,847,669
12,401,997
996,328 2,449,344
6,988,502 j 1,497,182
5,491,320
8
1 214,058
404,430
1,323,470
439,057
28,587
8,468
5,460
13,479,828
4,692,775
4,663,568
0,618,094
2,421,570
3,808,005
6,898,118
1,964,656
3,539,223
975,950 1,744,026
436,536
20,378
268,782
3,861,734
2,271,205
855,563
|
793,598
130,224
250
268,442
1,066,373^
13,835,886 [
9,705,806 j
8,873,004
262,248
j 3,005,723
0
1 604,884
188,714
130,224
250
251,072
17,370
1,066,373
12,475,309
1,360,577
8,785,278
920,528
8,021,450
851,554
262,248
$1,319,726
10
646,308 1,732,097
2,394
103,693
67,721
.570,554 1 4,130,0S0 j 1,124,357
501,580
68,974
1
3,690,031
440,049
j'"""""
GROUP H.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 300,000 TO 500,000 IN 1912.
|
445,845
ml
84,871
150,677
1257,569 $1,077,200 $13,885,680 $11,039,972 *$9,249,6S7
200,585
12,450
793
237,465
20,104
1,077,200
69,230
79,537
85,571
3,593
12,219,819 |
1,665,861
9,680,940
1,409,032
18,788,982
10,609,24^
10,373,414
8,160,036;
2,420
65,698
825,591
2,420
42,600
23,098
825,591 1 8,765,696 1 7,072,167^
1,087,869
1,607,718
6,285,030
1,050,747
8,009,506
331,139 1,268,823
674,760
1,199,522 | 14,929,267 j 10,980,361]
331,139 1,257,964
342
10,517
499,204
122,384
53,172
1,198,948 Pl0,655,435
1,821,539
574
2,452,293
134,337
2,190,684
7,658,432] ] 4,927,834
1,193,094
1,318,281
1,888,578
2,003,648
3,082,046
11
266,264
1,947,114
12
3,948,906 j 1,769,751]
2,179,155
13
7,463,464]
6,826,143
14
3,671,265
455,327
15
1,022,906
16
1 1,491,778 4,749,379
17
320,151
504,108]
2,213,378^
320,151
466,986
37,122
1,693,529
519,849
547,946
2,422,909
543,349 2,187,249
120,590
4,597
115,070
2,997,003 i
503,258
448,645
1,322,550
14,289,607,
11,869,307
1,617,058!
803,242
434,250
367,594 1,344,805
66,656
12,036,819
1,919,037
8,266,291
1,562,973
228,195
59,395
771,780
8,878,170
6,874,057j
5,097,690
1,162,007
73,584
86,959
238,136
97
2,825
8,179,736
359,606
238,233
456
854,720
359,606
166^992
171,459
47,353
5,015
7,738,732
338,451
1 383,719
2,533,879
256,829
3,550,953
1,627,074
2,560,705
21,007
4,147
25,000
140,782
1,040,491
60,933
5,072,566
1,700,658
2,647,664!
50,154
94,896
12,344
8,557
738,861
23,710,495 j 9,420,83$;
107,240
116,011
300,691
7,296
02,055 2,190,684
42,282
$738,861 $1,101,424 *$2,795,708 j $1,475,932
111
iUI
1
$13,243
16,941,873
3,317,716
3,450,906
1,344,805 j 13,055,856 j 9,829,264; 1 7,837,422
608,898 | 12,921,865 |
9,664,264;
ml
1 $857,839 $200,585
359,685
1,632,157
4,126,592
359,685
1,293,223 !
338,934
3,770,528
356,064
554,415
1,833,588
2,004,113
583,761
365,340 1 3,257,601
„
j
981,207
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES/
152
TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF R E V E N U E RECEIPTS A N D
GOVERNMENTAL
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number
REVENUE RECEIPTS.
From taxes.
City
num
ber.
CETT, AND DIVISION OF CErY'S
GOVERNMENT.
Total.
General
Special
property. property.
Poll.
FromspeFrom From sub From
From
mentsand fines,
ventions donations; pension
forfeits,
from
and
and
assess
Non
and
special
gifts.
ments.
Business. business charges
escheats. grants.
license. outlays.far]
(Table 7.) (Table 7.) (Table7.)l (Table 7.) (Table 7.)! (Table 7.) (Table 7.) (Tables.) (Table 8.) (Table 8.)!
G R O U P H.—CITIES H A V I N G A P O P U L A T I O N O F 300,000 TO 500,000 I N 1912—Continued.
$8,873,358
18
8,115,318
758,040
$5,718,548
$485,929
5,113,517
605,031
485,784
145
$12,930 $1,097,506
$36,566f
$262,694
$24,560
$65,853
1,084,655
12,853
30,550
6,036J
255,262
7,432
24,560
65,853
4,700
8,230
GROUP in.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 100,000 TO 300,000 IN 1912.
Jersey City, N . J .
Seattle, Wash....
City corporation..
"■* ol district....
School
21
Kansas City, Mo
City
School
tion..
itrict....,
22 Indianapolis, Ind..
City corporation..,
School district
$5,593]
$835,902
$50]
$10,921
4,015,536]
55,301
930,6571
1391
14,562
9,462,931
1,941,090
2,956,843
968,962
374,793
7,309
4,015,566)
55,301
930,6571
139j
9,801,969
3,815,871
541,087]
92,101
3,430,033
53,531
8,002,553
1,799,416
2,222,208
1,593,663
539,453
1,634
92,101
3,430,033
53,631
5,846,592
3,178,940
365,999
91,93%
4,268,445
1,578,147
16,75fl
1,981,270
1,197,670
16,75fl
365,999
«,«2j
997,371
14,356)
997,371
14,356)
14,562
144,093
6,503]
5,275}
5,275)
144,093
6,20M
300]
324,692
604,682
17,456)
324,692.
584,582
20,10ft
8,084
9,372
4,064,703]
302,231
15,321
80,110
6,930j
33,090]
11a
4,132,350
468,462
«0,532
3,355,808
45,315)
454,478
1,3471
6,48tt
6,843,289
2,197,280
586,404
l,947,45fl
1,721,993
462,900]
468,462
60,532j 3,355,80$
45,315)
454,47H
27d
1,064
4,380
2,100)
Rochester, N . Y .
6,352,455
3,713,097^
119,138
239,745
11,338
1,048,154
13,740)
86,130
6,421
27,712
City corporation
County supervisors* fundDenver, Colo
6,203,988!
148,4671
3,593,40fl
119,6901
90,4961
28,642]
239,745}
ll,338j
1,048,154J
13,740)
86,130,
6,421
27,712
6,299,765
4,056,21fl
399,791
22,428
909,337,
23,165)
91.745J
95,63fl
4,877]
Louisville, K y . . .
5,597,021
3,373,634
515,062
44,326 j
404,093
17,045]
253,602
19,370
6,413)
St. Paul, Minn...
4,507,051
2,686,930
432,617
6,739
49,4761
155,649
10,037]
11, SSI]
Columbus, Ohio..
4,668,244
2,615,453
312,820
33,199'
517,142
12,5161
84,212
1,0971
13,301]
3,454,807
l,213,43tf
1,533,866]
1,081,5871
312,820
33,199 (
517,142
12,4S71
4,060,484
2,533,66fl
318,090
2,985,864
1,074,620
1,594,608
939,059
318,090
5,295,662
2,725,320
252,918;
30,584}
4,199,513
1,085,398
2,318,143
397,095
10,082)
252,918
30,584;
>t!on.,
itrict....
Oakland, Cal..
City corporation...
School district
Sanitary district32 Atlanta, Ga
Worcester, Mass...
Birmingham, Ala.
Syracuse, N . Y . . . .
10,751
3,665,334
4,039,122
2,107,403
$1261
21,371
29,452
447,989;
6,646.
73,806)
723,541!
622
8,7761
1,384,9911
73,806)
35,6871
687,28K
622
8,7761
519,422
92,024]
2,216,108
374,195]
88,780|
723,466
2,253,0321
66,074
2,199,441
53,591
44,25a
21,8191
319,351'
4,456!
175,791
25,417
397,79*
174,666;
9,402:
433,316;
8,497)
174,666]
9,402|
433,316!
8,4971
71,924
102,539{
19,2261
219,89W
29,66$|
821
14,484
62,458
62,458)
l,37fl
14,484
25,509-;
73,6e0|
6,408)
8,402
25,509J
72,13ffi
1,539]
6,408)
8,402
497,Sl5j
24,189]
289,0471
6,<m
198,940)
10,304
112,442
0,750)
98M
7,22S
198,940
10,242
62
4,4271
108,01a
6,75«
98tf
193,374
8,013
62,753
190,2361
12,130l
173,199
13,93«
48,512|
173,199J
13,93»
43,512
Memphis, Tenn.
3,315,099
1,649,202
222,3961
8,978
Scranton, Fa
1,850,581
1,124,805]
40,000)
277,9311
7,22a
1,101,8661
534,344
590,461
20,00ft
20,000]
277,931
2,077,339
12,196]
1,181,6071
7,0001
1,071
1,37«
36,263)
F o r explanation of differences In amounts
5,737J
198,863
508,868
36,26H
3,553,1581
3,094
66tf
15,609]
1,054,047]
61,537^
Paterson,N.J„
10,252
1,384,991]
61,537)
Richmond, Va.,
82,426]
13,301
1,2161
0,036)
2,030,153
28,948
8,332
748,7*5]
3,594)
2,341
1,270J
2,067,430
City corporation..
School district....
m
84,212
82,426]
2,566,310
31,735
8,670
City corporation
County supervisors' fund..
New Haven, Conn.
2rt
1,0971
500J
'447,989]
3,510,835
3,435,425
75,410
2,606,715
City corporation
Westvilfe school district
Borough of Fairhaven, East..
1
$183,757
7,309t
6,159,900
City corporation.,
School districts...
40
$15,942.
374,793
$564
9,626,973
Toledo, Ohio..
37
$517,711
3,925,810
Providence, R . I .
City
School
36
12,726,8181
Portland, Oreg...
City corporation..
School district..
Navigation district..
25
36,123,182
11,404,021
1,965,3S4|
reported i n this column and total payments for outlays repotted in
80,283)
2,39fl
9,423]
3,03o!
91,670)
4,178l 323,835t
Table 18,ieetextdiKWsdonforTttUel8,pa*efl7.
2,3481
GENERAL TABLES.
153
COST PAYMENTS, BY DIVISIONS OF CITY GOVERNMENT: 1912—Continued,
assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 67.]
REVENUE RECEIPTS—continued.
From
From
highway
Of
privigeneral
depart*
znents*
From
rents.
From
interest.
EXCESS OP REVENUE
RECEIPTS OVER—
GOVERNMENTAL COST PAYMENTS.
From
camiiia
of public
service
enter
prises.
For expenses and interest.
Expenses Expenses
of general of public
Interest.
depart
service
ments. {enterprises.
Total.
Total
(Table 9.)](TablelO.) (TablelO.) (Table 10.) |(Table ll.)|
For
outlays. 1
Excess of
govern
mental
cost
payments
over
revenue
receipts.
City
Govern Payments n u m
ber.
mental
for
cost
expenses
pay
and
ments.
interest.
(Table 12.) (Table 15.)! (Table 17.)| (Table 18.)
G R O U P H.—CITIES H A V I N G A P O P U L A T I O N OF 300,000 TO 500,000 I N 1912—Continued.
1 $309,018
$10,011
1250,572
238,291
70,727
16,011
213,716
36,856
$510,507 $11,172,169 J $6,530,403 [ $5,500,242
5I0,507J
10,453,898
[
718,271
5,985,252 1
545,151
5,035,862
464,380
$251,256
251,256
$778,905
698,134
80,771 1
$4,^1,766 | $2,298,811
$2,342,955
4,468,646
173,120
G R O U P IIL—CITIES H A V I N G A P O P U L A T I O N O F 100,000 TO 300,000 I N 1912.
$262,426 $1,365,181
$59,473 $138,839
$6,423,276
$5,509,650]
$913,626
$300,094
$613,532
133,929
82,363
$4,330]
96,131
1,763,1061
13,234,476
7,275,539
4,739,29fl
735,ttxJ
1,801,243
5,958,937!
1,830,455
4,128,482
114,593
19,331
82,363
4,330
94,411
1,720
1,742,825
20,281
10,920,820
2,313,656
5,551,620
1,723,919
3,219,041
1,520,255
713,877
21,123
1,618,702
182,541
5,369,2001
589,737j
122,982
$3,912,413
$331,749 $1,265,488
131,880
245,511
8,376
1,204,726
10,38S,257|
5,190,180
4,238,857
422,428
5,198,077
121,26ffl
10,620
245,511
2,165
6,211
80,08fl 1,204,726
42,895
8,404,697
1,983,560
3,743,390
1,446,790
2,935,676
1,303,181
528,895
278,819
143,609
4,661,307
536,770
63,942
108,780)
3,582
32,533
25,570
5,425,024
3,592,855
3,384,652
24,828
183,375
1,832,169
49,353
108,78W
1,651
1,931
22,740
25,570
3,757,307
1,667,717
2,309,750
1,283,105
2,153,900
1,230,752
24,828
131,022
52,353
1,447,557
381,612
236,614
27,150
856,232
5,439,003
4,713,030
3,722,325
280,983
709,722
846,831
12,469,020
4,705,625
3,072,844
337,511
1,295,270
7,763,395
780,997
9,458,200
2,439,043
571,777
3,183,317
1,202,024
320,284
1,760,526
1,169,022
143,296
195,608
65,S34j
1,227,183
33,002
35,085
6,274,883
1,237,019
251,493
14,589
163,379]
57,17*
8,381
3,9S2J
44,809
36,916)
100]
36,9161
100
9,793
353,628
161,185
134,663
13,661
12,861
141,903
4,611,789
$421,568
725,973!
720,897
2,253,737
1,446,870
2,842,047
4,921,3481
1,882,354
1,390,161
82,823
191,253
101,824
711,080
8,234,809
4,962,294
4,050,485
320,602
591,207
3,272,515
82,823
191,253
101,6
711,080
8,074,050
160,759
4,801,535
160,759
3,889,72<H
160,759
320,602
591,207
3,272,515
355,933
141,691
47,825]
362,306
4,229,646
2,968,486
1,261,160
68,277]
22,453
500
1,876,726
346,603
1,530,123
117,011
139,740]
674
293,853
6,255|
2,426
281,443
12,410]
6,255]
2,159
267
170,240
148,609
21,631
44,274
3,503
9,943
207,271
135]
34, ISM
10,094
3,503
9,943
.117,912
145,009
27,509
175,036
32,235.
33,207
9,268,251
5,038,605
4,634,078
42,221
726,632
5,943,624
4,066,898
3,257,624
254,386
' 459,338
4,686,470
3,672,255
2,944,051
211,027
517,177
1,014,215
179,419
834,796
605,730
5,347,024
3,741,695
2,747,0461
358,942
635,707
1,605,329
678,780
926,549
605,730
4,215,403
1,131,621]
2,731,964
1,009,731
1,789,023
958,023
358,942
583,999
51,708
1,483,439
121,890
391,488
4,841,157
2,774,157
2,052,008
252,919
469,231
2,066,999
780,673
1,286,326
252,919
411,350
57,881
1,432,530
634,469
962,493
2,577,864
391,488
3,353,733
1,487,424'
1,921,203
852,955
1,256,934
795,074
51,590]
6,072]
19,970]
17,382
6,258,155
2,717,798
2,480,078
4,590
233,130
3,540,357
51,104
486
6,072
19,433
17,382
4,559,244'
1,694,879
4,032
1,752,726
961,040
1,576,053
903,253
4,590
172,083
57,787
3,260
2,806,518
733,839
164,344
51,437]
1,679
436,6561
3,658,108
208,808
220,491
1,212,170
253,532
19,569
1,788
203,321
448,188
4,376,725
122,998
442,570
1,035,146
337,603
697,543
34,361
448,488
705,Ul!
378,213
326,898
119,742
424,903
704,462]
91,944
612,518
32,053
432,850
5T2]
8,226]
94,005
6,776]
585
20,426]
37,426
2,485,616
43,79fl
6,518
219
41,227|
395,770;,
3,602,779
43,7971
5l,98lj
51,676
305
6,518]
219
41,227]
4,032
772
2,445,938
2,016,639
3,341,579
2,776,0ll|
1,780,505
1,297,656]
2,898,317
119,742
424,903
704,462
395,770
3,533,057
69,722
69,722
2,353,672
2,283,950
69,722
8,501
1,7S7J
27,919]
2,599
2,638,768
2,173,865
2,027,406
2,056
144,403
464,903
7*664
499
l,39fl
390
27,862
2,599
2,569,088
60,859
8,821
2,130,571
34,473
8,821
1,986,805
31,794
8,807
2,056
141,710
2,679
14
438,517
26,386
243,739
7,226
1,219,396
122,936
3,426]
7,800]
27,959
456,342
4,255,359
2,569,729
1,779,856
546,134
1,685,630
940,269
745,361
7t7i7i
10,000j
2,800]
50,360|
285
1,966,699
1,524,627
1,351,129
173,498
442,072
116,118
325,954i
4,363
10,000]
2,800
23,5671
26,793
285
1,184,346
782,353
804,821
719,806
715,025
636,104
89,796
83,702
379,525
62,547
107,924]
3,114]
132,27a
800,868
3,836,669
2,662,697
1,834,157
467,834
1,174,072
283,511
890,561
2,222,997]
1,595,1691
1,389,48ol
204,8021
627,828]
257,6131
370,2151
3,384]
33,663
55,7031
61,717*
3601
31,427!
144!
360,606
8871
16
FINANICAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
154
TABLE 4 . - S U M M A R Y OF R E V E N U E RECEIPTS A N D
GOVERNMENTAL
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number
R E V E N U E RECEIPTS.
From taxes.
City
num*
ber.
crrr, AND DIVISION OF a i r ' s
GOVERNMENT.
General
property.
Total.
Special
property.
Poll.
From spe
cial assess From From sub From
From
ments and fines,
donations I pension
from
forfeits, ventions
and
and
Non
and
special
gifts.
ments.
Business. business charge* for] escheats. grants.
license. outlays.
(Table 7.) (Table 7.) (Table 7.)| (Table 7.) (Table 7.)] (Table 7.) (Table 7.) (Tables.) (Table 8.) (Tables.)
GROUP III.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 100,000 TO 300,000 IN 1912-Continued*
$34,460]
$65,720^
$5,507]
$5,516|
11, i d
2S.7C9
37,011
5,507|
1,03d
4,4S6|
8,19<j
5,70S
2,500
19,46^
473,502
2,863
4,2711
473,502
4,27U
58,745
20»
2,663
200
58,745
150
50
l,97ffl
7,399|
$3,705,008]
$1,893,584
$539,301
$12,782]
$422,269,
2,681,3801
1,023,62a
1,479,013
414,571
632
538,669
12,782^
422,269
'42
2,349,379
1,572,500
147,237
1,317
12,843
43
4,071,421
1,502,652
205,662
5,059
1,158,427
3,195,465
875,956
1,108,384
394,268
205,662
5,059 1,158,427
i9, m
2,206,59^
1,492,444
83,763
12,746
204,924
4,44^
926,179
566,265
83,763
12,746
204,924
4,24i
41
44
1,554,886
651,710
$54,698
$122,276
2,277,609
1,313,354
65,780
7,283
482,303
6,924
28,341
860
2,247,590|
30,019
1,313,354
65,780
7,283
482,303
6J924
9.844
18,497
860
46
2,085,703
1,060,940
90,008
3,920
28,656
15,825
336,931
47
1,869,571
1,462,562
15,672
34,174
142,837
8,147
74,077
13,292
54,983
48
2,114,654
1,389,725
144,736
38,000
115,191
1,296
39,795
5,032
3,793
88
49
2^780,775)
1,827,747
231,107
30,504
3,596
1,315
47,473
3,392
8,890
822
1,483,520
1,222,223
11,776
38,8S4
10,820
19,592
139,330
297
921,124
301,099
11,776
38,884
10,820
19,592
139,330
2S6
11
45
50
1,037,868 !
415,652
9,375|
162
2,676,250
1,688,409
296,527
46,929
90,270
1,250
51,516
4,599
15,257
52
3,041,405 1 1,826,428
418,836
40,016
73,425
1,530
64,978
9,835
57,137
2,365
418,836
40,016
73,425
1,530
04,978
9,835
56,342
795
2,365
44,360
1,143
426,095
23,367
124,402
315
-2,323
-iiid
iiiii
51
City corporation
53 Dallas, Tex
..
54 Trenton, N . J
,..„....
55 Albany, N . Y
56
City* corporation....
School district
........
2,002,752
911,641
9,355
11,943
1»707]
l,70fl
277,687
8,644
239,651
3,085
44,404
860
7,86a
308,503
425
6,127]
* 135,553
8,947
184,308
2,097
20,042
332,104
18,520
493,330
11,286
20,012 '
332,104
18,520
493,330
11,286
78,099
774,128
583,420
124,496 ,
C
425
308,503
6,127
1
GROUP IV.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 50,000 TO 100,000 IN 1912. *
58 CKmrfon,N, J.,.!,
j.
x .i
$1,258,054 1
$759,143
944,924
313,130
544,304
214,839
1,465,466
59 Springfield, Mass.......
3,098,101
60
3,883,673
!
1,968,614
61 Lynn, Mass
2,039,311
1,322,382
62
1,930,108 1 1,453,097
mil
3,058,968
728,732
95,973
_
63 Lawrence, Mass
64 Wilmington, Del
65
[
1,695,602
496,119
$34,000
$82,601
$2,630
$22,966
$1,453
$81,713
17^000
17,000
82,601
2,630
22,966
X439
14
2,018
79,695
9,893
58,397
4,959
183,045
$903
6,240
41,331
11,405
4,708
1,625
6,564
992,552
14,813
406,686
2,148
3,367|
6,564
992,652
1M13
3,367
406,686
1,923
225
7,669
714,086
1,219,821
808,953
315,087
95,781
Metropolitan park board
~
$236,085
47,822
130,501
106,200
48,075
758,856
694,241
1,202,816
123,454
797,264
1,338
26,380
6,809
1,236
51,594
9,875
4,882
6,386
121,487
9,347
222,553
17,808 t
36,671
1,205
121,487
9,347
222,553
17,808
36,671
205
1,000
121,071
1,212
2,172
4,453
1,254,905
57,990
806,823
448,082
57,990
14,463
ml
City corporation........
School district
III-
57
14,636
473,100 !
14,636
1
7,221
6,203
1,400
7,237
39,200
5,326
43,603
U,633
$1,150
1,737|
T
~ 1>737J
4,337
1
6,633
43,603
66 Yonlters,N.Y
9,832
2,462,975 1 1,815,418
21,510
327
103,307
8,659
161,882 1
3,652
42,480
1For explanation of differences in amounts reported in this column and total payments for outlays reported In Table 18, see text discussion for Table 18, page 97.
14,463
GENERAL TABLES.
155
COST PAYMENTS, BY DIVISIONS OF CITY GOVERNMENT: 1912—Continued.
assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 67.]
REVENUE RECEIPTS—continued.
From
earnings From
of
highway
general
>rividepart
egcs.
ments.
{
From
rents.
From
Interest.
EXCESS OP BEVEJJXTE
RECEIPTS OVER—
GOVERNMENTAL COST PAYMENTS.
From
earnings
of public
service
enter
prises.
For expenses and interest.
For
outlays.1
Expenses Expenses
of general of public
Interest.
depart
service
ments. [enterprises,
Total.
Total.
(Table 9.)|(Table 10.) (Table 10.) (Table 10.) (Table 11.)]
Excess of
govern
mental
cost
payments
over
revenue
receipts.
City
Govern Payments num
ber.
mental
for
cost
pay
and
ments. interest.
(Table 12.) j(Table 15.)] (Table 17.)! (Table 18.)
GROUP IIL-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 100,000 TO 300,000 IN 1912—Continued.
159,229 |
5,523
30,769
253
253
34,837
24,299
30,163
4,674
24,299 1
J
31,865
471,884 j
3,997
49,141
227,677 j 2,597,098
3,997
34,769
14,372
227,677
4,783,581
1,245,332
1,984,399 I
612,699
553,237
73,542
100,315
296,995
160,601
646,193
1 1,065,143
709,876
160,601
j
1,518,182
125,080
1,335,297
554,704
981,118
537,064
125,080
229,099
17,640
649,102
57,995
1
707,097
2,798
292
30,740
254,413 1
3,159,360 |
1,905,883 |
1,619,782
109,667
176,434
1,253,477]
2,798
292
26,40$
4,332
254,413
2,402,676
756,684
1,247,013
658,870
985,425!
634,357
109.667
151,921 \
24,513
1,155,663
97,814
42,179
75,315
24,010
1,481
252,626
823,613
1,577
80,681
358,364
60,914
244,991
2,127,624
1,744,165
1,424,598
126,343
193,224
333,459
12,970
149,373
388,674
2,810,220
2,422,893
1,742,360
115,881
564,652
387,327
29,445
3,139
11,968
918,982
9,418
144,513 1
270,571
499
2,640
11,90S
734,133
338,780
591,456
327,527
9,418
133,260
11,253.
187,353
83,218
1,429,820
1,651,132
135,269
350,729j
2,164,808;
1,773,519
99,834
291,455] !
43,094
6,742
61,866
1,830
1,174
370,39fl
1,345,312
■
428,207
99,834
211,772
79,683
27,110
11,476
436
1,140,616
211,490
183,212
1,177,159
103,199
276,799
1,528,445
242,343
222,238'
1,465,587
158,304
347,387]
7HtSlO
710,737
158,304
282,282 1
65,105
2,685
228,381
261,098
389,028
315,500]
887J ~~ 315,500]
10,811:
1,195,436
775,842
1,767,963]
946,476
328,120
$62,516
140,036
890,700
46
47
43
49
50
539,120
51
876.59/
52
788,749
995,812
53
180,258
410,973
64
896,312
277,896
55
199,954
943,115
£6
$20,198
$270,671
57
!
870,505]
IFF
2,137,130
2,585
45
105,968
317,369
2,643
371,726
1,366,434
370,397]
31,302
2,780
881,751
1,231,616
60,045
2,643
44
1,448,692
95,512
34,082^
316,695
1,590,210
3,004
1,053
390,502
1,807,056
10,187
21
43
2,413,823
61,866
10,577
42
88
49,836
44,916
391,650
1,489,608
319,192
58,425
21,801
49,188
22,755
1,343,434 j 1,072,913 [
41
1,957,492j
30,028
-LlUt
21,438
2,572
125
$710,136
I 3,009,705
437,395
84,521
60,045
|
471,884
$626,779] $7,790,650 : $7,080,514
259,650
77,331
7,190
29,734
J
250,034
31,865
$259,650
i 1111
J
108,141
1,864
$2,108,443
!!!!!!
30,769
381,839
td
J 164,752
1,601
52,541 j
7,663
if
10,908
$381,839 1 $10,785,522 j $2,994,872
$60,204
tot- **«
51,157
477
S3 8
227,797
III
III
$1,978 1
45,517
8,534
III
$54,051 1 $227,797
Illll
Illll
J
6,092
572,527
170,634
GROUP IV.-CrriES HAVING A POPULATION OF 60,000 TO 100,000 IN 1912.
11,944
200
13,648
35,291
$614
41,983
J20,537
14,584
857
53,921
29,985
34,678
2,228
57,203
23,412
' 6,381
192
34,678
2,228
56,850
353
983,127
$987,383 j
$243,012] $1,237,856
51,766
338,413
•21,202
13,434
11,833
3,081
16,393
260
13,642
7,660
13,434
42,233
4,607
89,638
184,084
1,947,218
211,164
255,073
641,355
558,305
1,724,304
1,283,038
222,582
1,453,427 |
1,312,217
35,761
692,575
619,642
35,761
|
267,996
29,579
629
21,634
1,400
267,996. 1 ,1,952,510 i
476,050,
1,403
440
26,191
257,064!
|
|
871,176
434)456
3,335,078; 1 2,194,831
1,208,181
76,921
787,944
92,472
866,197
104,653
11
23,034
II!
9,994
629
1,103,491
558,305
1,269
279
57,668
17,232
789,955
491,894
50,197
165,928
2g,679
$74,900 j
01,707
1,332,046
248,109
5*253
$91,707
493,829
326,947
1,946,338
535,169
50,199
15,812
19,966
i»TII
75
260
1 ._.
15,546
16,393
$820,776
111!!
Iff!
76,072
, H014
iirin
243,012
$250,473
250,473]
Ml
$12,144
6,463
fell!111
$6,463
10,647
1,382
[TO
|
$11,929
11 «1
1
$84,869
88,253
58
357,332
684,646
59
2,302,906
1,351,967
60
543,313
223,306
315,007
61
1,033,213]
656,632
476,681
62
3,373,820^
227,885!
63,168
722,192
311,021
150,636
179,435
201,334
35,265
'1,122,928
236,839
104,653
294.975
39,807
1,081,334
41,694
149,591
375,867
1,140,247 1 ' 872,103
|
330,071
63
166,069
64
886,039
65
268,144
66
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
156
TABLE 4.—SUMMARY O F R E V E N U E R E C E I P T S AND
GOVERNMENTAL
{For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number
R E V E N U E RECEIPTS.
From taxes.
City
num
ber.
C U T , AND DIVISION OF CITY'S
GOVERNMENT.
Total.
FromspeFrom
From sub
From
From
fines*
mentsand
ventions donations; pension
forfeits,
from
and
and
Non
and
special
gifts.
grants.
business charges for] escheats.
ments.
license.
outlays.
General
property.
Special
property.
(Table 7.)
(Table 7.) (Table 7.)] (Table 7.) (Table 7.)] (Table 7.) (Table 7.) (Tables.) (Table 8.) (Tables.)
Business.
Fofl.
GEOUP I V . - C I T I E S HAVING A POPULATION OF 50,000 TO 100,000 IN 1912-Continued.
Youngstown, Ohio...
11,724,982
1909,543
1167,4931
$1,391
1309,515]
I13,4ia
*38,0571
City corporation.
School district...
1,274,174
507,627
401,916
167,49a
1,391
309,515
13,368
50|
38,0571
Houston, Tex
Fort Worth, Tex..
Duluth, Minn
City corporation.
School district...
450,8081
*9,20H
1,302,43<M
40,352]
7,101
23,251
122,344
31,919]
4,81l]
540,089]
14,930j
85,408
1,855,345
1,083,790
2,070,742j|
2,496,861
1,820,474
676,387
Norfolk, Va
1,298,811
114,712,
234,447
20,996)
229,84a
19,270]
73,869]
732,773
566,038]
7,9181,
6,794]
217,348
17,098)
20,996)
229,84a
19,270]
1,500T
72,369j
395,371
7,771
1,614
48,618)
2,985]
1,682,321
59,315)
20,09a
1,682,321
59,315)
2,131
969,655)
1,764,930]
110,1271
10,127
1,998)
3,630)
3,250]
917,2S5[
477,448
439,8391
24,74a
2,985
Schenectady, N . Y*.
1,697,121
1,048,763
12,0601
106,700]
3,8181
-254,5261
5,050]
37,9ed
1,7931
Somervflle, Mass....
1,775,167
1,148,303
78,980)
2,981
9131
60,398)
2,136]
8,615]
6,0001
St. Joseph, Mo
1,330,435
885,5531
143,964
7,2961
207,607]
9,765
40,101;
480,464
405,0891
143,964
7,2961
207,6071
9,76a
City corporation.
School district...
872,13a
458,300l |
3,560]
154,71a
2,62H
34,674
235)
4,430)
87,445]
4,221]
193,568
73a
1,684
12,89a
27,128
80,496)
1,707
51,428)
11,549]
49,93a
5,35a
856,595
28,4l0j
12,899
27,12#
80,496]
1,707
51,428)
11,549]
49,82a
5,35a,
1,925,376
1,387,75a
36,108)
104,459]
3,908)
55,825]
491
35,230)
24,89a
6,428]
1,779,834
96,793
48,749|
1,285,55<H
61,5551
40,653
27,545l
6631
8,000l
104,459]
3,908)
55,825)
3054
26,871
6,428]
$J35M
4ltf
24,483)
34,310)
14,139]
1,377,863
8S5,00d
1,349,325]
28,538!'
City con oration,
School d s t r i c t . . .
Manchester, N . H . .
Hoboken,N.J
Wflkes-Barre, P a . .
City cori oration,
School a s t r i c t . . .
Erie, P a .
City corporation.,
School district...
E vansville, Ind
City corporation.
School district...
Peoria, HI
City corporation
School district
Pleasure, driveway, and park dist J
Fort Wayne, I n d .
City corporation.
School district..8S Harrisborg,Pa«
City corporation.
School district...
64,893
nw,
961
1,321,72«
750,44fl
108,205]
49C|
199,6361
12,595)
919,813
394,3M
108,205)
4961
199,6361
12,595]
401,915
356,129]
1,244,925
771,843
1,307,092
896,712^1
565,559
331,153
654,965
605,563,
342,04«
263,515]
56,961
153,881
6,704
987]
l,192j
73S
125,916]
3,89a
1891
2,935J
33,000|
77,7871
6,035
110,0531
3,446)
50,
1,985
is,ooq
77,7Sn
6,035)
110,053
3,446j
3,661
46,57a
1,985)
63,420)
4,164]
76,178]
3,352
58,355)
63,420]
4,164
76,I7a
3,352]
1,7261
66,628
163,36a
l^OOOJ
827,503
324,965
358,73d
253,308|
11,417]
1,378,884
703,194
6,000|
95,489)
14,465)
189,6421
1,063]
1,018,130
360,748]
516,833
186,361
4,00H
2,O00|
95,489]
14,465)
189,642]
1,063]
1,469,995]]
965,573]
205,708]
893,473
490,537
85,9851
420,502
460,939]
84,432]
205,708]
11,4171
8,693]
196,363]
11,2491
196,363]
11,249]
894
538)
1,8031
63d
!,««
18,860]
7,7191
1,*87]
7,369]
1,487]
350]
26,701
66,316)
2,581
372,94a
2,5301
l,142,25fl
356,197]
386,103
234,901
18,185^
8,516)
66,316)
2,581
372,94a
2,53d
1,463,904
775,631
6,967]
103,1991
sol
1,432)
50)
1,432]
400]
5,19fl
102,1991
64,481]
324,8551
3,404
52,385)
64,481
1,896]
324,855]
3,404
1,888]
50,4iffl
641,054
208,884
3,3471
104,287]
25,354
194,650J
641,052]
2as,8S4|
3,347)
104,287)
6,967]
* F o r e x p l a n a t i o n of differences i n a m o u n t s r e p o r t e d i n t h i s c o l u m n a n d total payments for outlays reported in Table 18,
1,255)
18,860|
621,004
1,196,840
194,74311
4,551
226,599]
163,36a,
1,498,454
337,393,
7,949]
15,154
612,039
1,058,585
405,319
14,1391
34,3101
1,152,47^1
Savannah, Ga.
City corporation.
School district...
3,271
40,1011
2,253]
Waterbmy, Conrf.
Akron, Ohio,
3,271
107,0351
992,537
642,OOfl
City corporation
Lansingburgh school district.
County supervisors' fund
33,082}
139,82a
1,545,486
1,168,660
Troy,N.Y.
20,090]
10,0001
Utica,N.Y
Elizabeth, N . J . . .
City corporation.
School district...
87
1,500)
2,941,707
2,466,314
475,393
City corporation.
School district...
83
mi
24,74tf
Oklahoma City, OHa.
84
S177J
.404
5,19fl
25,354
. _
1
194,6501.
text discussion for Table 18, page 97.
GENERAL TABLES.
157
COST P A Y M E N T S , B Y D I V I S I O N S O F C I T Y G O V E R N M E N T : 1912—Continued,
assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 67.]
BEVENTJE RECEIPTS—Continued.
From
From
earnings
highway
of
privi
general
leges.
depart
ments.
From
rents.
From
interest.
EXCESS Of BE VENUE
. RECEIPTS OVER—
GOVERNMENTAL COST PAYMENTS.
For expenses and interest.
From
earnings
of public
service
enter
prises.
Expenses Expenses
of general of public
Interest.
depart
service
ments. enterprises.!
Total.
Total.
(Table 9.)|(Table 10.) (Table 10.) (Table 10.) [(Table 11.)]
For
outlays. 1
Excess of
govern
mental
cost
payments
over
revenue
receipts.
City
Govern Payments num
ber.
mental
for
cost
expenses
pay
and
ments.
interest.
(Table 12.) (Table 15.) |(Table 17.)! (Table 18.)
G R O U P IV.—CITIES H A V I N G A P O P U L A T I O N O F £0,000 T O 100,000 I N 1912-Continued.
J $30,560 |
12,345 |
27,686
2,874
2,345
49,035
20,855
32,747
J
J
J
j
[
j
j
j
1
j
1
1
$1,125
$32,544
$218,814 j $1,954,438 |
$1,166,491
$933,929
$99,407
$133,155]
$787,947]
538,609
395,320
99,407
106,735
26,420
553,808
234,139
1,031,415
97,285
320,901
752,148
283,186
268,034
1,796,982
1,173,800
302,749
320,433: j
795,611 ! .
1,279,226
517,756
711,844
461,956
302,749
264,633
55,800
732,349
63,262
1,125 1
24,633
7,911
218,814
1,298,559
655,879
10,108
269,764
2,110,920
1,449,601
3,892
30,216
241,440
3,016,084
1,303,363
560,549 j
2,592,593 1
560,549
2,011,575
581,018
23,517
989 !
265 1
20,949
2,568
089
265
14,798
45,741
657
61,816
60,708
1,108
0,461
1,393
744,751 1
421,740
$229,456
$558,491|
661,319
255,575
405,744
1,712,716
945,342
767,374
95,732
699,879
46,406
226,540
1,878,484
1,529,662
1,021,434
132,533
375,695
348,822
113,554
235,268
5,146
23,519 !
144,487 j
3,100,443 j
1,419,963 [
865,545
83,536
470,882
1,680,480
158,736
1,521,744
5,146
9,163
14,356
144,487 P 2,303,538
011,811
50S,152|
482,432
333,113
83,536
796,905
345,843
125,039 I
1,391,727
288,753
33,011
170,867
1,725,342
1,175,009
896,929
80,639
197,441
550,333
28,221
522,112
249,648
1,788,934
1,525,079
1,278,217
57,311
189,551
263,855
13,767
18,295
263
762
168,868
9,S74
1,305
15,401
875
1,291
5,500
9,901
875 !
40
1,251 i
160,179 1
11
18,586
2,009
1,347,024
1,120,692
1,021,996
24,683 '
39,249
22,246
742
1,122,020
902,543
763,466
4,062 ,
10,228
8,270j
1/058
4,190 j
4,190
1,265,655 j
048,3S6 j
846,293
2,190
99,903
317^269
878,526 j
3S7,129
562,781 F
385,605
514,424
331,869
2,190 !
46,167
53,736
315,745
1,524
* 98,696
226,332
1,700
137,377
219,477
15,113
24
150
24,882
212,187 1
1,611,641
1,116,850
943,521
34,194
139,13^
494,791
15,113
24
150
24,864
IS
212,187
1,563,43?
48,208
1,068,642
43*203
902,633
40,888
34,194
131,815
7,320
494,791
11,394
1,007
20,810
237,065 |
1,059,669
1,502,647
1,201,067
78,395
223,185]
457,022:
10,944
450
1,007
19,427
1,383
237,065 "
1,784,302
127,691
47,676
1,385,916
69,055
47,676
1,090,476
62,915
47,676
78,395
217,045
6,140
398,386
58,636
21,421
8,042
1,690
35,591
135,157 1
3,107,231 j
1,015,757
.813,86*
56,499
145,390
2,091,474
13,950
7,471
8,042
1,690
31,566
4,005
135,157
2,660,350
446,881
673,655
342,102
492,860
321,008
56,499
124,296
21,094
1,986,695
104,779
250,038
|
„
$64,780
382,049
198,462
424,794
46,640
266,117
233,778
261,013
34,293
422,729
79
1,785,503
305,971
80
10,734
23,597
30,696
160,676
1,363,495
950,154
705,773
80,618
73,763
413,341
118,570
294,771
9,526
31,786
22,485
225,909
1,576,523
1,393,469
1,047,899
228,731
116,839
183,054
269,431
* 86,377
323,347
168,560
1,736
5,778
1,090 1
1,220,059
728,152
650,201
2,804
75,147^
491,907 |
580
1,156
2,859^
2,919
1,090
664,455
555,604
438,025
290,127
390,658
259,543
2,804
44,563
30,584
226,430
265,477
25,563
275,284
1,116,430
731,183;
614,306
71,804
45,073]
385,247|
464,940
266,243 ;
359,783
254,523
71,804
33,353
11,720
359,711
25,536
16, OH
25
6,664
14,026
1,985
6,664
25
824,651 i
291,779 |
23,936 " ' 275,284
1,626
6,022
17,473
90
0,762
168,175
I,352,733j
845,429
665,910
102,277
77,242]
507,304
1,264
6,658
17,473
90
6,401
3,361
168,175
953,116
399,617]
661,106
284,323
384,926
280,984
102,277
73,903
3,339 1
392,010.
115,294
5,975
0,290
5,0SS
1,538,931]
1,035,977]
970,601
4,739
60,637]
502,054
5,08S
966,422
508,925!
63,584
605,084
372,037
58,856]
550,714
368,347
51,540
4,739
5,975
5,829 ~
3,325
136
49,631
3,690
7,316)
361,338
136, ssa
31,340
2,350
28,835
1,438
1,067
2,350
11,559
2,963
120
15,955
272,096]
1,300,207]
863,939]
636,579
186,257
41,103
3,886
7,673
2,963
120
13,047
2,908
272,09®
1,069,592
320,705
559,387^
304,552,
350,117
286,462
186,257
23,013
18,090
2,003
20,347
14
21,147
185,177]
1,590,250J
862,299]
686,107
61,859
114,333]
727,95l|
1,139,679
450,571
506,224
356,075]
367,928
318,179
61,859
76,437
37,896
633,455
94,496
1,115
888
20,347
14
1
16,784 "" 185, i d
4)363
84
26,151
533,455
85
434,018
4,72S
18,047
12,805
7,351
175,806|
1,349,071
1,045,857]
816,059
94,293
135,505]
303,214
12,805
7,351
175,806|
1,148,702 ~ " ~ 894,421
151,4361
200,3691
666,875
149,184
94,293
I
17,954'
931
133,253
2,252]
254,281
48,933!
421,287
—
68,936
108,157
526,358
5HK2Q5]
16,153
j
* Excess ot p a y m e n t s for expenses and interest over revenue receipts.
1
36,040
126,346
634,515
001,605
j
42,512
345,726
87
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
158
TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF REVENUE RECEIPTS A N D GOVERNMENTAL
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically b y states, w i t h t h e number
R E V E N U E RECEIPTS.
City
num
ber.
From taxes.
CITY, AND DIVISION OP CITY'S
GOVERNMENT.
Total.
Special
i General
! property. property.
Poll.
From spe
cial assess From
sub From
From
ments and fines, From
donations pension
from
forfeits, ventions
and
. Non
assess
and
and
special
ments*
Business. business charges
gifts.
fSfthfats, grants.
license. outlays.for
(Table 7.) (Table 7.) (Table 7.) (Table 7.) (Tabled) (Table 7.) (Table 7.) (TableS.) (Tables.) (Table8.)
GROUP IV.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 50,000 TO 100,000 IN 1912-Coutraued.
$1,063,280|
90 Bast St. Louis, 111..
735,646
295,183
32,45l|
City corporation..
School district....
Park district..
1,830,17
91 Jacksonville, Fla.,
City corporation..
School district....
181,916;.
195,3011
565,168].
1,708,297
121,875
South Bend, Ind..
City
School
3195,301]
$194,0661..
ition..
ttrict—
93 Terro Haute, IndCity corporation..
School district....
Passaic, N. J . „ .
164,122[
11,960]
122,136!
41,139
164,122]
11,960]
122,1361
41,139
156,684
1,014
717,994
359,415
352,0
248,622.
2,796
2,797
70,9271
42,900
14,6601
156,684
1,014
86,90t>;
885,549;
622,782],
1,858!
377,964'
244,818'
l,85d
640,788|j
356,797
1,1001
436,294]
228,620
207,674
1,353,977
1,954,581]
1,573,910
5,889
374,782
City corporation..
Bridge district...
Water district....
$D0,4iq
5,092
26,814
6,531
133,300
13,30%
63,93?!
2,009]
6,027]
13,0441
34,039
6,654
6,654
63,937J
2,009|
6,02*j
52,
4,275
180,572
2,592]
7l(K
46,418
9,S3H
31,882
3,504|
27,312
5lW
1,012
34,21ff
1,082,0S6;
1,602[
27,312
«,M«
1,012
29,697J
1,411,319]
1,025,966
385,353
680,971]
421,3n[
21,80<M
42,081'
437,587
243,384
231,738
189,579.
10, SOW
11,000
42,081
1,079,139]
609,W
697,941.
314,732
66,466
252,807
292,0411
64,543
103
Springfield, III.
City corporation..
School district..
Pleasure, driveway, and parkdist
104 Covington, Ky
105 Altoana, Pa
City corporation....,
School district
,
106 Pawtucket, R. I .
107 Canton, Ohio
City_.
School
108
tion..
strict...
Mobile, Ala.
City corporation
School district
109 Sacramento, CaL.
City corporation
School district
110 Saginaw, Mich..
,
l,728j
105,551
105,551:
2,539
1,403
2,539
1,403
1,0121
347
l,09i;
636!
1,412.
32,647i.
228,336
4,565.
155,863
105,241]
155,863]
105,241]
4,519j
114j710
tion..
triot....
93
1,083,6SS|
496,996
47,398
City
School
1.HM
66,07SJ
544,394]
102 Allentown, Pa.
61,747
l,46tf
793,605
ration.,
itrict....
11,1101
520
500
1,4671
917,339|
City
School
*1,020|
12,385
1,749,329
101 Wichita, Kans.
61,747
12,385
Holyoke, Mass...
;tIon..
ttrict....
121,785
4,78sj
693,841
■ 858,733
121,785
4,788
100 Charleston, S. C
City ci
School
16,972
14,660]
525,413
360,136!
116,972".
1,808
113,82fl
1,532,258
Portland, Me....
51,8
$5,593
254,532
Brockton, Mass.
8,317]
335,097
600,657]
342,007
Bayonne, N. J . .
$335,097
1,077,409]
Johnstown, Pa.,
City corporation..
School district....
$S,317|
112,393
29,47H
1,0871
75,155
574
14,302
6,211
1,554
122,15ff
462
855
58,27ft
139,455
54
122,158
462
855!
58,27*
72,143
«7,312j
54
781,892]
22,047j
8,585]
549,502]
11,058]
12,261
412,234
369,658
22,047J
8,585]
549,5021
11,053
*,m
1,556
40,713]
1,86V
38,576;
40,713
1,861
1,411
37,165|
7,641
17,393
12,261
127,19fl
4,845
133,315]
127,197
4,813
132,967
7,623
32
348]
""'w
17,393
796,544
457,243
60,809
6,3311
32,43d
2,593
79,299
804,901!
539,064]
37,681
5,472
27,216)
4,365
41,542
487,879
317,022
264,940'.
274,124j.
37,681
5,472
27,216]
12
1,390
12
1,390
1,457
40,085
1,240,665
765,939.
55,423
2,74#
17,604
901,040]
526,918|.
82,648)
2,241
119,330]
1,862]
28,24%
621,969
279,071
284,884!.
242,034j.
82,64%
2,241
119,330]
1,762
100
28,248]
1,122,298]
322,360|.
169,913j
4,936]
263,833]
19,698]
129,614
155
991,454
130,844
322,360|.
169,913]
4,936]
263,833]
19,6
129,614
155
1,831,580]
896,914'.
105,869'
6,002; 386,
10,463
203,540]
1,435,148
396,432/
697,654?.
199,260.,
105,869,
6,0Q2j 386,
10,463]
16,179]
187,361
17,6501
1,085,697
644,576-j-
4,586
l,38lj
1,606
11,134]
01
25,000]
42,082*
1,478;
197,526J
1,953
City corporation
1,046,592
644,576
I,
•[
|
42,082
1,478*
197,526]
16,809
1,953
Sch'ool
district
7.7.7.777.77..\
39,105!]
" " oldist
841!
25,000
i For explanation of differences in amounts reported i n this column and total
payments for outlays reported In Table 18, i t e x t discussion for Table 18, page W.
GENERAL TABLES.
159
COST PAYMENTS, B Y DIVISIONS OF CITY GOVERNMENT: 1912—Continued,
assigned to each, see pago 20. For a text discussion ot this table, see page 67.]
BEVENUE RECEIPTS—continued.
From
earnings From
highway
of
privi
general
leges.
depart
ments.
From
rents.
From
Interest.
EXCESS OF REVENTTE
RECEIPTS OVER—
GOVERNMENTAL COST PAYMENTS.
From
earnings j
of public
service |
enter- :
prises, j
For expenses and interest.
Total.
Total.
(Table 9.) (Table 10.) (Table 10.) (Table 10.) (Table 11.)
Expenses Expenses
of general of public Interest. j
depart
service
ments. enterprises.
For
outlays.1
Excess of
govern
mental
cost
payments
I over
revenue
receipts.
City
Govern Payments num
ber.
mental
for
cost
expenses
pay
and
ments. interest.
(Table 12.) (Table 15.) (Table 17.) TTabIel8.)
GROUP IV.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 50,000 TO 100,000 IN 1912—Continued.
1306
111,255
10,050
1,131
75
$157
11,522,713
$931,222
$793,897
$495
$136,830
$591,49l|
157
1,029,809
271,687
221,217
657,520
253,341
20,361
542,770
234,891
16,236
495
114,255
18,450
4,125
k
372,289
18,346
200,856
35,647
$29,937
16,160
722,118
2,499,860
1,292,273
883,045
289,772
119,456
1,207,587
35,557
90
29,937
16,160
722,118
2,340,422
159,438
1,174,335
117,938
774,567
108,478
289,772
109,996
9,460
1,166,0871
41,500)
5,642
500
6,853
108,097
1,047,171
640,030
544,207
51,835
43,988
407,141
5,257
385
500
4,394
2,464]
108,097
686,465
360,706
378,463
261,567
300,517
243,690
51,835
26,111
17,877
308,002
99,139
21,614
953,094
725,542
674,074
18,426
33,043
227,552
541,39a
411,696
425,347
300,1951
23,692
9,350
116,051
lll,501i
12,227
11,34;
6,386
5,S41[
7,421
3,926
21,614
383,229
18,4261
290,845
17,197
16,244'.
10,279
913,171
685,915
9,602
1,821'.
15,605
576,114!
471,714
4,483
5,119
1,S21.
13,260
2,345
329,681
246,433
246,934
224,780
435,908
225,576
210,332
22,056
19,475'
73,623
227,256
766
35,040
104,400
766
20,592
14,448
82,747
21,653
612,292
$459,433
$132,058
90
669,688
537,899
91
437,379
92
160,007
93
* 45,127
94
124,825
95
$30,238
67,545!
272,383
20,425
26,646
300,530
1,453,385
1,131,820
748,002
203,179
180,639
321,565
400,433
96
8,098.......
29,434
154,375
1,389,904
1,088,404
878,185
64,863
145,356
301,500
35,927
265,573
97
4,125
$11,621
57,845
371,42S
2,040,919
1,485,220
1,040,239
96,004]
348,977
555,699
86,338
469,361
98
11,621
33,356
95
24,394
25,586
1,199,788^
18,417
267,015
1,031,517
5,800
2,922
38,751
345,842
1,617,112
21,719
402,088
57,253
129,520
12,617
206,840
417,324
3,302
135,073
59,300
625,69s|
1,759,960
1,414,865
876>568
394,716]
143,581
345,095
13,639
32,409
4,256]
867,544
655,498
3,223|
169,895
13,639
32,409
4,2m
758,683
108,861
724,426
104,190
551,308
104,190
3,223
115,961|
49,362
I
I
49,268'
67!
27
4,125'.
24,873
5,499.
3,061
1,246
4,042!
5,164
1,451,541]
777,713
569,315
6,573
201,820
673,828
3,061
1,111
135
2,106
1,936
5,164
1,033,195
418,346
521,170
256,543
335,579
233,736
6,578
179,013
22,807
512,0251
161,803
7,422
102,920
600,453
462,948
369,112
45,132
48,704
137,505
2,200
5,222
5,643
102,920
376,209
224,244
268,056
194,892
203,119
165,993
45,132
19,805
108,153
29,352 j
135,646
1,137,945
808,554
675,644
64,195
68,715
329,391
3,356^
2,287
135,646
696,260
338,141
103,544
481,816
271,278
55,460|
357,118
271,278
47,248j
64,195
60,503
214,444
66,863
48,084
877,214
708,811
539,944
51,790
19,421
17,245'
14,885
3,011
1,525
17,245'
5,792
9,150
4,228
.so!
2,104
2,124!
180
26,050
18,926
142,594
298'
10
873,940
576,569]
439,156
28,681
108,732
21,819
122,837]
617,757
256,183
328,141
213,878
225,278
28,681
85,582
23,150
289,616
750,1631
87,979
252,466
491,408
53,102
99,601
265,055
226,353
53,102
79,589
20,012
374,194
354,910,
19,284,
248,428
1,329,840
1,018,305
25,003
20,011
4,992]
106,139
106,139
752,656
265,649
7,044
178,737
991,682
740,021
457,472
72,630
209,919
251,661
341,840<
115,632]
72,630
122,789
621,575
118,446]
207,105
2,814
247,318).
4,343j'
67,713
49,450
795,948
43,922
5,528
90,394!
661,579 !
134,369
87,951;
2,443
209,157'.
12,043 i„
55,308
10,123'.
10,123.
7,044
178,737
465*.
2,548
194,480
1,075
465'..
17,822
106
10,370
7,4521,
106.
2,548]
194,490
18,356]
119,148
12,544
6,812).
119,148
1,090,608
1,923,632
1,433,847
489,785
1,013,518
735,985
277,53311
644,111
397,746
246,365
1,127,684
772,268
355,416
1,010,521
660,633
67,713
349,888
792,318
635,918
66,006
66,006
265,490!
372,871
263,0471
* Excess of payments for
99
100
and Interest over revenue receipts.
633,606
101
218,023
102
58,806]
270,585
103
80,670
87,733
104
228,332
105
89,175
150,057
106
117,265
256,929
107
382,277
108
703,896
109
293,379
110
40,222
80,518
7,755
281,331
14,810
15,093
9,811
168,403
122,837]
15,885
24,904
117,077
22,316
8,560
4,863
3,697
8,212
297,371
497
334,464
34,25!
4,671j
11,098]
1,363
2,307
418]
10,631
49,795
12,461
2i?25
78,873
239,232
221,200
130,616
92,052
72,179
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
160
TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF REVENUE RECEIPTS AND GOVERNMENTAL
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number
BEVENXJE S£CE£PTS.
From taxes.
City
num
ber.
C U T , AKD DIVISION" O F C U T ' S
GOVERNMENT.
TotaL
Special
General
property. property.
Poll.
From spe
cial assess From From sub From
From
ments and fines,
donations] pension
forfeits, ventions
from
and
and
Non
and
special
gifts.
ments.
Business. business charges for] escheats. grants.
license. outlays.
(Table 7.) (Table 7.) (Table 7.)| (Table 7.) (Table 7.)| (Table 7.) (Table7.) (Tables.) (Table8.) (Tables.)!
GROUP IV.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 50,000 TO 100,000 IN 1912-Continued.
'"
School district
112
113 Atlantic City, N. J
51,084,334
5601,371
583,867
54,31o)
5189,357
56,234
788,831
295,503
324,832
276,539
83,867
4,3id
189,357
6,234
827,494
521,245
42,746
2,30(J
63,693
1,981
38,726
8,898
1,900,851
516,308
5265
1,081,447
241,789
517,343
II!
111
517,880
5752]
17,850
7521
50
2,894
597
GROUP V.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912.
114
City corporation..
School district....
Park district
115 Little Rock, Ark..
City corporation..
" * Krtdistr
School
district,
116
Augusta, Ga.
City corporation..
~ " iol district....
School
117
Springfield, Ohio.
City corporation...
School district
118
58,520]
564,977]
S7,18tf
305,661
356,415|
41,260
8,5201
64,977
7,161
987,575
350,371
95,022]
515,917]
345,221
1«
32,795J
141,486
208,885]
84,839
10,1831
15,917
345,221
238,583
$930,9051
Eockford,m..
Lancaster, Pa..
City corporation..,
" * * district
School
511,629]
376,730)
42,54flj
5703,336
14,106
565]
40!
25]
92,761
4,516
32,793
23,92ffl
68,832
4,516
136,923
929,0691
401,239
107,471
1,578
22,181
12,864
783,306
145,763
401,239
107,471
1,578
22,181
12,664!
815,03®
468,422
60,518)
4,761
82,180)
4,052]
594,411
220,62a
281,694
186,728
G0,51S]
4,761
S2,1S0(
4,052
594,444
322,2151
420,217
174,227
193,378
128,837
52,027]
514,106
1,0004
2,25ffl
1,000)
2,250)
4,057
2,505]
4,057
9ff
2,406]
136,923
25,753
25,76»
34,900)
14,623
2,050j
42,844
34,900)
14,623
2,050]
1,862
40,962
2rosn\
1,026,654
553,25fl
114,565]
2,565]
40,77«
8,858]
City corporation..
School district....
776,177
250,4771
353,146
200,111
114,5661
2,563
40,7791
8,858
120
New Britain, Conn...
867t657]|
555,9901
27,6581
1.612]
36,37fl
10,202]
27,293
2,519
121
Chattanooga, Tehn...
768,842
441,340]
69,4751
15,199j
122
York, Pa
418,6481
270,342
296,816
121,832
195,424
74,918]
119
Pueblo, Colo
City
School
ration.,
itrict....
110,224]
17,7871
3,577]
48,972]
109,128
3,296
25,643
2,62$]
48,561
1,091
39,967
1,000)
25,643
2,628
48,561
1,091
1,13d
38,828]
1,000
82,182]
3,577]
48,972
123
Maiden, Mass.
1,019,918]
636,406
794|
619]
38,789]
l,74tf
2,GSo]
1,6491
124
Berkeley, Cal..
918,813
516,70H
13,239]
6,669]
133,4101
2,73fl
211,558!
151
489,74a
429,071'
304,014
212,691
13,2391
6,669]
133,410)
2,737]
1,293
210,263
126
251
10,562
ktlon..,
Citycoi
School itrict.....
125 Bay City, Mich..
City corporation..,
School district.....
93,883
23,80o|
717,59^
488,003
39,542]
231
44,015]
317]
596,323
121,272
378,977
109,026
39,542]
231
44,915]
3171
2,8861
7,676
126
Haverhill, Mass.,
1,030,959]
605,903
58,217]
2,198]
29,658
4,223]
2,952
15,000]
127
Topeka,Kans...,
1,019,749)
628,000)
20,066]
5,269]
194,2951
3,867]
14,919]
1,513
345,767
282,233
20,086]
5,269]
194,2951
3,867
14,0191
101
1,503
4,873
City
School
ition.,
713,5121
306,237
59,828]
25,5061
128
Salem, Mass....
586,610]
19,214
1,1461
2,512]
21,079]
5,069]
1,494
129
Lincoln, Nebr..
614,288
11,274
56,559]
2,337]
129,861
2,761
23,324
355,7891
258,500]
11,274
3,034
63,625],
2,337
129,861
1,341
1,420J
7,722
15,602
18,83S|
City
School
ition..
trict....
130 Davenport*, Iowa..
City corporation..
School district....
666,661
331,938
927,077
687,015]
53,53tf
2,366]
128,049]
4,614
650,934
276,143
•434,18a
252,830]
53,536]
2,366]
128,049]
4,614]
23,591
1,651
95,968]
21,621
65,228
133,1781
42,525]
446,5461
19,541
150,iq
131
El Paso, Tex...
1,065,70o]|
132
San Diego, Cal.
2,118,2301
City corporation..,
School district.....
1
66,987]
1,723,297
983,248
18,838
743,6771.
[,17ft
42,523
446,5461
19,541
2,742]
239,571'
*
^
"■
'
147,425*.
For explanation of differences in amounts reported i n this column and total payments tor outlays reported i n Table 18, see t e x t dfacowfan tor Table 18, page 97.
879]
~879]
3271
GENERAL TABLES.
I6i
COST PAYMENTS, BY DIVISIONS OP CITY GOVERNMENT: 1912—Continued,
assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 67.]
REVENUE BECEtrrs—continued.
Frdm
earnings From
highway
of
privi
general
leges.
depart
menta.
From
tents.
From
interest.
EXCESS OF EEVENUE
RECEIPTS O V E E —
GOVERNMENTAL COST PAYMENTS.
From
earnings
of public
service
enter
prises.
For expenses and interest.
Expenses Expenses
of general of public Interest.
depart
service
ments. [enterprises.!
Total.
Total
[(Table 9.)](Table 10.) (Table 10.))(Table 10.) (Table ll.)|
For
outlays.1
Excess of
govern
mental
cost
payments
over
revenue
receipts.
City
Govern Payments num
ber.
mental
for
cost
pay
and
ments. Interest
(Table 12.) (Table 15.) (Table 17.)| (Table 18.)
GROUP IV.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 50,000 TO 100,000 IN 1912-Continued.
$29,874
117,480
1
|
28,361
1,513
17,480
1
14,665
1
29,244
m
11,715
328
60
1,667
113,763 |
4S
199
30,122
$113,763
12,712
265
95,66C
$1,043,803
726,860 1
316,943
1655,494 |
366,098
289,396
127,103
848,46^
631,861
211,444
2,671,157
1,583,151
$540,258
fill
j
$39,927
$75,359]
$388,309^
39,927
58,202
17,157
360,762!
27,5471
$40,531
$428,840
111
57,489
33,222
216,608
$20,975
195,633
112
81,977
357,726
1,088,006
770,306
317,700
113
$170,351]
$261,60S1
114
328,133]
467,626
115
279,649]
98,709
116
111,875
160,152
117
37,498:
62,088
118
210,182
119
GROUP V.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912.
j
$14,591
$12,340
$163
$654
$104,045 1 $1,101,256;
$669,297 [
$536,192
$82,001
$51,104]
$431,959
1
j
7,745
6,209
637
12,340
163
49
642,8341
393,592
64,630,
387,109,
254,455
27,733
276,846
239,620
19,726
82,001
28,262
14,835]
8,007
255,725
139,137
37,0971
j
33,134 |
8,184
]
1
32,451
683
8,184
.]
M,314 i
14,601
*" 1,168
j
47,166
14,601
1,168
104,045
605
,
634 !
8,970 j
1,315,708
519,949
458,830
9,357
51,762]
795,759]
681
8,970
934,374
381,334
322,600
197,349
276,810
182,020
9,357
36,433
15,329
611,774
183,985
5,082
171,398 j
1,208,718 1
830,360 1
671,696
73,137
85,527
378,358
390
4,693
171,39S
1,048,423
160,295
684,619
145,741
530,600
141,096
73,137
80,882!
4,645
363,804
14,554
1
M*8
]
25,099
39,076 |
98,608 1
926,911 j
654,884 j
532,972
39,327
82,585
272,027 [
j
j
21,772
3,327
36,670*
GRfiflS
606,780 I
320,131
427,181
227,703
316,861
216,111
39,327
70,993
11,592
179,599!
92,428
]
1*962
3,000
8.666
lfil.768 j
631,942 1
532,356 1
369,183
109,705
53,468]
99,586
1
1,523
439
3,000
6 7241
1^942
tfii Tflft
448,092 1
183,850:
361,084
171,272
216,157
153,026
109,705
35t222
18,246 1
87,008!
12,578|
7,667
1,348
4.612
214.031 j
971,375
816,472
524,661
120,591
171,220]
154,903|
6,273
1,394
1,348
4,612!
244,031
653,110
318,265
582,219
234,253
311,776
212,885
120,591
149,852 |
21,368
70,89l!
84,012
90
12,606
134,234
885,429
611,439
458,220
29,741
123,478
273,990
17,772
256,218
120
712
4,110
2,750
1,009,305
681,674
533,804
6,817
141,053
327,721
240,553
87,168
121
122,263
59,403
122
34,924
137,954
123
90,332
251,965
124
48,612
135,619
125
J
1
j
2,406
j
31,065
j
36,975
3,675
J
2,755
10,957
11,851]
j
1,615
10,957
8 482*
3*369
1 M*o
J
57,435
■|
j
j
14,222
11,220
3,002
j
6,682
|
i
:z..:
"
276 j
540,911 |
359,245
310,594
150
48,501 |
181,666 j
#»
351,260
189,651
184,889
174,356
149,846
160,748
150
34,893
13,608
166,371
15,295
43,856
150,180
9,947
396
42,093
984,994
881,964
687,928
13,379
3,090
980
2,673 j
82S,4S1
666,848 1
619,941
1,812 •
45,095 j
161,633
980
2,673
458,191 i
370,290
299,777
367,071
282,373
337,568
1,812
15,592
29,503
158,414
3,219
119,187 j
66S,9S3
581,976 1
438,207
83,417
60,352j 1
87,007
380,349:
201,627;
240,265
197,942
83,417
56,6671
3,685
85,399
1,608
13,379
3,090
9,156
4,764
918
5,504
3,652
109,780
119,187
l6^74S
203,235
127
107,883
192,562
128
28,422
387,698
129
298,996
130
206,063
336,769 j
420,351
275,165,
274,561
251,964
54,641
91,149
23,201
287,676
49,093
1,003,552
703,107
594,459
56,650
51,998 i
300,445
l,027,02l| \
610,901
484,103
56,813
09,985]
416,120
120,440
731^138
295,882
350,791
260,110,
231,203
252,900
56,813
62,775! i
7,210
380,347
35,773
I
4,545
1,036,310]
628,081
594,111
4,269
29,701 !
408,229
109,233
369,172
258,909
349,573
244,538
4,269
15,330
14,371
340,752
67,477
115,512 [
J
|
16,810
7,026
706
11,190
556
L
115,512 n"" '7O8,027 |
324,258
j
39,601
5,283
14,210
127,591!
]
9,051
14,857
13,846
120,440
j
6,530
2,521
14,857
j
17,^
1,350
370
5,600
1,746
126
103,743
114,350
125,624
11,746
*#""i,"056
249,688
324,233
41,343
54,641
43,037
706
1,350
43,625
636,185
526,525
15,528
23,836
15,810 .
1,673
J
781,271:
43,283
j
7,346
103,030
695,516 j
987,334 !
.1
1,056
$55,279]
4,545 1
1,032,285J
709,924
326,383
12,536
1
;
38,436
6
12,171
191,500
1,162,980
747,268
517,793
123,000
106,475
415,721
97,289
318,435|
131
j
24,819
6,967
583
10,424
300,905|
2,318,372]
1,235,542 '
892,632
187,945
154,965
1,082,830 j
200,142
882,688J
132
1
16,882
7,93?
5,967
m
10,424
123,606 1
187,945
609,422
920,973 1!
3O^905| 2,066,654 1
31,359*
283,2W
314,5691
1
251 718>
* Excess receipts offsetting outlays over outlay payments.
28656°—14
11
1,145,681
3 62,851
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
162
TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF R E V E N U E RECEIPTS A N D
GOVERNMENTAL
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number
REVENUE RECEIPTS.
From taxes.
City
num
ber.
FromspeFrom
sub From
From
mentsand fines, From
ventions donations I pension
forfeits,
from
and
I
and
Nonand
special
gifts.
usines
ments.
for] escheats. grants.
hcense. charges
outlays.
crrr, AKD DIVISION OF CITY'S
GOVERNMENT.
TotaL
Special
General
property. property.
Poll.
(Table 7.) (Table 7.) (Table7.)| (Table 7.) (Table 7.)] (Table 7.) (Table7.) (Table 8.) (Tables.) (Tables.)
GROUP V.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912—Continued.
133
Tampa, Fla.,
City corporation.
School district...
134
McKeesport, Pa..
City corporation.
"* * ol district. ••
School
135
Flint, Mich
•oration,
City
School
let...
136
Kalamazoo, Mich.
tion.
ict...
City
School
137
Racine, Wis
138
Superior, Wis
139
Wheeling, W.Va.
140
$414,725
$83,670
*l,2O0i
$n,817j
$26,264
587,74tf
159,462)
414,725
83,670
1,200)
11,817
26,264
710,8421
466,260
34,039)
32,941
33,391
$25
463,030,
247,812]
265,346
200,914
34,03»
32,941
7,862^
1,103
32,288
25
558,885
379,638
4,409)
1,404
34,098
2,900)
6,281
120
379,638]
24,409)
1,404
34,098
2,900
614,091
393,011
33,46fl
2,355
100,118
1,612
435,157)
223,3491
169,6621
33,4671
2,355
100,118
1,612
418,1391
76,948
2,450]
79,828
6,423]
495,769
89, m l
941
107,748
548,9721
9,913
178,934
701,352
City corporation*
School district...
751,889
729,72a
525,748
203,980
881,416
Macon, Oa.
City corporation.
" ' 1 district...
School
118,588]
159,407
6,281
5,028
5,028
48
$1,2S2|
18,76;
25,058
161
1,032
399,91$
$2,984
63,826]
1,986|
1,647,
12,643!
16,170
216,154
183,758
2,9S4|
63,826
1,988
l,647i
300,292
3,354
108,1261
1,008
99,324
12,63«
4
27,192
115,559
300,2^
3,354
108,126)
1,008
99,324
27,192
19,701
858
408
58,256)
2,164
7,233
14,928
127,393
27fl
1,813,505
1,258,100
142
Butte, Mont..
871,925
504,569
21,178
85,019
4,719]
90,588
10,178
595,161
276,764]
357,022
147,64H
21,178
85,019)
4,719
90,588
10,178
1142,545
16,170
115,559
Newton, Mass.
127,393
143
Woonsoclcet, R. I .
646,6051
387,0861
2,385]
45,098
1,8831
12,300)
709]
10,S3fl
144
Montgomery, Ala.
729,672
260,984
11,862
134,215!
3,854
109,330|
21,731
27,378
145
Chester,*Pa.......
446,435
287,162
11,593
22,357]
8,7831
51,
1,148
33,571
292,489
153,946
183,423
103,739
22,3571
8,783
51,8671
1,148
871
32,700]
City
tion.
School itrict...
146 Fitchburg, Mass.
147
Dubuque, Iowa..
City
School
148
tion.
diet...
Galveston, Tex.
•oration.
City
School itrict...
149
150
West Hoboken, N. J .
New Castle, Pa
City corporation.
School district...
120
62,418
141
City corporation.
School district...
$159,407i
$747,209
11,593
217]
866,787^1
526,813
42,848
423]
24,148
3,179)
1,978]
1,350)
679,815
489,90S
36,729]
1,078
62,534
402
13,067|
31
531,0661
148,749'
354,593
135;3i5|
36,729)
1,078
62,534
402.
883,573
496,768)
18,129)
11,678
2,702
4,850
127,293
781,122
102,451
443,199
18,129)
11,678
2,702)
4,850
79,950
61,637]
1,748
26,908
549!
12,159)
1,580)
39,674
2,553
12,159]
1,588
39,574
2,553
26,165
' 943
25,222
100,467]
2,848
7,194
13,817]
22,028
42,662
2,252
19,263
375,3ld|
382,331
255,389
126,94^1
70,0S8j
19,424
1,000
280,363
184,000
96,363
151
Roanoke, Va
619,374
429,111
152
Elmira,N.Y
613,348|
490,525
153
Huntington, W. Va..
577,041
276,248
6,299
35,856
1,900)
223,164
City corporation.
School district...
448,485
128,556]
160,172
116,073
6,299
35,956
1,900)
222,184
154
East Orange, N* J . . . .
1,002,363
592,484
6,12fl
12,248
10,431
26,998
155
Knoxville, Tenn
834,9371
356,126
2,720
74,753
2,370J
74, m
156
Hamilton, Ohio
712, m
330,876
3,150
14,391
642
13,067T
53,569
166,683
642
47,343
m
108,978
h
18,932
8,828i
11,722
220!
788
11,722
132,138
22,718
4,864]
1,131
77,188
2,532
58,188
3,061
80,968
128
21,274
178,034
58,188
3,061
125
80,968
4T\
2,532
152,8421
21,274
,
157 I Lexington, Ky.
651,3901
401,0011
104,627)
454!
3,058
84,418
42,608
For explanation of differences in amounts reported in this column and total payments for outlays reported in Table 18, see text discussion for Table 18, page 97.
City
School
ition.
itrict...
533,369
179,356)
GENERAL TABLES.
163
COST PAYMENTS, B Y DIVISIONS OP CITY GOVERNMENT: 1912—Continued,
assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 67.]
*1
REVENUE KECEIPTS—Continued.
From
From
highway
privi
general
leges.
| depart
From
rents.
From
interest.
ments.
EXCESS OF EE VENUE 1
BECEIPTS OVEE— t
GOVERNMENTAL COST PAYMENTS.
For expenses and interest.
From
earnings
of public
service
enter
prises.
Total.
Total.
(Table 9.) (Table 10.) (Table 10.) (Table 10.) (Table 11.)
For
outlays.*
Expenses Expenses
of general ! of public Interest..
depart
service
ments* enterprises.
Excess of
govern
mental
cost
payments
over
revenue
receipts.
City
Govern Payments num
ber.
mental
for
cost
expenses
pay
and
j
ments. interest.
(Table 12.) (Table 15.)' (Table 17.) (Table 18.)
G R O U P V.—CITIES H A V I N G A P O P U L A T I O N OF 30,000 TO 50,000 I N 1912—Continued.
J $39,567
13,698
1740
$2,830
$3,291 1
$687,571
$551,868]
$489,642
$2,164
39,612
55
3,695
740
2,830
3,291
648,787
138,784
469,952
81,916
412,814
76,828
2,164
12,792
4,918
5
10,546
107,124
709,270,
654,325]
484,601
3,293
9,499
4,918
5
5,435
5,111
107,124
457,348
251,922.
412,491 1
241,834!
267,284
217,317
1
J
25,040
22,676
2,361
|
J
(
-
105,154
64,57o]
54,945
105,154
40,053
24,517
44,857
10,088
$59,638
$195,341
133
1,572
56,517
134
147,439
13*
85,047
133,636
13e
172
7,137
77,688 |
717,439 j
411,446 |
334,049
34,241
43,156 j
305,993 j $158,554'
i72
6,041
1,096
77,688
535,558
181,881
257,086
154,360:
186,911
147,138
34,241
35,934
7,222
278,472
27,521
7,183
58,718 [
699,138 [
480,455
380,552
51,008
48,895 |
218,683
6,523
660
53,718
436,012, I
263,126
284,117
196,338
197,685
182,867
51,008
35,424 1
13,471 j
151,895
66,788
11,971
713,532
481,102
428,389
12,036
40,677
232,430
12,180
220,250
13'
819,734
583,488
537,204
46,284
236,246
67,845
168,401
131
107,274
63,535
Iff
171,295
314,578
14(
*
15,981
18,317
450
7,099
4,780
2,762
8&
5,675
9,771
6,691
1,373
9,786
202,939 j
837,002 1
665,793 1
475,756
138,966
51,071 1
171,209 1
7,640
2,131
6,691
1,261
112
7,9S1
1,805
202,939
633,724
203,278
474,712 1
191,081
294,038
181,718
138,966
41,708
9,363
159,012
12,197
33,565
18,753
800
8,315 '
165,128 1 1,052,711 j
566,838 |
475,060 |
64,283
27,495 j
485,873 |.
30,536
3,029
18,753
800
8,315
165,128
923,912
128,799
451,379
115,459
360,310
114,750
64,283
26,786
472,533
13,340
41,924
6,332
105,911
155,150
1,592,511
1,387,642
1,041,675
37,002
18,071
1,659
175
8,102
16,247
1,824
1,659
175
8,102
21,457
3,986
144
30,898
21,139
1,100
2,411
7,882
5,158
42
16,690
4,427
3,455
5,158
42
4,349
'
3,197
709
220,994
204,869
308,965
1
j
85,147
823,336 j
738,189; |
681,678
543,927
279,409.
474,996 1
263,193
426,242
255,436
130,122
644,389
540,919
375,095
22,061
143,763
103,470
135,668
817,267
646,628
384,825
64,636
197,167
170,639
87,595
187 |
745,308 |
346,375
295,680
216
50,479 j
398,933 |
298,873
14,231
2,459
187
590,851
154,457
204,255
142,120
159,578
136,102
216
44,461
6,018
386,596
12,337
1,576
31,105
103,151
1,083,971
336
60
60
3,166
j
71,834 j
71,834
336
|
56,511
48,754
7,757
425,863 - 14]
48,589
133,736 1
14i
2,216
105,686
14:
.83,044
14
100,060
14
68,931
16,216
722,665
671,025
77,668
73,972
361,306
627,319 |
467,629
354,619
47,815
65,195 j
159,690
460,689
166,630
335;015 |
132,614
226,541
128,078
47,815
60,659
4,536
125,674
34,016
|
144,122
14
j
52,496 |
212,186
14
j
14,382 1
155,024
14j
4
51,896
ltf
3,509
151
15
217,184
61,095
3,162
116
31,156
126,624 j
869,191 1
728,549 j
450,353 |
65,582
212,614 j
140,642
60,806
289
3,162
116
29,906
1,250
126,624
760,089
109,102
619,447 1
109,102
341,251
109,102
65,582
212,614
140,642
1,758
12,415
3,083
525,833
427,214
377,566
49,648
98,619
150,515
2,348
6,731
2,362 1
615,707 |
378,822
348,145
1,266
29,411 1
236,885 j
233,376
2,348
3,253
3,478
2,362
304739li
311,316
197,505 |
181,317
178,110
170,035
1,266
18,129
11,282
106,886
129,999
6,231
9,126
7,059
637,228 I
.464,442 [
383,655
3,130
77,657
172,786
17,854
154,932
677,916
503,810
462,078
8,674
33,058
174,106
64,568
109,5381
15
260,792
3,211
48,740 j
355,572 1
91,274
264,29?
15
3,211
43,445
5,295
327,188
28,384
106,97C
15
8,487
$ S S 98
1
78,835
56,868
9,017
3,584
36,362 •
|*
$135,703
54,974
5,088 ;
12,601
j
|
$60,062
9,217
750
303
6,889
6,180
677
1,125
2,127
668,315
312,743 1
677
1,125
2,127
533,772
134,543
206,584
106,159
159,928
100,864
22,240
96
26,411
144,721;
1,326,845
895,393
670,916
73,228
151,249
431,452
7,544
189,242
762,743
611,424 1
383,265
62,128
166,031
151,319
16,570
192,225' 1
743,180|
590,813
361,828
122,116
106,869 1
152,367 j
16,085
485
192,225
571,353 1
171,797
419,069 1
lH, 744
202,590 j
159,238
122,116
94,363
12,506
152,314
53
761
20,307
22,674
5,136
6,863
4,640
2,223
4,36l!
1,450
1,886
3,116
59,567 1
1,747
424,675
485,989*
711,2421
4,4191
a Excessofpaym ents for expoises and inte rest over re venue receijits.
225,253 1
|
324,482
72,194
223,513U
15
30,455
j
121,912
15
59,852 1
1
165,401
15
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
164
TABLE 4.—SUMMAKY OF R E V E N U E RECEIPTS A N D GOVERNMENTAL
(For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number
1
REVENUE RECEIPTS.
From taxes.
City
num
ber.
CITY, AND DIVISION OF CITY'S
GOVERNMENT.
Total.
General
property.
Special
property.
Poll.
From spe
cial assess F r o m
From sub From
From
fines,
ments and
ventions donations] pension
forfeits,
from
and
and
Non
special
and
gifts.
ments.
Business. business charges for escheats. grants.
license.
outlays.
(Table 7.) (Table 7.) (Table 7.) (Table 7.) (Table7.) (Table 7.) (Table 7.) (Table 8.) (Table 8.) (Tables.)
G R O U P V . - C I T I E S H A V I N G A P O P U L A T I O N O F 30,000 T O 50,000 I N 1912-Contlnued.
158 Springfield, Mo..
City
School
,tion..
strict....
159 Quincy, HI..
City corporation—
School district
Quincy township..
160
Charlotte, N . C .
161
Joliet,Ill
City corporation..
*■'■■■- district,
distric
School
Pasadena, Cal
162
City corporation..
"'
"cfistr
School
district.
$278,786.
$6,570)
$54,839]
$232,654
$2,5091
413,915
202,917,
96,342
182,444
6,57W
54,839)
4,040)
232,654
2,509)
551,770
402,919
79,764
5,602
14,355
3,14S]
367,667
177,140
6,963
239,277
163,642
79,764
6,602
14,355
3,143
438,030
207,932
$616,832
15,386
12,325
12,325
27,277]
5,937]
52,849
1,023
75,923
3,260]
9,947
427,037
267,931]
138,371
255,780
144,941
1,023
75,923;
3,2601
1,516,793
691,684
4,43d
9,006
473.972J
473,1
2,3201
120,361
525
1,164,601
352,192
458,193
233,491
4,4SO]
9,906
473,972J
2,320]
3,096
117,265
525
603,462
337,040
$10,045
31,315]
1,466
76,870
l,842j
17,885
167
47,259
1,164
425
22,891
563
1,815
61,533]
674
82,20Sj
7,0573
9.689
Everett, Mass.
772,06*
519,25<J
Decatur, 111...
594,904j
361,399
355,250
239,654
166
Portsmouth, V a . .
343,464
167
Perth Amboy, N . J . .
537,054
168
Taunton, Mass
831,770
169
Quincy, M a s s . .
900,075
170
Lansing, Mich
771,360
767,820
3,540|
6,746]
17,268^
136,620
61,533]
674
56,478]
2,074
9,947|
82,20%
7,057
224,779
175,054
392,979
610,804
22,534
65,41S
1,251
39,742
2,5S0J
62,371
10,740j
37,071]
278
27,642
1*901
3,506
28,513
18,320
2,01
405,622
405,622
15,428
398
43,882
3,614
2,282
4,179|
1,496
»t748
5,695
47,336
4,17
1,496
58,74*
5,695
47,336
Pittsfield, Mass
738,800
476,987
33,93W
414
32,431
3,607]
1,369
172
Cedar Rapids, I o w a . .
909,332
534,960
76.5Sfl
2,8081
162,6511
3,855
13,527
City corporation..
School district....
642,594
283,516
251,444
76,58fl
2,806]
162,651
3,855
364,924!
40,596]
1,161
25,720
2,270]
29,783
364,598
62,316]
2,634
105,555
4,28*
155,674J
244,010
120,588
62,3161
2,634
105,555
4,2Sfl
42,291
487,549
City con oration.,
School d strict....
Amsterdam, N . Y
724,287
428,458
295,829
60
300
"eol
306
400
2,049
548
2,049
548
20
478
4,843
531
4,793
50
531
13,527
266,738
Oshkosh, Wis
1,661
154,013
449,990
287,974
20,193
30,334
7, l i d
1,942]
704,122
379,928
17,539
18,99M
520]
78,021
2,736
City corporation..
School district
675,310
28,812
379,928
12,913
4,626
18,996]
5201
78,021
2,736
177 Mount Vernon, N . Y . .
1,074,654
748,385
9,828
31,523
2,650)
75.785
2,705
20,728
City corporation...
School district
808,833
265,766
513,197
235,188
6,196
3,632
31,523
2,650j
75,788
2,7051
100
20,628
1,209,354
733,005
21,114
55,734
2,222
142,694
3,7801
17,425
75
550,733
373,534
27,97K
645
55,978
2,87K
3,444
1,05(M
419,604
131,129
250,433
123,101
27,979]
645
65,978
1.866
1,009
. 3,444
ISO Wflliamsport, P a . .
416,840
304,087
13,008)
29,413
2,679]
11,478
1,173
30,247
City
School
254,399
162,441
181,056
123,031
6,504
6,504
29,413
2,67H
11,47«
1,M
6
1,533
28, 714
512,187
272,224
65,835
3,121
111,836]
8,668
21,98fl
348,711
163,4761
132,616
139,6081
175
: 176 Jamestown, N . Y
178
Niagara Falls, N . Y . .
179
Jackson, Mich
City corporation..
School district....
ttion..
itrict....
181 J o p l i n , M o .
City corporation..
School district....
$994
9,G89
3,142
85,5Stt
215,448
776
770
171
San Jose, Cal
142
1,577
165
173
180
32,11a
164
174
$isoj
144,941
Auburn, N . Y .
City corporation..
School district....
$15,3SCJ
394,151
"163
City corporationSchool district....
$1,040
11,932
19,211
19,211
5,322
664
2,121;
3,201
1,000
50
50
65,835
3,1211
111.836]
21,9871
601.......
For explanation of differences in amounts reported in this column and total payments for outlays reported to Table 18, see t e x t discussion for Table 18, page 97.
GENERAL TABLES.
165
COST P A Y M E N T S , B Y D I V I S I O N S O F C I T Y G O V E R N M E N T : 1 9 1 2 - C o n t i n u e d .
assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 67.]
REVENUE RECEIPTS—continued.
From
earnings From
highway
of
privi
general
leges.
depart
ments.
From
rents.
From
interest.
EXCESS OF REVENUE
RECEIPTS OVER—
GOVERNMENTAL COST PAYMENTS.
Excess of
govern
mental
cost
payments
over
revenue
receipts.
For expenses and interest.
From
earnings
of public
service
enter
prises.
Total.
Total.
!(Table 9.)!(Table 10.) (Table 10.) (Table 10.) ('(Tablell.)]
For
outlays.*
Expenses Expenses
of general of public Interest.
depart
service
ments. [enterprises.]
City
Govern Payments num
ber.
mental
for
cost
pay
and
ments. interest.
(Table 12.) (Table 15.) j(Table 17.)] (Table 18.)
GROUP V.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912-Continued.
|
17,262
5,591
1,671
J
*
7,492
J
261,0631
65,629j
$3,63fl
$323,257
158
186,612
159
17,702
959( 1
409,649j
365,158[
336,345
1,342
27,471]
44,491
959*
246,037
157,817
5,795
213,653'
145,710
5,795
189,446
141,104
5,795
1,342
22,865
4,606
32,384
12,107
739,632
351,594'
232,474
51,900
67,220
388,038
301,602
86,436
160
729,937 |
490,319
400,122
64,945
25,252 '
239,618]
34,949
204,66^
161
436,230'
293,707,
313,522!
176,797]
227,578
172,544
63,111
1,834
22,833 !
2,419 j
122,708
116,910
269,73l|
695,517
162
1
5,824
»1,»4
1
$142,12l|
4,211
12,546
45
1 142
47,023
3,606
605
12,546
45
1,142
45,424
22,6SS
38,026
877
3,507
148,447,
1,786,524.
821,276
683,502
99,296
38,478]
965,248
21,367
1,321
38,026
877
3,392
115
14S,447j |
1,221,315
565,209
489,262!
332,014,
361,209
322,293
99,296
28,757
9,721
732,053
233,195
4,937
117,976
766,300
570,981
464,417
56,672
49,892
195,319
157,838
37,481
163
15,494
121,344
776,509
653,474
495,769
38,190
119,515
123,035
4,445
118,590,
164
6,031
6,178
59,719
611,173 |
379,174;
307,733
40,238
31,203 1
231,999
16,269
215,730
165
4,616
1,465
2,891
3,287
£9,285
^*34
347,529
263 644
219,796!
159,3781
157,530
150,203
38,974
1,264
23,292
127,733'
104,2661
782
4,663
546,333
311,180
231,484
4,286
j
4,941
132
1
4,721
6,3&
4,659
5,600
6,652
132,109
663,087
483,532
352,890
48,828
33,833
6,413
35,722
196,102
793,780
661,755
450,964
109,572
19,234
• 5,916
19,860
144,305
1,020,432
730,768
544,058
32,161
362,238
119,406
67,636
930
340
241,112
628,900
503,54oj
3,292
3,540
340
241,112 I
489,999
138,901
376,247
127,293
1,088,324
601,723,
4,785
1,103
|II 11
6,832
171
390,952
172
44,214 1
11,635
355,371
103,327
141,742
173
184,745
174
112,802
175
199,219
176
53,764
12,723
872
2,594
6,627
. 21,228
1,368
507,169 (
265,627
295,609
243,933
272,532
227,490
^
113,752
11,603
19,161
110,284
39,520 j
233,254
23,077
16,443
211,560
21,694
31,458
1
48,509
83,716
401,120
337,188
273,459
18.359
45,370 [
10,463
3,894
370
4,763
162,307 j
831,102
504,903]
362,7S3j
74,427
67,693
326,199
8,655
1,808
3,894
370
1,646
3,117
162,307
582,437
248,665
337,942 j
166,901
211,313
151,470
74,427
52,202
15,491
244,495
81,704
120,076
30,944
910,907
126,063
331,013
1,028,091
339,892
730,276*
306,694! I
627,147
283,760
103,129
22,934
297,S15
33,198
1,436,887
737,988
547,717
57,857
132,414
698,899
227,533 1
655,739 1
403,196
350,649
26,310
26,237 1
252,543 [
105,006
"496,179 1
159,560
276,941 !
126,255
230,123
120,526
26,310
20,508 I
5,729
17,651 j
219,238 1
33,305
37,010 1
3,372
811
124,013
1,163
30,944
11,130
112,213
18,090
1,951
12,731
22,326
702
19,371
2,955
702
6,797
385
570
97,231
61,630 [
570
3,402
2,501
7,182
1 1,367,983 j
20,044
194
194
1,036,970
63,932
40,382
5,992
12,862 [
337,484 J
297,102
278,841
610
4,307
1,685
12,862.
198,613 1
138,871
161,603
135,499
145,661
133,180
610
15,332
2,319
3,811
17,281 1
457,544 j
293,808
258,544
16,788
18,476
163,736
140,249
118,295
16,788
7,394
11,082
163,736
2,365
1,446
17,281 1
^328,167 1 ^ 164,431!
129,377'*
129,377 i
170
*137,077
213,874
194,893
500,022
169
267,820
67,746
311,852'
206,528,
324,052
142,460
125,360
169,307
349,524
067^223
309,855
345,807
168
120,357,
458,698 |
102,022
539,542*
170,015
37,990
132,025
289,604]
486,601
3,438
772,796 j
167
55,849 j
3,438
456,091
880
166
53,522
87,275
518,380
1,648
154,549
32,284
126,033.
53,764
977,078 j
1,368
!
202,869
179,555
27,683
109,384
6,474
81,814
101,219
235,153
21,896
19,896 i
2,000
102,022
27,855
7,911
75,410
'
119,406
3,635
1,103
5,903
1
$326,892|
979
1,901
17,672
30
4,265
1
$2,880]
2,213
440
5,120
664
!
$2,213
153,711
134,771
1440
5,784
!
$288,482
156,903
136,672
3,247
14,4S9
1
$293,575]
417,966
202,501
3,247
19,510
J
1620,467: |
2,810J
3,023
1,143
6,963
7,925
|
$2,810
1,068
3,416
11,129
6,040
J
14,484
48,870
126,980
l.. ;
I;..
J\
'J
„.J
|
177
1
(l
'
471,366
178*
147,537
179
79,356]
119,738
ISO
54,643
218,379
181
1
H
1
j
!
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
166
TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF R E V E N U E RECEIPTS A N D GOVERNMENTAL
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number
BEYEKT7E RECEIPTS.
From taxes.
City
Hum-,
ber.
From spe
cial assess From
sub* | From .
ments and fines, From
donations!
forfeits, ventions
from
and
and
Non
special . and
grants.
gifts.
business charges
escheats.
for]
license. outlays.
C U T , A N D DIVISION O * CITY'S
GOVEJtNHEXT.
Total.
Special
General
property. property.
Polt
From
pension
assess
ments.
(Table 7.) (Table 7.) (Table 7.)] (Table 7.) (Table7.)| (Tabled) (Tabl*7.) (Tables.) (Tables.) (Table8.fl
GEOUP V.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912—Continued.
$484,193 [
182
S1
183
184
185 NewRocheIIe,N. Y . . .
$252,025
$38,059
$1,551
$65,561
$4,744
129,950
122,075
38,059
1,551
65,561
4,744
$16,556
16,556
$11
11
290,936
8,480
3,078
294,007
28,247
648,855
142,900
184,745
106,191
8,480
3,078
294,007
28,247
903,235
619,938
134,231
32,490
2,134
11,774
4,246
22
881,655
10,233
31,512
2,839
97,550
1,954
18,446
350
56,473
125,165
2,911
10,208
130
568]
56,473
125,165
2,911
no
56S
1,084,577
$14,036
30,007
30,007
500
500
606,380 [
330,601
School district
431,202
175,178
168*020
162,581
553,997
283,132
55,066
570
102,602
School district
398,297
155,700
146,727
136,405
55,066
570
102,692
15
15,120
704,413 J
337,052
9,857
658
300
8,612
42,513
257
689,204
115,209
269,028
68,024
9,857
658
300
8,612
1,200
41,313
257
186
187
188 Austin, Tex....
City corporation.
School district
189 Newport, Ky.„
461,892
255,933
J90
600,513
315,868
561,703
363,972
Orange, N. J
191 La Crosse, Wis
—
1,000
2,854
10,208
$1,235
20
15,120
33,468
5,018
41,183
728
44,665
366
38,549
2,059
39,889
3,601
84,865
3,500
430|
41,680
3,101
14,842
1,872
28,420
19,703
1,2361
192 Lynchburg, Va
747,238,
412,269
5,361
151,437
1,430
5,626
7,844
25,977
7,947
9S0|
193 Shreveport, La
535,749
250,544
3,489
31,012
3,901
158,700
16,230
20,101
100
291]
464,337
71,412
208,544
42,000
31,012
3,901
158,700
12,511
3,719
20,i6i
100
291
3,489
69,337
School district
194 Colorado Springs, Colo
195 Council Bluffs, Iowa
871,661
447,258
692,257
279,404
241,976
205,282
759,084 j
376,329
594,627
164,457
225,187
151,142
31,340
8,537
103,058
1,330
31,340
8,537 *
103,058
1,330
2,300
26,633
1,786
201,882
3,355
2,300
26,633
1,786
201,882
3,355
.
60,337
11,728
5,500
5,500
510
398|
510
398
11,728
For explanation of differences in amounts reported in this column and total payments for outlays reported in Table 18, see text discussion for Table 18, page 97.
GENERAL TABLES.
167
COST P A Y M E N T S , B Y D I V I S I O N S O P C I T Y G O V E R N M E N T : 1912—Continued,
assigned to each, see page 20. Tor a text discussion of this table, see page 67.]
R E V E N U E EECEIPTS—continued.
From
From
earnings
highway
of
privi
general
leges.
depart
ments.
From
interest.
From
rents.
EXCESS OF REVENUE
RECEIPTS OVER—
GOVERNMENTAL COST PAYMENTS.
For expenses and interest.
From
earnings
of public
service
enter
prises.
Expenses Expenses
of general of public
Interest.
depart
service
ments.
enterprises.
Total.
Total,
(Table 9.) (Table 10.) (Table 10.) (Table 10.) (Table 11.)'
For
outlays. 1
Excess of
govern
mental
cost
payments
over
revenue
receipts.
City
Govern Payments n u m
ber.
mental
for
cost
expenses
pay
and
ments.
interest.
(Table 12.) (Table 15.) (Table 17.) (Table 18.)
G R O U P V.—CITIES H A V I N G A P O P U L A T I O N O F 30,000 TO 50,000 I N 1912—Continued.
|
1
$5,000
$9,737
$S5,039|
$401,105]
$333,824]
$246,765{
$27,347]
$59,712|
$67,281]
4,819
1,096
5,000
8,907
830
85,03$
267,11JM
133,993
211,331
122,493]
133,058
113,707
27,34fl
50,926
8,78ft
55,781
11,500
17,663
475
16,747
101.615]
1,671,733
605,125]
354,585]
53,279]
197,261]
1,066,603]
* 17,569
94
475
10,139
6,606
101,615]
1,363,449
306,284
454,19a
150,929
233,360
121,225
63,279
167,557
29,704
909,253
157,355
20,740
12,743
20,267
128,4461
18,709
4,609
12,209
7,906
6,663
4,252
61,503]
5,537
2,369
6,663
4,252
61,503
3,344
801
46
11,115
2,159
1,185
801
46
8.140
2,975
2,910
18,675
2,910
18,628
47
$2,168
6,502
2,915
9,586
500
10,725
12,014
.... ....
6,403
|
|
150,254]
203,186
37,96a
165,2ld
1,902
154,015
392,172
102,557
289,613
185
782,365]
333,809
306,493
35,116
42,200]
398,556]
175,985]
222,571
183
488,202
294,163
239,137 !
144,672
171,771
134,722
35,116
32,250
9,950]
249,065
149,491
79,257]
733,421]
451,020
323,585
43,402
84,033]
282,401
179,424]
102,977
187
79,25T I
609,147
224,274
317,597
133,423
205,635
117,950
43,402
68,560
15,473
191,550
90,851
274,162 |
658,148 |
487,548 j
288,983
81,996 j
170,600
216,865
188
274,162
533,778
124,370
68,799
473,948
61,193
634,801
26,739
53,735
571,192
806,184
183,630
105,353
116,569
116,569
.79,712
2,284
153,867
16,733
45,207
51,182
132,954
12,056
120,898
189
41,232
135,399
68,023
34,288
33,735
190
338,637 i
27,836
51,130
153,589
9,489
144,100
191
351,156
18,374
128,944
307,710
58,946
248,764
192
338,144
7,035
32,725 1
630,297 j
472,452
157,845
193
28,225
4,500
605,422
24,875
96,623
211,567
194
310,939 |
195
86,703
6,397
3,592
1,700
11,660
28,032 j
6,397
3,592
1,700
9,557
2,103
28,032
899,602 1
108,599
294,180
83,724
258,920
79,224
7,035
19,590
762
184,319 (
963,284 1
660,094 j
615,915
49,616
94,563 j
303,190 j
15,255
4,335
762
401,501
258,593
276,311
239,604
49,616
75,574
18,989
212,294
95,896
13,215
20,913
519 •
99,516 j
1,311,125 j
448,145 j
344,380
60,073
43,692 j
862,980 j
11,628
1,587
20,913
519
99,516 \
1,160,860
150,265
299,634
148,511
203,970
140,410
60,073
35,591
8,101
861,226
1,754
184,319
613,795
354,489
j
46,265
390,147
22,384
1,008,201
|
244,605
1,542
184
23,947
1,646
180
450
1S3
639,045
8,250
I
186,63o|
563,816
26,820
630
182
738,017^
9,488
|
1
$S79,978|
$150,374]
794,962
941,203 !
|
9,417
$83,093]
1,187,134
3,276] !
I I f 111
|
$5,915
552,041
[
1
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
168
T A B L E 5 . - P E R * CAPITA R E V E N U E R E C E I P T S A N D G O V E R N M E N T A L COST P A Y M E N T S : 1912.
fFor
a list of t h e cities arranged alphabetically b y states, with the number assigned t o each, see page 20. For a t e x t discussion of this table, sec page 73. f o r absolute
1
amounts, see Table 4.]
PER CAPITA GOVERNMENTAL COST
PAYMENTS POR—
PER CAPITA R E V E N U E RECEIPTS TEOM—
Taxes.
Sub
ven
tions,
grants,
ments
rifts,
for dona'
and
:Ial] feits, tfons,
a n d e s j and
esfor [cheats. pen
out
sion
lays.
ments.
Special
All
reve-
Busi
ness
and
non
Prop Poll. busi
erty.
ness
IIcense.
Expenses and Interest.
EarnEarn
ings of
gen
eral
de
part
ments.
High taof
way
An
privi pub
All
govleges, lic
exernserv
rents,
ice
[mental!
and
and
costs*
inter- en-
ExEx
penses! penses]
of gen public In
eral serv ter
est.
de
ice
inter part
est* ments.! enter
prises.]
terpris-
PER CAPITA
Per
EXCESS OF
capita
REVENUE
excess
RECEIPTS
ofgovOVER—
ernmental
cost
Paypay Gov- ments
Out* ments emfor
lays.
over [mental] ex
reve cost penses
nue
pay and
re
ments. inter
ceipts.)
est
$4.24
$0.48
$6.59
4.01
6.71
4.84
3.05
2.89
0.67
0.43
0.26
0.30
0.45
7.01
6.97
7.07
5.48
5.03
1
Chicago, 111
3 Philadelphia, Pa
4 St. Louis, Mo
5 Boston, Mass
$40.57 $29.86
$1.48 $2.14 $0.14 $0.54 $0.28 $2.67 $3.46 Wo2 $34.29 $24.58 $1.55 $5.15 $13.74 [$7.45
32.59 18.83
4.12 2.53 0.22 0.46 1.00 2.28 3.17 29.55 21.75 18.44
1.59 1.73 i 7.79
$3.04
25.34 , 13.96 io.'w* 1.42 0.33 0.10 1.79
1.32 3.27 3.11 26.97 22.35 17.97
1.76 2.62 I 4.62 | i.63
29.97 ] 17.08
1.08 0.76 1.36 3.33 1 30.31 21.08 1 17.90 1.68 1.50 ( 9.23 1 0.34 1
2.99 3.23 0.14
47.85 34.23 0.13 1.75
0.78 0.15 0.83 1.20 4.13 4.59 45.78 38.35 128.06
1.90 8.40 I 7.43
! 2.*07
$6.28
10.84
3.00
8.83
9.50
6
7 Baltimore, M d . . . . . . . . .
8
9 Detroit, Mfpb,...
25.38
24.90
38.75
25.25
Grand total.:
Group I
Group I I
Group i n . . .
Group I V
Group V
$28.96 517.90 $0.05 $1.92 $2.45
34.87
31.19
25.22
21.26
19.98
23.24
17.76
13.90
12.12
11.81
0.01 2.15
0.03 2.53
0.09 1.68
0.12 1.48
0.10 1.35
1.78
2.53
3.89
2.54
2.12
$0.14
$1.32
0.14
0.16
0.14
0.14
0.17
0.86
3.30
1.40
1.14
1.12
$0.71 ttl.55 82.91 »32.72 $22.36
0.86
1.06
0.54
0.40
0.47
2.52
1.32
0.94
0.48
0.53
3.31
2.49
2.65
2. SI
2.32
38.21
37.46
29.80
24.01
22.41
27.86
24.22
18.16
15.78
14.94
117.34 $1.34 S3.6$ 110.35
21.24
19.99
14.22
12.06
11.69
1.55
1.08
1.13
1.38
1.15
10.35
13.24
11.65
&23
7.47
6.06
3.15
2. SI
2.33
2.11
GROUP I.-CITIES HAVING A POPULA TION OP 500,000 AND OVER IN 1912.
i
15.69
15. U
25.32
15.43
2.56
2.20
1.62
1.66
1.56
0.11
0.96
1.74
0.08
0.01
0.21
0.08
0.56
1.04
1.60
1.85
1.09 1.03 2.80
0.50 2.70 3.24
3.53 2.36 3.15
1.58 0.79 2.12
31.08 i 20.54
31.76 20.64
41.47 28.78
27.48 1 19.28
16.10
15.14
22.52
17.62
1.21
1.26
1.81
0.52
3.23
4.24
4.45
1.13
! 10.54 |
■ 11.12
• 12.69
' 8.20
4.84
4.26
9.97
5.97
5.70
6.86 !
2.72
2.23
G R O U P I I . ^ C t T I E S H A V I N G A P O P U L A T I O N O F 300,000 TO 500,000 I N 1012.
Buffalo, N . Y
San Francisco, Cal.
Milwaukee, W i s . . .
Cincinnati, Ohio...
Los Angeles, Cal...
$28.23 $18.81
31.58 21.66
25.25 17.14
33.96 18.96
42.09 20.83
Newark. N . J
N e w Orleans, L a . .
Washington, D . C.
Minneapolis, Minn.
27.85
22.52
42.05
27.43
13.03 $0.15
14.77 0.14
15.41
17.93
$1.73
2.96
2.47
3.13
2.33
$1.35
3.40
1.54
0.85
8.27
1.88
2.65
4.18
1.54
Tis"
2.63
3.39
$0.05 $0.81 $1.95 P1.07 W2.45 $31.58 £25.22 [S21.04 $1.63 32.51 $6.36
0.11
1.90 1.00 0.54 0.01 43.34 24.47 22.49 0.01 1.97 18.87
0.13 1.15
0.59 0.17 2.06 25.92 20.39 18.33 0.80 1.26
5.53
0.07 0.83
1.15 5.87 3.10 38.52 2^.33 20.67 1.41 6.25 10.19
0.40 2.73
1.10 0.76 5.6S 61/42 24.41 20.05 0.93 3.43 I 37.02
3.67
1.23
18.04
1.09
0.07
0.29
0.24
0.11
0.92 1.82 3.64
0.65 0.60 2.20
1.12 0.15 1.78
0.96 0.82 1.58
37.79
25.32
37.70
34.54
26.61
19.60
23.19
2a 19
21.22
12.79
25.43
17.00
0.97
1.53
1.70
0.77
4.42
5.23
1.07
2.41 |[
li
$3.00
7.11
4.66
5.62
17.68
$3.36
11.76
0.67
4.57
19.33
11.17
5.71
9.50
14.35
9.04
2. SO
$3.25
21.48
10.54
7.42
3.00
$1.07
6.60
2.20
$4.35
7.11
1.23
2.92
13.86
7.24
GROUP nL—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 100,000 TO 300,000 IN 1912.
19
20
21
22
23
Jersey City, N . J .
Seattle, Wash.
Kansas City, Mo..
Indianapolis, Ind..
Providence, R . I . .
K21.75
41.11
36.85
23.68
26.19
24
25
26
27
28
Portland, Oreg...
Rochester, N . Y . ,
Denver, Colo.....
Louisville, Ky....
St. Paul, Minn...
41.05
27.57
27.36
24.41
19.92
17.62
16.63
17.62
14.71
12.00
2.26
1.09
1.83
2.44
1.94
14.31
4.55
3.95
1.76
1.72
0.10
0.06
0.10
0.07
0.18
1.97
0.52
0.84
1.22
0.78
0.24
0.36
1.55
0.30
0.52
0.85 3.61
1.27 3.09
1.34 0.14
0.73 3.17
0.74 2.03
53.16
35.74
40.25
25.92
20.71
20.06
21.54
21.88
17.73
16,23
13.10
17.58
20.13
14.21
13.01
1.44 5.52
1.39 2.57
0.18 1.57
1.11 2.42
0.03 2.20
33.10
14.20
18.37
8. IB
4.48
29
30
31
32
33
Columbus, Ohio....
Toledo, Ohio
Oakland, Cal
Atlanta, Ga
Worcester, Mass
24.09
22.98
31.63
21.94
26.55
13.49
14.34
16.28
11.70 0.10
17.02 0.58
1.79
1.83
1.69
1.91
1.34
2.67
2.54
8.27
3.11
1.16
0.06
0.02
0.44
0.55
0.04
0.51
0.54
4.38
0.61
0.32
1.52
0.25
0.92 3.13
1.25 2.22
0.16 0.10
0.37 2.61
1.43 2.95
27.50
27.40
37.38
21.90
28.77
10.30
15.70
16.23
14.64
21.96
14.17
11.61
14.82
12.07
18.25
1.85 3.28
1.43 2.66
0.03 1.30
1.25 1.32
0.81 2.91
8.23
11.70
21.15
7.26
6. SO
2.22
34 Birmingham, Ala..
35 Syracuse, N . Y
36 New Haven, Conn..
37 Memphis, Tenn....
Scranton, Pa
14.03
24.45
18.71
24.12
13.62
4.82
3.56
16.15
1.29
15.28 0.26 1.34
12.00
1.68
8.28 0.29 2.10
2.65
3.02
0.35
3.62
1.46
0.43
0.06
0.18
0.18
0.08
1.47
0.55
0.63
2.14
0.88
0.63 0.13 0.25
0.30 0.33 2.76
0.37 0.27 0.02
0.89 0.29 3.32
0.06 0.46 0)
16.54
25.09
18.94
30.96
14.47
11.85
20.13
15.60
18.69
11.22
8.64
16.39
14.55
12.95
9.04
0.23 2.08
0.83 2.96
0.01 1.04
1.77 3.07
1.23
4.60
4.01
3.34
12.26
3.25
2.52
0.64
0.23
6.84
0.85
2.18
4.27
3.11
5.42
2.40
8.03
4.82
2.16
1.93
54.93
0.40
16.18
6.77
2.84
5.51
3.20
12.31
3.24
7.46
2.01
2.63
3.15
4.30
3.86
3.41
$9.69
$1.90 $0.65 $0.02
1.38 14.47
14.15
0.20
2.38 12.89
14.34
0.20
12.87 fcO.07 1.85
4.04
0.06
17.28 0.09 '1.35 0.34
0.03
$3.01
3.41
0.58
3. S3
0.14
$0.21 91.43 ^4.85 $22.82 £19.57 ',$13.00 $1.18 &4.50
0.48 0.66 6.36 47.71 26.23 17.08
2.65 6.49
0.49 1.42 4.53 39.05 19.51 15.94
1.99 1.59
0.26 0.59 0.10 21.97 14.55 13.71
0.10 0.74
0.69 2.62 3.64 23.12 20.04 15.82
L10 3.02
0.31
0.98
1.67
0.70
3.50
4.42
5.75
Richmond, V a . . .
Paterson.N; J....
Omaha, N e b r . . . .
Fall River, Mass.
Spokane, Wash...
27.03
15.10'
28.74
19.18
33.65
15.80 0.09
9.08 0.05
14.69
13.83 0.45
12.42
1.53
1.56
4.28
1.21
1.74
0.48
0.70
3.23
0.10
9.57
0.22
0.03
0.27
0.07
0.16
0.70
2.53
0.60
0.07
3.97
0.26 1.85 6.09
0.43 0.72
0.42 2.25 &
0.42 0.99 2.04
1.36 0.52 3.90
29.19
17.08
83.67
19.58
49.83
20.26
12.25
23.23
15.98
21.34
13.05
10.67
16.36
12.74
14.67
2.74 3.56
0.01 1.57
2.01 4.86
0.82 2.42
1.33 5.34
60.43
3.60
23.49
44
45
46
47
48
Dayton, Ohio
Grand Rapids, Mich..
Nashville, Tenn
Bridgeport, Conn
Lowell, Mass
18.33
19.28
18.50
17.15
19.44
12.40
11.11
9.41
13.56 0.31
14.11 0.35
0.80
0.62
0.83
1.39
1.07
1.70
4.08
0.25
0.68
0.37
0.04
0.06
0.14
0.12
0.05
0.57
0.25
2.99
0.51
0.04
0.29
0.72
0.37
0.27
0.55
0.64 1.89
0.29 2.15
1.67 2.83
0.31 (»)
0.65 2.25
21.58
26.74
21.41
16.58
19.56
15.70
16.13
14.10
13.29
16.04
12.61
13.71
10.92
12.54
13.10
1.04
0.93
0.94
0.01
1.16
2.05
1.40
2.24
0.74
1.78
5.87
10.61
7.31
3.20
3.53
49
50
51
52
Cambridge. Mass.....
San Antonio. Tex
New Bedford, Mass...
Hartford, Conn
25.81
13.96
25.66
29.48
19.11
11.50
19.03
21.76
0.05
0.47
0.88
0.72
0.44
0.03
0.18
0.04
0.10
0.09
1.31
0.15
0.59
0.70
0.23
0.56
0.48
1.50 3.61
0.04 0.11
1.01 3.04
1.21 3.59
26.08
12.64
34.20
29.42
22.49
10.09
20.49
20.93
16.17
3.65
15.83
17.19
1.03
0.00
1.30
0.07
5.24
1.36
3.36
2.82
3.60
2.55
13.71
8.44
0.27
*6.*49*
0.63
53 Dallas, Tex.
54 Trenton, N . J
55 Albany.N.Y
56 Salt Lake City, Utah.
24.65
19.28
22.32
28.80
15.56
8.72 0.09
13.79
13.41 6*26'
0.44
1.34
1.42
3.47
4.15
2.72
1.81
4.87
0.23
0.08
0.02
0.11
1.21
2.40
0.52
3.11
0.26
0.21
0.10
0.34
0.57
1.15
0.83
0.17
32.33
21.05
31.13
26.82
14.05
15.26
19.59
19.48
11.11
11.53
15.03
14.48
2.06
1.01
2.38
1.56
1.78
2.71
2.18
3.43
17.30
5.70
11.54
7.34
7.63
1.77
8.81
1
2.22
2.56
3.82
3.12
Less than one-half of 1 c e n t
20.08
6.03
5.43
6.67
3.60
12.12
8.17
12.80
1.51
40
41
42
43
0.28
0.11
0.45
0.39
$1.71
3.06
$2.18
14.88
17.34
0.13
6.15
0.04
0.57
'0.U
4.73
7.28
15.40
7.30
4.58
0.06
3.32
3.86
6.17
8.50
1.08
0.70
4.03
2.73
0.32
T32
GENERAL TABLES.
169
TABLE 5.—PER CAPITA REVENUE RECEIPTS AND GOVERNMENTAL COST PAYMENTS: 1912-Continued.
For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 73
amounts, see Table 4.1
P E E CAPITA GOVERNMENTAL COST
PAYMENTS FOR—
PER CAPITA. R E V E N U E RECEIPTS FROM—
Sub
Expenses and Interest.
Earnven
tions, Earn HighBusl-| ments Fines, [grants,!
of I way pub All
Exgifts, ings
Exness and for dona
gen privilic
All
gov
leges, serv
and speciall feits, tions, eral rents,
exern
of
of
gen
In
Prop
non charg andesH
de
ice mental
and eneral public
erty. Poll. busi es for cheats. ►and
part Interand
serv ter
pen
de
est.
ness out
terInter part ice
sion ments. est. prisIIlays.
est. ments.! enter
IcenseJ
prises.
ments,
Taxes.
Special
All
reve
nues.
Out
lays.
For absolute
Per
capita
excess
ofgovernmental
cost
pay
ments
over
reve
nue
re
ceipts.
GROUP IV.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF £0,000 TO 100,000 IN 1912.
$7.60 $0.34 10.85 $0.23 $0.01 $0.82 $0.12 SO. 19 S2.43 $12.39 $9.83
7.24 0.08 j 1.49 0.59 0.05 1.S8 0.14 0.79 2.60 15.71 i 13.95
23.22 0.51 1.25 0.44 0.12 0.07 1.27 0.73 5.03 36.40 ! 25.42
12.97
1.46 10.55 0.16 4.38 0.32 1.00 10 45 65.77 ' 26.91
15.20
0.51 0.09 0.55 0.11 0.12 0.81 0.72 3.60 24.13 18.35
57 Reading, Pa.
58
59 Springfield. Mass
60 Tacoma, Wash
61
$12.59
! 14.85
32.63
41.29
21.70
62
63 ; Lawrence, Mass
64
65
66 Yonkers,N. Y
21.03
19.23
13.40
24.62
23.33
15.83
1.43
14.56 *6.*29" 1.34
8.89
0.07
14.10
0.82
21.13
1.29
2.42
0.37
0.69
5.32
1.86
0.19
0.03
0.08
0.16
0.04
0.43
0.08
0.54
0.56
0.61
0.16
0.46
0.22
0.06
0.13
0.41
0.22
0.13
0.60
0.32
0.15
1.82
2.76
3.01
2.96
67
68
69 FortWorth,Tex
70 Duluth, Minn
71 Norfolk, Va
19.93
21.49
24.53
29.67
21.14
10.51
15.09 'blii
12.84
15.61
11.62 0.03
1.95
0.55
0.44
3.03
4.83
3.58
"iTS"
0.16
0.27
0.18
0.23
0.02
0.44
1.42
1.03
1.00
0.65
0.35
0.58
0.39
0.23
0.18
0.42
0.36
0.40
0.13
1.11
2.53 j 22.58
3.13 1 24.46
2.86 35.72
6.66 30.80
2.71 22.50 :
72
73
74
75
7ft
Oklahoma City, Okla...
Schenectady, N . Y .
Somerville, Mass
St. Joseph, Mo
Utlca,N.ir
35.36
20.67
21.99
10.59
19.71
11.03
12.92
15.20
11.04
13.48
0.33 20.22
1.35 3.10
0.05 0.75
1.89 2.59
1.41 1.97
0.71
0.06
0.03
0.12
0.03
0.24 0.74 0.34 1.74
0.52 . 0.22 0.41 2.03
0.18 2.09 0.19 3.09
0.55 0.19 0.15 0.05
0.50 2.04 0.24 0.03
77
78
79
80
81
Elizabeth, X. J
Waterbury Conn.
Troy.N.Y.
Akron, Ohio
Manchester, N. H
14.96
17.65
24.94
17.63
17.06
8.22 0.13 1.82
11.50 0.35 1.05
18.44
1.40
10.01
1.45
11.36 0.21 2.20
1.12
0.66
0.72
2.66
0.01
0.05
0.15
0.01
0.17
0.02
2.51
0.71
0.86
0.65
0.17
0.32
0.19
0.15
0.29
0.15
0.79
0.32
0.28
0.60
0.74
0.01 14.36
2.72 ! 20.65
3.07 25.33
1.80 41.45
2.20 18.63
11.55
14.31
19.46
13.55
13.02
9.77
12.09
15.56
10.86
10.90
0.02 1.76
0.44 1.78
1.02 2.89
0.75 1.94
1.10 1.01
82
83
84
85
86
Hoboken,N.J
Wllkes-Barre,Fa
Erie, Pa
E vansvllle, Ind
Peoria, 111
Fort Wayne.Ind
„
Harrisburg, Fa
Savannah, Ga
East St. Louis.111......
Jacksonville, Fla
17.96
9.00
12.71
8.58
16.56 8.79
19.81 10.10
21.44, 14.09
0)
14.40
9.22
8.33
9.57
14.16
9.38
10.24
12.36
12.35
13.74
3.14 1.61
0.04 1.07
1.03 0.65
1.47 1.11
0.07 0.88
2.74
0.92
1.43
0.01
4.51
87
8S
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
102
103
104
105
South Bend, Ind
Terra Haute, Ind
Passaic, K.J
Johnstown, Pa
Bayonna,N. J
Brockton. Mass...."
Portland, Mo
Holyoke, Mass
Charleston, S. C
Wichita, Kans.
Allentown. Pa.
Springfield, 111
Covington, Ky
Altoona, Pa
106
107
103
109
Pawtucket, R. L
Canton, Ohio
Mobile, Ala.
Sacramento, Cal
110
ill
112
113
Saginaw, Mich.
Sioux City, Iowa
Bmghamton, N. Y
1Atlantic City, N.J
97
93
99
100
101
*6Iii"
2.73
27.09
17.26
13.79
27.28
38.37
$8.22 $0.92 SO. 75 $2.51
$0.20
11.18 0.91 1.87
1.75 $0.86 j
20.51 2.22 2.69 10.98
3.76
14.16 5.94 6.82 38.85 24.48
13.65 2.37 2.33 j 5.78 ! 2.43
15 84 : 14.30
15.61 13.26
8.77
11.55
9.73
14.67
25.25 19.20
0.39
0.84
1.03
1.18
1.72
1.15
1.50
1.75
3.76
4.32
10.79 1.15 1.54
11.95 1.13 3.72
8.91 .3.35
13.95 3.60 3.17
3.81
12.23 1.59 4.50
37.27 ' 17.07 10.40 1.00 5.66 20.20
21.01 14.31 ! 10.92 0.98 2.40
6.70
22.16 18.89 15.83 0.71 2.35
3.27
15.78 11.83 10.55 0.03 1.25 1 3.96
2.89
1.26
17.17 14.29 13.03
13.48
16.79
15.44
21.35
13.33
0.01 1.78
0.47 1.19
0.16 0.97
0.09 1.58
3.13
1.56
1.09
2.72
2.86
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.16
3.14
0.74
0.84
2.38
0.41
0.13
0.02
0.23
0.10
0.46
0.75
0.08
0.46
0.39
0.26
3.10
0.02
3.95
2.42
0.07
21.66
17.30
16.04
19.43
22.45
22.07
9.1ii 0.39 1.02
21.86 11.58 0.11 0.99
3.21
21.03
9.71
3.17
16.54 1 7.68
2.74
8.80
28.49
5.49
4.85
1.58
5.21
1.90
0.04
0.05
0.38
0.03
0.64
1.53
0.87
2.95
0.26
1.90
0.17
0.03
0.27
0.18
0.55
0.23 4.01
0.62 2.77
0.31 2.66
17.58 1 9.80 0.09 2.10
14.12 10.21 0.03 1.50
5.87 0.02 1.17
10.54
7.18 0.22 1.08
9.82
25.26 1 11.44
0.93
2.56
0.20
0.44
0.10
2.98
0.02
0.02
0.11
0.21
0.04
1.04
1.80
2.21
0.56
3.79
11.24
0.09 0.12 1.76
0.20 0.20 0.35
0.28 0.44
0.16 0.29 6.6*1
0.36 0.76 4.96
20.48
23.75
20.43
23.63
38.91
19.15
10.32
10.ro
12.15
15.11
12.73
12.88
15.84
14.48
20.11
17.08
15.63
15.02
9.43
23.96
10.44
11.90
11.23
7.76
18.66
8.88
11.05
10.07
7.17
12.33
0.85 0.72
0.30 0.54
1.21
0.01 0.58
3.35 2.98
22.33
32.33
28.95
25.42
23.83
15.65 0.53 0.07
17.93 0.45 0.86
15.00 0.49 1.25
9.15
2.06
13.20
0.52
0.77
0.57
0.24
0.01
9.28
0.16
0.03
0.09
0.98
0.19
0.08
4.32
0.05
2.37
0.21
1.91
0.82
0.41
0.23
0.21
0.62
1.22
1.07
0.55
0.14
2.55
6.14
10.36
0.07
0.09
22.92 17.95
33.76 1 24.57
29.13 23.42
14.58 13.92
24.51 13,13
14.48
17.21
14.51
11.02
9.61
1.07
1.59
6.53
0.05
0.11
11.93
19.63
14.58
14.78
7.38 0.38 0.77
11.08
2.40
8.37
1.23
9.90
0.79
0.71
2.42
0.59
0.50
0.03
0.14
0.05
0.08
0.68
0.34
1.45
0.76
0.05
0.35
0.11
0.03
0.13
0.42
0.17
0.41
6.47
8.11
1.80 10.52
2.47 20.70 14.71 12.29
9.88
2.61 16.05 12.97
2.26 ! 16.05 10.59 T8.07
0.79
1.17
0.95
0.53
22.81
16.69
20.92
34.34
14.08 0.08 1.07
1.57
9.76
3.26
6.01
2.10
16.82
0.32
2.21
4.92
7.24
0.03
0.03
0.37
0.20
0.20
0.52
2.42
3.82
0.43
0.16
0.30
0.47
1.37
0.46
0.32
0.06
5.17
1.97
3.33
3.65
24.45
18.86
18.48
36.06
0.04
0.12
0.04
0.18
0.81
0.70
0.49
2.95
0.34
0.58
0.29
0.58
0.35
0.33
0.26
2.51
2.28
2.23
2.52
4.21
19.37 ' 15.14 12.15
20.42 12.82 ■ 10.57
16.83 1 12.53 10.74
53.16 31.51 22.75
20.75
„ 21.21
16.42
37.83
12.32
11.76 j
10.66 i
21.52 "6*6l";
0.83 3.77!
1.72 3.70
0.89 1 1.26 !
5.11 0.77
(l
i
0.72
<">
11.26
6.06
1.65
2.24 r6.*39i
12.62 ! 2.66;
13.12 10.03
2.65
1 9.10
7.66
2.96
20.29 11.20
9.45
1.14
1
4.18
1.36
20.05
11.93
13.79
21.14
13.79
9.10
8.53
18.94
0.61
1.71
2.05
2.13
1.86
1.91
0.34
0.17
2.81 1
6.34 "2*99*
5.92
0.44
27.90 23.82
5.66
1.62
2.£2
6.97
5.53
7.29
7.34
0.60
3.41
3.34
5.48
4.03
4.04
2
7.75 Hi."6i"i 1.59
10.87
"6*64"
4.59
9.20 j L89*
18.80 i 42
0.49
6.64
3.73 "Lii"
4.4s!
3.74
6.34
1.72 1
1.30
5.30
4.40
6.93
4.69
14.92
1.64
2.17
1.73
4.23 1
1.26 1.73
7.60
0.78 1.47
4.30 1 6*42*
1.14 0.66
1.63 7.12i 21.65 15.33
"2*43"
1.38
0.79
1.19
2.39
6.05
7.66
6.33
9.35
8.08
5.24
2.05
8.37
°-
$0.17 $1.31 $0.15 $0.31 $0.29 ^0.27 $2.10 £22.25 $13.52 $10.83 $1.66 $1.03 $8.73 $3.44
6.74
9.42 0.19 1.06 16.34
2.28 7.09 0.67 2.00 0.68 0.18 0.18 27.01 10.67
5.75
7.78
2.24 0.46 0.26 2.88 1,05 0.43 3.52 24.84 17.06 13.80 1.50 1.76
2.30
6.60
1.34 1.69 0.09 0.67 0.52 0.80 2.03 19.08 13.48 10 97 0.81 1.70
0.77
2.26
1.10
2.05
7.61
10.97
13.02
3.33
0.04
0.24
0.88
0.01
0.04
1.02
2.51
3.23
3.57
10.94
17.02
20.25
0.12
1.02
Pueblo, Colo
5.09
0.16
0.18
0.85
2.44
21.40 11.53
5.78
0.37
New Britain, Conn
18.29 11.94 0.37 0.62 0.77 0.22 0.63 0.65 0.27 2.83 18.67 12.89 9.66 0.63 2.60
6.92
5.03
Chattanooga, Tenn,
1.74 1.47 0.32 2.37 0.78 0.18 0.06 21.32 14.40 11.28 0.14 2.98
16.24
9.32
7.61
6.58
0) 1.03 3.85 2.59
York,Pa.„:
8.87
5.73 0.07 0.60 1.03 0.02 0.87 0.06 0.48 0.01 11.46
2.20
Maiden, Mass.
2L79 15.60 0.51 0.03 0.33 0.04 0.09 1.23 1.12 2.35 21.04 18.84 14.70 0.94 3.21
3.47
Berkeley, Cat
0.43 2.87 0.06 4.55 0.31 0.37 0.06 17.79 14.32 13.32 0.04 0.97
19.73 11.10
1.89
9.49 1.81 1.31
gay City Mich.....
0.86 0.97 0.01 0.23 0.12 0.20 2.58 14.49 12.61
15.55 10.57
4.51
Haverhill, Mass....
22.58 14.58 0.56 1.32 0.65 0.09 0.39 0.95 1.23 2.75 21.62 17,11 13.93 0.91 2.27
7.41
0.28
11.53
1.20
2.51
15.29
2.54
22.70
Topeka.Kans.....
22.42 13.81
0.56 4.27 0.09 0.36 0.52 0.27
6.61
2.37
19.72 14.39 6*42" 0.03 0.46 0.11 0.14 0.87 0.43 2.81 22.09 15.48 13.09 1.25 1.14
1
* Per capita excess of payments for expenses and interest over revenue receipts.
Less than one-half of 1 cent
"6*81"
2.53
18.29
6.36
3.10
4.76
5.42
r6!52*
4.58;
0.33
i
$18.81 $14.21
7.19
20.27
19.09
8.25
16.78
9.64
12.25
6.64
6.45
4.70
9.09
8.32
2.82
3.70
GROUP V.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912.
Rockford.Hl
Little Rock, Ark..
Augusta, G a . . . . . . .
Springfield, Ohio..
Lancaster, Pa
5.19
3.62
1.85
9.96
3.08
i.97
0.59
4.97
2.40
1.43
9.19
5.77
5.71
2.38
0.18 "6."84*
2.85 0.65
3.411 11.38 1
6.68
1.41
0.85
2.41
5.99 "LOT"!
1.25
3.03
2.14
1.48
2.00 | 5.46 1.27
1.62 4.64
0.98 1.84
1.35 3.91
1.27 0.93
$2.71
0.89
7.21
14.37
3.35
a
7.14
2.62
0.74
2.05
6.60
4.38
7.76
5.54
1.49
10.70
3.82
4.92
1.61
4.19
2.76
4.76
7.13
13.20
5.61
8.39
3.88
6.32
l7o
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
TABLE 5.—PER CAPITA REVENUE RECEIPTS AND GOVERNMENTAL COST PAYMENTS: 1912-Continued.
TFor
a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 73. For absolute
1
amounts, see TaDie 4.j
PER CAPITA GOVERNUEKTA1. COST
PAYMENTS FOR—
PEE CAPITA BEVENXJE RECEIPTS FBOSI—
Sub
[Earnven
Special
HigH
tions,
Earn
assess'
[grants, jings of way pub AH
Busl-| ments Fines,
gov
for dona gen privi
ness and
leges, lic
and speciall feits, , tions, eral | rents, serv ern*
de and i c e [mental]
Prop Poll. non- charg andes-| and
busi- es for (cheats. pen part Inter en- costs.
erty.
terout
sion ments,! est. prislays.
es.
ments.
Taxes.
All
reve
nues.
Expenses and Interest.
Ex
penses)
of
of gen public In
eral serv ter
and
de
ice
est.
Inter part
est. ments*! enter
prises.
AH
Ex-
Per
capita
excess
[of gov.
ernmental
cost
pay
Out ments
lays. over
reve
nue
re
ceipts.]
GROUP V.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912—Continued.
$22.25 $13.69 $0.25 $1.31 $2.89 $0.06 $0.52 $0.20 ft). 64 to. 68«22.89 «13.61 $10.79 $1.27 t$l-56
0.10
20.71 15.35
1.25 2.86 0.10 0.44 0.39 ^ . 2 2 0.10 23.15 14.03 13.27
11.60 2.76 aoe
23.S7 14.01
0.56 2.15 0.48 1.24 0.86 0.27 4.29 26.05 16.74 20.07
2.38
47.63 22.11
3.95 10.04 0.44 3.38 0.56 0.38 6.77 52.13 27.78 11.02 4.23
0.05 3.48
16.82
9.33
1.91 0.27 a 59 3.59 0.89 a 16 ao7 15.48 12.42
1.35
0.79 0.74 0.18 0.75 0.29 0.35 2.41 15.97 14.73 10.91 2.37 1.45
16.01 10.50
McKeesport, P a . . .
7.54 a n 0.97
9.28
0.56 0.16 1.75 16.19
0.58 0.77 0.07 a n
8.57
12.61
Flint, Mich.
8.89 1.19 1.14
0.29 0.17 1.37 16.34 11.23
0.84 2.34 0.04
9.18
14.35
Kalamazoo, Mich..
1.86 1.87 0.15 0.12 0.38 0.61 0.28 16.76 11.30 10.06 a 28 0.96
9.82
16.47
Racine, Wis
1.50
0.11
12.65
19.31
a
20
13.74
2.54
1.09
2.12
0.44
11.68
17.71
Superior, Wis
0.62
9.46 0.07 1.56 0.04 0.30 0.38 0.23 a 42 4.80 19.81 15.76 11.26 3.29 1.21
17.27
Wheeling, W.Va..
7.26 0.08 2.64 2.40 0.66 2.79 0.81 0.67 3,99 25.45 13,70 11.48 1.55 0.66
21.31
Macon, Ga
44.02 34.00 0.48 0.03 1.41 0.05 0.54 1.02 2.72 3.77 33.66 33.68 25.29 a 90 7.50
Newton, Mass
20.31 18.21 16.81
1.39
21.51 12.45 0.52 2.22 2.23 0.25 3.15 0.45 0.25
Butte, Mont
9.30 0.54 3.56
9.60 0.06 1.16 0.30 0.02 0.26 a 53
16.03
3.23 15.97 13.41
Woonsocket, R . I .
a«7
3.41 20.55 16.26
1.63 4.96
18.35
6.56 0.30 3.47 2.75 0.55 0.69 0.53
Montgomery, Ala..
8.76
11.2d 7.26 0.29 0.79 1.31 0.03 0.85 0.20 a 08
18.84
7.48 0.01 1.23
Chester, P a . . . . . . . .
22.09 15.21 0.50 1.10 0.62 0.03 0.08 093 0.55
27.63 18.42 14.55 1.98 1,89
Fitchburg, Mass...
17.44 12.57
16.09 12.00
9.10 1.23 1.67
0.97 1.60 0.01 0.35 0.08 0.94
Dubuque, Iowa.. 22.82 12.83
0.77 0.07 0.13 3.29 1.58 0.01 1.84 22.45 18.82 11.63 1.69 5,49
Galveston, Tex....
0.89 3.27
9.90
4.37 0.03 1.40 0.71 0.01 2.87 0.05 0.41
9.84
1.30
13.78 11.20
West Hoboken, N. J..
9.16 a03
9.97
0.36 1.04 0.07 0.69 0.22 0.24 0.06 16.20
7.38
10.06
New Castle, Pa
16.36 11.33 0.08 2.73 0.19 0.36 0.59 0.48 0.41 0 19 16.83 12.27 10.13 0.08 a n
Roanoke, Va
1.20 0.51 0.04 0.55 0.21 0.21 a 16 18.07 13.43 12.32 0.23 2.05
16.35 13.46
Elmira,N.y
a97 aos 0.88
7.39 0.17 1.01 5.94 0.24 0.31 0.27 a 05 0.06 17.87
8.36
Huntington, W. Va.. 15.43
1.30
26.91 15.91 0.16 0.61 0.72 0.06 3.71 0.55 1.31 3. SO 35.62 24.04 13.01 1.97 4.06
East Orange, N. J.
22.46
9.58 0.07 2.08 2.00 0.61 2.08 0.61 0.34 5.09 20.52 16.45 10.31 1.67 4.47
Knoxville, Tenn...
8.91
19.19
Hamilton, Ohio...
9,74 3.29 2.88
1.65 2.18 0) * 0.64 0.18 0.45 5.18 20.01 15.91
Lexington, K y . . . . ,
2.84 2.28 0.08 LIS 0.12 0.17 a 12 19.20 13.12 1L46 0.05 1.61
17.58 10.82
Springfield, Mo....
16.66
7.79 0.06
7.93
7.53 0.18 1.59 6.28 0.07 0.42 0.20 0.32 aos 16.76
Lincoln, Nebr
Davenport, Iowa.
El Paso, Tex
San Diego, Cal
Tampa/Fla
A
aos
Quincy,TJl
Charlotte, N. C.
Joliet,Ill
Passadena, Cal.
Auburn, N . Y . .
15.05
12,14
19.38
42,31
17.08
10.99
2.33 0.39
5.76 0.19 0.93 0.76
10.99
4.07 2.12
19.29
0.40 13.22
9.74
0.92 2.16
0.09
0.16
0.09
0.06
0.05
0.34
1.47
0.30
3.37
0.53
0.30
0,17
0.12
0.63
0.22
0.58
0.16
0.33
1.18
0.14
0.03
2.54
1.31
4.14
3.31
11.17
20.50
20.36
49.84
21.51
0.96
9.75
13.67
22.91
16.02
9.17
6.44
11.16
19.07
13.03
Everett, Mass
Decatur, 111
Portsmouth, Va
Perth Amboy, N. J.
Taunton, Mass
21.73
16.75
9.68
15.19
23.78
15.94 0.49 0.04
10.17
1.75
4.94
1.65
6.10 0.02 1.89
13.63 0.30 1.07
0.05
0,28
0.64
1.78
0.10
0.55
0.17
0.13
0.13
0.97
0.58
a 17
2.11
0.35
1.20
3.42
1.63
0,13
3.74
5.61
21.86
17.20
15.40
18.76
22.69
18,39
10.67
8.77
13.68
18.92
13.95
8.66
6.53
9.98
12.80
Quincy, Mass
Lansing, Mich.......
PlttsMd, Mass
Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
Oshkosh, Wis
26.02
22.34
21.45
26.43
14.29
18.48 0.53 0.07
11.75
0.16
15.08 0.45 1.00
15 55
2.31
10.69
1.22
0.79
1.27
1.70
0.94
4.73
0.75
0.02
0.20
0.09
0.07
0.05
0.10
0.16
0.10
0.11
0.07
0.07
1.37
0.04
0.47
0.89
0.56
0.20
0.42
0.17
0.19
0.77
0.01
0.24
0.13
0.45
4.17
0.98
3.18
2.96
0.03
29.50
18.23
31.61
28.40
13.36
21.12
14.58
17.47
15.06
10.13
San Jose, Cal
Amsterdam, N. Y
Jamestown, N. Y
Mount Vernon, N. Y .
Niagara Falls, N . Y . .
21.65
13.50
21.22
32.48
36.76
10.90
9.24
11.98
22.92
22.92
1.94
0.96
0.59
1.03
1.76
3.15
0.21
2.35
2.29
4.34
0.13
0.06
0.08
0.03
0.11
4.65
0.36
0.74
0.81
0.53
0.83
0.13
0.32
3,81
0.34
0.04
0.02 2.51
a27 4.89
1.54
3.80 i"96*
23.10
12.03
25.05
41.35
43.67
Jackson, Mich
WilHamsport, Pa
Jqplin, Mo
Luna, Ohio
Muskogee, Okla
16.77
12.80
15.77
14.93
24.60
11.38
0.87
9.34 0.40 0.99
8.38
2.12
7.77
1.22
9.04
0.36
1.71
0.35
3.44
2.02
9.14
0.09
0.04
0.27
0.15
0.88
0.14
0.93
0.68
0.51
a 95
0.63
0.18
0.22
0.18
0.55
0.04
0.18
0.12
0.45
0.54
1.88
0.40
0.53
2.62
3.16
Chelsea,Mass...* ...
New Rochelle, N. Y .
Aurora, 111
,
Lorain, Ohio
,
28.15
33.86
19.04
17.45
20.38 0.44 1.08
27.85
1.07
10.38
1.77
8.92
1.75
0.37
3.05
3.93
3.23
0.13
0.06
0.09
0.09
&
1.10
0.53
0.34
0.37
Austin, Tex.
Newport, K y . . .
Orange, N . J . . .
La Crosse, Wis.
22.23
14.87
19.46
18.26
10.66
0.33
8.24
1.24
10.24 0.03 1.32
11.83
1.46
0.01
1.33
1.29
0.4S
0.27
0.02
0.12
0.06
0.34
0.48
1.35
1.45
2.88
1.60
0.65
0.53
0.25
0.11
Lynchburg, Va.
Shreveport, La
Colorado Springs, Colo.
Council Bluffs, Iowa...
24.32
17.52
28.61
25.24
13.42 0.17 4.98
8.19 0.12 1.14
14.68
1.31
12.51 0.08 0.94
0.18
5.19
3.38
6.71
0.26
0.53
0.04
0.11
1.14
0.67
2.46
0.42
i Less than one-half of 1 cent.
0.64
2.31
"i'u
$9.27
9.12
9.31
24.35
3.05
$0.63
2.44
2.18
4.50
1.34
0.90
5.11
6.46
5.56
3.58
1.99
0.29
1.60
4.05
11.75
4.97
2.10
2.57
2.54
4.14
4.29
10.09
9.21
4.10
3.63
2.20
7.56
5.54
2.58
C.23
4.56
4.64
9.51
3.94
11.58
4.07
4.10
6,08
8.83
an
0.47
1.72
2.44
8.71
0.82
1.62
a io
1.21
ia?6
6.68
20.93
5.48
3.46
6.53
6.63
5.08
3.77
15.73
10.49
14.14
11.88
9.49
0.04
1.44 aTS
1.81 1.86
2.77 a 70
1.59
1.07
1.07 1.40
1.13 3.36
0.88
a i 2 2.13
1.38 2.31
3.13 2.80
0.93 4.47
3.46 0.63
0. SO 2.53
1.56 1.62
0.08 a 56
16.13
10.11
15.22
31.34
22.43
14.95
8.20
10.94
27.53
16.65
1.18
0.55 1.36
2.24 2.04
3.81
1.76 4.02
6.97
1.92
9.83
10.00
21.24
1.45
19.97
10.37
14.09
12.37
51.94
12.28
9.13
9.05
10.30
18.80
0.80
0.02
0.52
0.84
1.66
0.80
0.54
0.57
1.84
6,13
7.69
1.24
6.04
2.07
33.14
3.20
27.34
4.00
0.10
1.93
2.50
29,33
37.06
24.57
23.10
23.00
24.82
12.05
14.20
10.68
8.57
7.96
7.61
11.02
17.57
19.95
9.63
10.19
0.75 4.68
0.06 4.81
1.10 1.33
1.37 2.65
6.33
12.24
12.62
8.89
1.18
3.20
5.53
5.65
0.30
0.31
0.35
0.21
0.68 8.67
0.07 2.22
1.26 1.98
0.87 L75
20.81
15.26
2a 57
18.57
15.42
10.98
18.37
13.58
9.14
7.88
12.64
11.01
3.69
1.46
1.34
0.91
2.59
1.65
4.39
1.66
6.39
4.28
2.20
4.99
0.39
1.11
0.31
a3i
0.21
0.64
0.44
1.05
0.55
0.05
0.71
2.82
0.92
6.05
3.31
26.24
32.97
31.79
43.60
16.23
12.36
21.67
14.90
11.43
11.06
16.94
11.45
a 60
0.23
1.63
2.00
4.20
1.07
3,10
1.45
10.02
20.61
10.12
28.70
1.92
15.45
3.17
18.36
8.37
3.63
14.13
13.33
3.23
$.36
0.97
7.52
4.43
0.13
0.46
6.72
3.57
3.48
10.15
1.97
3.83
8.87
a 93
» Per capita excess of payment*torexpenses and interest over revenue receipts.
GENERAL TABLES.
171
TABLE 6.—PER CENT DISTRIBUTION, BY PRINCIPAL CLASSES, OF REVENUE RECEIPTS AND GOVERNMENTAL
¥TAL
COST PAYMENTS: 1912.
jFor a Ust of the cities arranged alphabetically b y states, w i t h the number assigned to each, see page 20. For a t e x t discussion of this table, see page 77.
For amounts on
which percentages are based, see Table 4.]
PER CENT OF GOVERNMENTAL COST
PAYMENTS BEPBESENTED BY—
BEVENUE RECEIPTS.
Percent obtained from—
Taxes.
City
num
ber.
Prop*
erty.
Grand total.
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
61.8
66.6
66.9
55.1
67.1
59.1
I
II
m
IV
V
Busi
ness
and
non
Foil. busi
ness
li
cense.
0.2
¥
0.3
0.5
0.6
6.6
8.1
6.7
7.0
6.8
Sub
Special
ven
assess
tions,
ments Fines, grants, Earnand forfeits,! gifts,
special and
dona general
es tions,
charged cheats.
for
and departs
out
pension! ments.'
lays.
ments.
8.4
0.5
4.6
2.5
TT
"bTi"
~£?
T?
3.4
8.1
15.4
11.9
10.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.8
10.6
5.6
5.4
5.6
2,2
1.9
2.4
Payments for—
Per cent
required for
meetingHigh
way*
privi
leges,
rents,
and
inter
est.
Earn-
Ex-
ExReve
nue
of
of , Inter Out
re
gener public est. lays. ceipts.
al de- | service)
part- enter
I ments. prises,
tap
public Ex
Inter
service penses.
est.
enter
prises.
5.4
10.0
64.5
12.7
22.8
53.0
4.2
3.7
2.3
9.5
8.0
10.5
13.4
11.6
65TI
14.5
10.1
11.1
11.0
10.5
20.1
22.3
28.1
25.7
25.2
55.6
53.4
47.7
50.2
52.2
67.6
60.8
63.3
64.3
11.2
31.6
88.5
2.9
3.8
5.8
5.1
13.3
8.4
9.4
9.7
9.4
27.1
35.3
39.1
34.3
33.3
91.3
83.3
84.6
88.5
89.1
4.1
Tl
GROUP I.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 500,000 AND OVER IN 1912.
New York. N . Y
Chicago. Ill
St. Louis, Mo
Boston, Mass
6 Cleveland, Ohio
7 Baltimore, Md.,., t , , „ .
8 Pittsburgh. Pa
Q Detroit, Mich
1
2
3
4
5
73.6
57.8
55.1
57.0
71.5
0.1
"*6.T
61.8
60.7
65.3
61.1
3.6
12.6
5.7
10.0
3.7
5.3
7.8
1.3
10.8
1.6
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.3
1.3
1.4
7.1
3.6
1.8
10.1
8.8
4.2
6.6
6.2
0.4
2.5
6.9
0.3
2.2
4.2
4.1
7.3
0.5
0.3
v
0.7
3.1
5,2
2.5
2.5
6.6
7.0
12.9
4.5
8.6
8.5
9.7
12.3
11.1
9.6
64.4
61.5
77.8
65.3
62.6
20.1
5.3
10.3
5.0
17.5
51.2
15.5
33.2 L62.4
11.9
66.6
29.7
59.1
19.9
61.3
3.2
5.4
6.5
5.5
4.1
17.0
5.8
9.7
5.0
18.3
23.6
26.4
17.1
30.4
16.2
84.5
110.3
94.0
98.9
104.5
4.3
2.0
9,1
6.2
4.1
10.9
6.1
3.1
11.0
13.0
8.1
8.4
68.2
65.9
62.8
71.9
12.7
17.0
11.5
4.5
19.1 1 51.8
47.7
17.1
25.7
54.3
23.6
61.1
3.9
4.0
4.4
1.9
10.4
13.4
10.7
4.1
33.9
35.0
30.6
29.9
81.7
78.4
93.4
91.9
5.3
20.1
43.5
21.3
26.5
60.3
89.4
72.9
97.4
88.1
68.5
56.2
50.5
67.4
49.2
3.7
1.5
2.6
6.2
4.5
2.2
7.9
4.5
4.9
16.2
5.6
11.7
20.7
2.8
7.0
29.6
22.6
25.2
41.5
73.7
88.9
111.5
79.4
GROUP n.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OP 300,000 TO 500,000 IN 1912.
10
11
12
13
14
60.6
68.6
67.9
55.8
49.5
^iff fl 1ft,N,Y.. tl
Milwaukee, Wis
Cincinnati, Ohio
Los Angeles, Cal
15 Newark, N . I
16
17
18
^.
46.8
65.0
36.6
65.4
0.6
0.6
6.1
9.4
9.8
9.2
6.5
4.8
10.8
6.1
2.5
19.7
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.2
1.0
2.9
6.0
4.6
2.4
6.5
6.9
3.2
2.3
3.4
2.6
3.8
1.7
0.7
17.3
1.8
6.7
11.8
9.9
5.6
9.6
2.7
12.4
0.2
1.3
0.6
0.4
13.2
5.4
42.9
4.0
3.3
2.9
2.7
3.5
6.5
2.6
0.4
3.0
8.7
p
i.
9.1
13.5
13.1
9.8
4.2
5.8
10.6
22.6
19.3
16.6
42.1 j
80.5
71.2
75.7
65.0
49.8
8.9
6.2
5.0
18.4
8.1
79.7
63.8
64.5
64.8
4.4
15.9
13.0!
23.2
33.0
2.5
8.8 - 26.4
66.6
51.9
70.7
53.6
32.6
Si
GROUP TIL-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OP 100,000 TO 300,000 IN 1912.
19 Jersey City. N . J
20 Seattle, Wash..
21 Kansas City, Mo
22
23
, ,*
44.5
34.4
38.9
54.4
66.0
0)
0.3
0.3
8.7
3.4
6.5
7.8
5.2
3.0
35.2
35.0
17.1
1.3
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.1
13.8
8.3
1.6
16.2
0.5
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.1
2.6
6.6
1.6
3.8
2.5
10.0
22.3
15.5
12.3
0.4
13.9
69.3
48.0
48.6
58.3
65.0
20.7
15.8
4.3
3.1
11.5
60.9
10.0
35.8
36.2
47.1 j 40.8
62.4
38.6
68.4
23.5
5.2
5.6
5.1
0.5
5.2
19.7 14.2
13.6 45.0
4.1 1 50.0
3.4 33.8
13.0 13.3
95.3
86.2
94.4
107.8
113.3
34.9
16.5
14.4
7.2
8.6
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.9
4.8
1.9
3.1
5.0
3.9
0.6
1.3
5.6
1.2
2.6
2.1
,4.6
4.9
3.0
3.7
8.8
11.2
0.5
13.0
10.2
35.4
68.8
74.2
62.7
70.0
13.5
9.3
5.8
9.9
11.5
51.1
21.9
20.0
27.4
18.5
24.6
49.2
50.0
54.8
62.8
2.7
3.9
0.5
4.3
4.5
10.4
7.2
3.9
9.3
11.0
62.3
39.7
45.6
31.6
21.6
77.2
77.1
68.0
94.2
96.2
Portland, Oreg...
Rochester, N . Y
Denver, C o l o . . . . . . . . . . . .
Louisville, Ky
St. Paul, irinn
29 Columbus, Ohio
30 Toledo, Ohio
31 Oakland, Cal.....
32
33 Worcester, Mass
GO. 3
60.3
5.5
4.0
6.7
10.0
9.7
56.0
62.4
51.5
53.3
64.1
' 7.4
8.0
5.4
0.4
8.7
2.2
5.0
11.1
11.0
26.2
14.2
4.4
0.3
0.1
1.4
2.5
0.1
2.1
2.3
13.8
2.8
1.2
6.3
1.1
1.0
4.5
6.3
3.8
6.4
0.5
1.7
6.6
13.0
9.6
0.3
11.9
11.1
66.5
56.8
46.9
60.7
71.8
13.6
11.6
4.4
6.0
11.0
51.4
19.9
31,6 ! 42.4
39.6
48.7
33.3
55.1
63.4
17.2
6.7
5.2
0.1
5.7
2.8
11.9 30.0
9.7 42.7
3.7 56.6
6.0 j 33.1
10.1 23.7
34
36
36
37
38
Birmingham, Ala
Syracuse, N. Y
New Haven, Conn.
25.4
5.2
7.2
7.0
15.4
18.9
12.3
1.9
15.0
10.8
3.4
0.2
1.0
0.7
0.6
10.5
2.2
3.4
8.9
6.5
4.5
1.2
2.0
3.7
0.4
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.2
3.4
1.8
11.3
0.1
13.8
C1)
63.2
70.5
77.9
61.0
73,0
21.3
12.1
5.5
16.5
9.4
15.5
17.4
16.6
22.5
17.6
52.2
65.3
76.8
41.8
68.7
1.4
3.3
0.1
5.7
Scran ton, Pa
34.3
66.1
81.7
49.7
60.8
18.0
11.8
6.5
12.8
8.8
39
40
41
42
43
Richmond, Va.
Paterson,N. J
Omaha, Nebr
Fall River, Mass
Spokane, Wash...
58.5
60.1
61.1
72,1
36.9
0.3
0.4
5.7
10.3
14.9
6.4
5.2
1.8
4.7
11.4
0.5
28.5.
0.8
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.5
2.6
16.8
2.1
0.3
11.8
0.9
2.8
1.5
2.2
4.0
6.8
4.8
7.8
5.1
1.5
su
22.5
61.8
70.7
63.9
70.7
47.5
13.2
10.4
16.9
12.6
15.9
25.0
18.9
19.2
16.7
36.6
47.8
62.5
19.5
65.1
29,4
9.4
2.4
4.2
2.7
12.2
9.2
6.8
12.4
10.7
44
45 Grand Rapids, Mich.....
46 Nashville, Tenn....
47
0
48
67.6
57.7
50.9
79.1
72.6
4.4
3.2
4.6
8.1
1.8
1.8 - 5.5
9.3
21.2
1.4
4.0
1.9
0.2
0.3
0.8
0,7
0,3
3.1
1.3
16.2
2.9
0,2
1.6
3.7
2.0
1.6
2.8
3.5
1.5
9.0
1.8
3.4
74.5
75.9
64.1
73.2
73.3
11.2
7.7
12.1
4.3
9.1
14.3
16.4
23.8
22.5
17.6
58.5
51.3
51.0
75.6
67.0
4.8
3.5
4.4
0.1
5.9
9.5
5.6
10.5
4.5
9.1
49
50
51 New Bedford, Mass
62 Hartford, Conn....
53 Dallas, Tex.
64 Trenton, N. J
65 Albany. N . Y
,...
56 Salt Lake City, U t a h . . . .
74,0
82.4
74.2
73.8
1.1
0.8
1.8
1.3
0.2
3.3
3.4
2.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
0.1
1.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
9.4
0.6
2.0
2.7
1.6
2.2
1.6
5.8
0.3
3.9
4.1
66.8
62.6
66.8
61.6
20.3
9.7
13.1
9.6
27.7 i
20.1
62.0
68.4
46.3
28.8 | 58.4
4.1 I 20.1
0.7 10.8
3.8
9.8
3.3
9.6
13.8
20.1
40.1
28.7
99.0
110.4
75.0
100.2
63.1
45.2
61.8
46.6
0.5
1.8
6.9
6.4
12.0
16.8
14.1
8.1
16.9
0.9
0.4
0.1
0.4
4.9
12.5
2.3
10.8
1.1
1.1
0.5
1.2
2.3
6.0
3.7
0.6
53.4
65.1
78.0
55.7
7.2
14.1
9.8
11.9
39.4
20.8
12.2
32.4
6.4
4.8
7.7
5.8
5.5
12.9
7.0
12.8
53.8
27.5
37.1
27.4
76.2
91.6
71.7
107.4
24
25
26
27
28
u^^ ^:::::::
42.9
60.3
64.4
1.4
2.2
2.3
0.7
10.6
11.6
10.3
11.2
15.3
tt.
14.0
0.8
11.9
12.2
9.0
13.3
17.1
10.8
1 Less than one-twentieth of 1 per cent.
12.9
34.4
54.8
48.3
64.0
<>)
87.3
83.9
84.6
100.2
92.3
84.8
28.4
97.4
19.6
17.6
98.8
39.6
77.9
22.5
94.1
92.6
30.6
28.2
88.4
72.2
34.4
18.4
97.9
57.2
67.5
27.2
85.0
39.7
72.1
34.1 i 86.4
19.8 103.5
18.0
99.4
172
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
TABLE 6 . - P E R CENT DISTRIBUTION, BY PRINCIPAL CLASSES, OF REVENUE RECEIPTS AND GOVERNMENTAL
COST PAYMENTS: 1912.—Continued.
1f For
a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states; with the nnmber assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 77. For amounts on
which percentages are based, see Table 4.]
FEB CENT Or GOVERNMENTAL COST
PAYMENTS REPRESENTED BY—
REVENUE RECEIPTS.
Per cent obtained from—
Taxes.
City
num-|
ber.
Prop
erty.
Poll.
Sub
ven
Special
tions, Earn*
Busi ments
grants, ings
Fines, gifts,
ness
and forfeits,]
of
and
dona
and
es tions, general
non- [special
depart-!
cheats.
busi- charges
and
for
pension! ments.
out
lays.
ments.
Percent
required for
meeting—
Highr
way
privi
leges,
rents,
and
inter
est.
Earn
ings
of
public
service
enter
prises.
Ex-
Inter
est.
Payments for—
Per
cent
avail
able
for
out
lays
and
other
pur-
Ex
ExReve
penses]
nue
of , Inter Out
of
re
gener public) est. lays. ceipts.
al de- Iservlcef
part- enter
prises.!
GROUP IV.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 50,000 TO 100,000 IN 1912,
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
Reading, Pa
Camden, N. J
Springfield, Mass
Tacoma, Wash
Lynn, Mass
Des Moines, Iowa.....
Lawrence, Mass
,
Wilmington, Del
Kansas City, Kans...
YonkerSjN.Y
60.3
48.7
71.2
31.4
70.1
Youngstown, Ohio...
Houston, Tex
Fort Worth, Tex
Duluth, Minn
Norfolk, Va
52.7
70.2
52.3
52.6
54.9
Oklahoma City, Okla,
Schenectady, N. Y . . .
Somervfile, Mass....".
St. Joseph, Mo
Utica,N.Y
31.2
62.5
69.1
66.6
68.4
Elizabeth, N. J
Waterbury, Conn
Troy,N.Y.
Akron, Ohio
Manchester, N. H
54.9
65.2
74.0
56.8
66.6
0.9
2.0
Hoboken,N. J
Wilkes-Barre, Pa
Erie, Pa
.*.;....
Evansville, Ind
Peoria, III
50.1
67.5
53.1
51.0
65.7
0.1
3.7
1.0
0.4
Fort Wayne, Ihd
Harrisburg, Pa
Savannah, Ga
East St. Louis, HI....
Jacksonville, Fla
South Bend, Ind
Terre Haute, Ind
Passaic, N. J
.
Johnstown, Pa
Bayonne, N. J
Brockton, Mass
Portland, Me
Holyoke, Mass
Charleston. 8. C
Wichita, Kans
Allentown, Pa
Springfield, 111
Covington, Ky
Altoona, Pa
Pawtucket, R. I
Canton, Ohio
Mobile, Ala
Sacramento, Cal
Saginaw, Mich
Sioux City, Iowa
Binghamton, N. Y . . .
Atlantic City, N . J . . .
41.4
53.0
46.1
46.5
30.9
55.8
70.3
55.7
73.1
45.3
70.1
55.4
51.8
59.3
55.4
61.9
56.5
57.4
67.0
61.7
58.5
28.7
49.0
59.4
55.5
65.0
56.9
1.8
0.5
75.3
75.7
66.3
57.3
74.6
2.7
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.1
1.9
1.2
0.5
0.2
0.2
2.2
2.4
1.4
1.7
3.2
0.4
0)
6.8
10.1
3.9
3.5
0.4
1.8
4.0
1.3
25.6
2.5
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
6.5
12.6
0.2
10.6
0.6
0.9
0.9
3.9
0.8
3.7
1.5
5.3
2.2
2.4
3.3
19.3
17.5
15.4
25.3
16.6
72.5
81.4
69.7
48.7
73.8
6.0
12.6
8.2
16.5
10.7
21.5
6.0
22.1
34.8
15.5
66.3
71.2
56.4
21.5
56.6
7.4
5.8
6.1
9.0
9.8
6.1
11.9
7.4
10.4
9.6
20.2
11.2
30.2
59.1
24.0
101.6
94.5
89.7
62.8
89.9
6.8
7.0
0.6
3.3
4.5
11.5
1.9
5.2
21.6
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.1
2.1
0.4
4.1
2.3
2.1
0.8
2.4
1.7
0.2
0.4
2.0
1.2
1.0
2.4
1.1
J0.7
9.5
20.6
12.2
10.4
69.8
73.3
73.1
44.3
73.9
5.5
7.8
13.1
15.3
15.3
24.7
18.9
13.8
40.4
10.8
52.8
76.8
63.6
35.7
50.1
1.4
*.5
4.3
4.5
4.2
8.7
12.7
13.8
1L3
41.6
9.6
16.3
46.2
34.1
77.6
111.4
97.2
90.2
73.9
9.8
2.6
1.8
10.2
22.9
17.9
26.1
9.2
0.8
1.3
0.7
0.8
0.1
2.2
6.6
4.2
3.4
3.1
1.8
2.7
1.6
0.9
0.8
2.1
1.7
1.6
0.4
5.3
12.7
14.5
11.7
22.5
12.8
59.9
60.8
50.0
59.1
65.4
7.7
17.3
12.9
12.8
21.3
32.4
21.9
37.1
28.1
13.3
47.8
48.0
24.9
45.3
54.4
5.1
4.6
9.4
11.7
7.1
6.8
15.2
8.9
12.4
20.0
40.3
31.3
56.8
30.7
18.6
88.3
87.9
68.7
96.3
94.0
0.9
6.5
0.2
11.4
7.2
57.2
15.0
3.4
15.6
10.0
2.0
0.3
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.7
2.5
0.8
3.3
2.5
2.1
1.1
9.5
1.2
10.4
1.0
2.0
0.8
0.9
1.2
4.9
10.1
14.1
0.3
0.1
32.3
57.6
75.2
63.8
66.1
16.0
11.6
10.7
7.5
6.4
51.7
30.8
14.1
28.7
27.5
27.9
52.0
71.5
66.9
75.9
2.7
4.7
3.2
0.2
15.2
n.4
54.2
31.9
14.7
25.1
16.8
94.9
98.4
99.2
105.1
114.7
12.1
5.9
5.6
8.2
12.9
9.9
9.3
5.9
8.0
14.6
7.5
3.7
2.9
15.1
0.1
0.4
0.8
16.8
4.0
3.5
3.7
1.0
2.1
1.1
0.6
1.6
0.9
5.3
1.8
LI
3.4
4.4
0.1
15.4
12.3
10.2
12.9
65.5
71.0
66.5
65.9
70.4
11.8
10.1
11.6
11.0
5.9
22.7
18.9
21.9
23.1
23.7
68.0
58.5
61.3
26.2
55.4
0.2
2.1
4.0
1.8
5.0
12.2
8.6
11.4
4.7
5.4
19.6
30.7
23.3
67.3
30.3
104.2
85.5
98.3
42.5
91.3
17.5
5.8
5.1
12.0
1.9
0.7
0.2
1.4
0.5
2.1
4.2
0.6
2.8
2.0
1.2
17.3
0.1
23.9
12.2
0.3
97.7
72.8
59.5
55.7
66.3
8.9
8.4
3.9
5.6
4.1
18.8
36.6
38.7
29.6
66.5
53.3
55.0
49.2
63.1
14.5
0.2
6.4
7.4
6.2
4.0
5.7
3.9
11.6
40.3
34.5
37.5
32.7
82.9
73.5
103.2
101.0
95.5
6.9
4.0
14.0
1.6
6.7
5.9
12.4
21.0
5.7
15.0
0.8
0.1
1.3
1.1
1.9
0.5
1.4
2.7
1.7
1.4
8.6
2.5
1.4
1.5
0.9
0.4
1.8
0.7
0.5
2.1
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.6
2.8
1.8
1.5
1.3
2.8
1.4
18.2
12.6
12.6
54.9
51.1
65.4
74.7
64.1
55.3
78.2
95.6
73.2
62.1
69.7
58.1
72.7
71.8
40.8
60.8
68.6
74.3
58.1
67.6
60.4
47.2
58.0
64.7
53.5
72.3
64.5
2.7
7.8
9.7
12.9
6.5
4.1
3.7
11.5
5.9
11.8
10.7
17.9
8.2
18.5
14.3
7.2
6.4
14.7
13.5
20.3
11.1
18.7
2.7
8.3
6.9
4.0
18.8
45.8
43.1
60.5
52.1
35.3
52.0
70.7
67.1
75.7
51.5
63.2
51.0
49.8
75.0
39.2
61.5
59.4
61.6
50.3
56.4
48.3
46.1
52.5
62.7
51.8
63.8
42.8
13.4
3.9
7.0
3.0
7.2
10.0
9.0
37.9
45.8
22.5
38.8
48.3
38.9
23.9
24.9
18.1
22.1
21.7
27.2
19.6
4.5
46.4
22.9
28.9
19.2
34.0
18.0
36.7
25.4
41.4
21.8
37.2
25.5
40.7
107.8
92.1
103.2
69.873.2
102.9
92.9
70.2
103.5
105.4
97.4
95.8
99.4
105.7
97.2
113.4
94.8
90.8
92.1
93.3
88.5
113.2
95.2
107.1
103.9
97.5
71.2
39.2
60.5
31.3
29.3
15.8
15.9
30.9
32.5
33.6
10.5
19.5
13.0
20.9
32.6
29.9
84.5
75.1
76.9
87.9
94.1
105.7
98.0
76.2
77.4
103.5
110.0
107.3
104.4
08.8
89.2
4.6
4.5
15.3
19.1
9.6
11.9
10.4
11.1
11.1
. 3.7
0.3
2.7
4.3
13.4
2.2
6.4
12.2
8.4
5.4
4.7
9.4
15.6
6.1
4.0
8.1
5.4
13.5
aa6.6,
13.8
13.4
24.9
22.2
7.5
31.5
6.7
14.5
1.4
4.2
1.0
11.8
3.4
1.8
0.8
0.1
38.9
6.0
12.4
4.1
3.4
1.4
13.2
23.5
21.1
18.2
17.5
7.7
2.0
<v.o
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.8
0.2
0.2
1.8
0.2
2.2
0.1
0.2
1.0
2.2
0.2
0.7
0.1
0.3
6.4
0.8
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.2
1.8
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.5
0.3
13.4
0.2
15.4
0.9
5.7
1.7
10.0
5.2
0.9
3.1
11.6
11.1
3.9
3.3
3.0
7.8
8.5
0.7
1.4
4.1
2.9
3.0
2.8
3.8
3.7
3.5
0.6
1.1
2.1
1.2
2.8
6.0
2.8
1.5
0.2
1.7
1.8
1.6
6.6
10.0
2.4
0.1
19.6
11.4
19.0
35.8
0.5
0.4
15.1
12.6
17.9
15.3
22.7
11.8
15.9
10.6
11.0
10.5
15.4
11.1
42.4
41.1
24.9
12.4
29.4
40.6
18.1
£}..
26.1
19.6
24.0
19.1
9.7
44.9
32.0
25.0
11.0
28.4
12.1
28.5
34.1
38.4
27.0
39.6
23.7
16.7
S:S
5.0
1.9
1.0
14.0
4.7
4.7
22.4
0.4
0.5
7.5
5.6
5.9
3.3
6.6
5.2
7.3
3.5
6.5
3.8
6.8
3.1
10.6
7.9
7.3
'4.8
4.2
3.5
8.1
6.1
12.4
10.5
17.1
8.2
19.6
13.9
8.1
6.0
13.3
12.4
19.0
0.8
21.2
2.6
8.9
7.2
3.9
13.4
GROUP V.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912.
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
12S
RockfordjUl
75.6
0.9
Little Rock, Ark.
35.5
11.2
43.3
Augusta, Ga
11.7
57.4
Springfield Ohio.
8.0
54.2
Lancaster, P a . . . .
0.3
8.4
11.4
Pueblo, Colo.
53.9
3.3
New Britain, Conn....
65.3
2.1
10.7
Chattanooga, Tenn....
57.4
6.7
York, Pa
64.6
0.9
0.2
Maiden, Mass
71.6
2.3
Berkeley, Cal
56.2
2.2
Bay City. Mich
6S.0
5.5
Haverhill, Mass
64.6
5.8
2.5
Topeka, Kans
61.6
2.5
Salem, Mass
73.0
0.5
2.1
2
Less than one-twentieth of 1 per cent.
7.0
35.0
2.4
10.1
0.3
4.0
4.2
9.0
11.6
3.8
14.5
6.3
2.9
19.1
2.4
0.8
3.3
1.4
0.5
0.1
0.9
1.2
2.0
0.3
0.2
0.3
<*>
0.4
0.4
0.6
1.6
9.9
15.1
4.0
7.2
4.8
3.4
14.6
9.8
0.4
23.0
1.5
1.7
1.6
0.7
1.6
3.4
5.5
3.1
0.3
0.7
3.6
4.8
0.7
6.6
1.5
0.8
4.2
2.3
4.4
1.4
0.9
2.2
4.8
2.0
0.6
1.5
1.1
5.4
5.1
1.9
1.3
5.7
1.2
2.2
11.2
0.9
18.4
12.1
27.2
23.8
15.5
0.4
0.1
10.8
0.3
16.6
12.2
11.3
14.2
66.4
5.5
28.1
4.6
48.7
7.4
47.4
5.2
3.9
47.4
34.9
0.7
80.2
9.2
10.6
7.1
55.6
6.1
70.2
10.1
8.9
19.7
57.5
4.2
80.6
10.4
8.5
9.0
58.4 17.4
62.8
16.7
20.5
54.0 12.4 17.6
56.2
14.2
13.9
61.8
29.6
3.4
70.3
18.3
14.0
11.4
52.9
0.7
74.2
11.6
9.0
57.4
14.2
71.7
14.7
13.6
69.8
4.6 15.2
0.2
67.7
4.9
27.4
74.8
5.4
72.7
8.4
9.0
18.9
65.5 12.5
4.2 10.5
65.7
10.1
24.2
64.4
57.0
11.2
5.3
11.1
31.8
51.0
5.8
72.7
5.2
21.5
59.2
5.6
* Payments for expanses and interest are In excess of revenue receipts.
GENERAL TABLES.
173
TABLE 6.—PER CENT DISTRIBUTION, BY PRINCIPAL CLASSES, OF REVENUE RECEIPTS AND GOVERNMENTAL
COST PAYMENTS: 1912-Continued.
(For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by stales, with the number assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 77. For amounts on
which percentages are based, see Table 4.J
2EB CENT OF GOVERNMENTAL COST
PAYMENTS REPRESENTED BY—
REVENUE EECELPTS.
Per cent obtained from—
Taxes.
City
num
ber.
CUT*
Busi
ness
and
non*
Poll. busi
ness
li
cense.
Prop
erty.
Special
assess
ments
and
special
charges
for
out
lays.
Fines,
forfeits,
and es
cheats.
Sub
ven
tions,
grants,
gifts/
dona
tions,
and
pension
assess
ments.
Per cent
required for
meetingHigh
way
privi
leges,
rents,
and
inter
est.
Earn
ings
of
general
depart
ments.
Earn-
Payments for—
Per
cent
avail
able
Ex
Ex
Reve
for 1 penses penses
nue
out- i of
of Inter Out
re
lays
public est. lays. ceipts.
public Ex Inter and ] gener
al de- service
service penses. est.
other ; part- enter
enter
pur ments. prises.
prises.
poses.
*2t
GROUP V.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912--Contimie<3l.
61.5
74.1
58.7
46.4
55.5
129 Lincoln, Kebr.
130
131 El Paso, Tex
132 Ban Diego, Cal
133
134
135
136
137
138
65.6
67.9
64.0
59.6
j 65.9
McKeesport, Pa...'.
Flint, Mich..
1 Racine, Wis
Superior, Wis
LI
.
13d Wheejlng, W. Va.
140
141 Newton, Mass
142 Butte, Mont
143
5.9
6.0
2.4
8.3
11.4
13.0
13.8
9.0
21.1
1.6
0.3
0.5
2.0
0.9
3.5
2.3
2.1
5.2
7.1
21.3
4.9
4.6
5.8
11.3
12.0
4.6
6.1
16.3
11.4
14.3
1.1
0.5
0.3
0.9
2.5
4.7
1.1
0.8
9.1
3.5
54.8
31.1
!' 77.2
57.9
59.9 j
0.4
0.4
1.1
2.4
0.4
9.0
12.4
0.1
10.3
7.2
0.2
11.3
3.2
10.4
1.9
1.7
3.1
0.1
1.2
0.1
0.9
1.9
3.6
1.2
5.3
1
i
1
,
2.9
12.1
0.5
18.0
14.2
0.8
1.0 j 0.4
54.2
64.5
60.1
51.0
65.8
7.0
3.2
10.0
7.3
•8.0
LI
!•!
18.6
11.9
10.6
14.3
61.6
66.3
74.8
59.2
58.4
27.0
11.3
8.5
9.6
24.1
13.2
7.7
12.5
5.4
8.4
0.1
0.7
2.2
0.3
1.5
29.2
6.8
3.6
3.4
2.0
0.5
2.2
2.9
1.3
1.7
4.1
2.4
2.5
1.3
0.3
0.6
1.1
1.0
0.4
100.6
91.4
62.4
76.8
45.8
154
155
156
257
158
East Orange, N. J
Hamilton, Ohio...
Lexington, Ky
Springfield, Mo
59.1
42.7
46.4
61.6
45.2
2.3
9.3
8.6
16.1
9.5
2.7
8.9
11.4
13.0
37.7
0.2
2.7
0.5
0.4
13.8
9.2
3.4
6.5
2.5
2.0
2.7
1.0
0.7
1.2
4.9
1.5
2.3
1.0
1.9
14.4
22.7
27.0
0.7
0.5
159
160
161
162
163
Quincy,ni...
Charlotte. N. C
Joliet.IlK
Pasadena, Cal
Auburn, N. Y
73.0
47.5
56.7
45.7
57.0
15.5
7.7
21.0
0.0
5.4
2.6
6.2
10.9
31.2
12.6
0.6
1.4
0.5
0.2
0.3
2.3
12.1
1.5
8.0
3.1
2.0
1.4
0.6
1.5
1.3
3.9
1.3
2.0
2.8
0.8
164
165
166
167
168
Everett, Mass
Decatur, 111...
Portsmouth, Va
Perth Amboy, N. J
Taunton, Mass
2.2
73.4
60.7
51.0
40.1 *"6.*2*
1.3
57.5
0.1
1.2
0.9
0.5
0.2
0.2
1.7
6.6
11.7
0.4
2.5
1.0
1.4
0.9
4.1
169
170
171
172
173
Quincy, Mass..
Lansing. Mich
Pittsfleld, Mass
Oshkosh,Wis
71.0
52.6
70.3
58.8
74.8
0.2
3.0
10.5
13.8
17.0 . . . . . . . .
12.4
3.3
4.5
0.3
4.9
0.7
7.6
4.7
4.4
8.7
17,9
8.6
5.3
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.3
6.1
0.2
1.8
6.2
2.1
0.9
2.0
0.6
1.3
0.5
3.1
174
175
176
177
178
San Jose, Cal
Amsterdam, N. Y
Jamestown, N. Y
Mount Vernon, N. Y . . . .
Niagara Falls, N . Y , ,,
50.3
68.5
56.4
70.6
62.4
9.0
7.1
2,8
3.2
4.8
14.6
1.6
11.1
7.1
11.8
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
21.5
2.7
3.5
2.5
1.4
3.8
0.9
1.5
11.7
0.9
67.8
73.0
53.1
52.0
36.7
5.2
7.7
13.5
8.2
1.5
10.2
2.8
21.8
13.5
37.1
0.5
0.3
1.7
1.0
3.6
0.8
7.3
4.3
3.'4
3.9
1.3
9.0
20.6
18.5
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.5
0)
8.9
6.6
2.6
0.8
29.6
11.8
26.6
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
Chelsea, Mass
j NewRocheile,N.Y
Aurora, HI
Lorain, Ohio*
Austin, Tex
Newport, Ky
Orange, N.J.
La Crosse, Wis
192
193
194 Colorado Springs, Colo...
195 Council BlunVJowa..-.
72.4
82.2
54.5
51.1
47.8
55.4
52.6
64.8
55.2
46.8
51.3
49.6
1.6
0.2
0.7
0,7!
"*6.T
J
3.8
3.2
9.3
10.0
1.5
8.3
6.7
8.0
20.5
6.5 j
4.6 |
3.7|
* Less than one-twentieth of 1 per cent.
89.3
59.9
£0.0
108.4
101.7
0.5
4.9
4.3
0.1
3.9
7.2
10.4
1.2
3.1
33.5
3.1
20.9
53.5
33.3
25.5
16.2
2.9
1.8 !
4.2
0.5
6.9
8.S
35.7
23.5
15.3
16.4
11.4
22.4
16.7
31.2
17.5
14.2
3.6
16.7
7.3
6.6
■
24.1
6.8
6.8
10.4
24.5
7.0
3.1
17.0
6,5
22.2
0.3
:
7.2
7.6
7.5
84.2
61.2
59.5
78.2
61.4
44.4
73.3
69.3
82.3
47.9
:
87.2
20.5
46.2 i 83,7
12.9 I 113,9
10.3 105.9
16.1 | 100.3
27.8
18.7
8,6
West Hoboken, N. J, .
Newcastle, P a . . . . . . . . . .
Roanoke, Va
Elmira,N.Y
Huntington, W. Va
:
6.1
2.6
19.4
6.9
22.3
2.4
3.2
6.2
1.1
5.4
149
150
151
152
153
179 Jackson, Mich
180!
181 & : . ! ! : : : :
182 Luna, Ohio
183 Muskogee, Okla
16.6
6.1
2.3
1.3
3.8
2,3
2.1
3.3
3.0
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.5
2.0
1| 56.8
1 45.1
65.4
82.8
58.2
7.9
26.4!
21.7
31.4
22.4
15,0
11.6
2.8
9.2
0.3
2.0
7.7 100 2
42.7
77 9
31.3 | 87.8
32.6| 98.3
28.8 j 91.7
9.1
7.7
8.0
5.8
6.2
18.9
7.0
5.0
5.6
3.4
1.5
9.1
6.0
7.0
5.7
5.6
83.0
65.9
70.3
62.8
71.4
1.6
2.6
2.2
1.1
14.8
4.8
7.3
1.7
15.1
13.9
9.6
1.7
35.8
64.3
GS.9
72.1
56.2
1.1
68.3
46.6
54.4
60.0
65.5
2.2
Montgomery, Ala.
Chester, Pa
Fitchburg, Mass
I'ubuque, Iown
C alveston, Tex
0.6
0.3
40.5
39.4
35.7
46.7
19.7
1.3
1.2
3.7
1.1
144
145
146
147
14S
0.5
5.5
6.8 !
0.4
2.9 j
10.6 1 9.2!
8.1
6.7
0.3
8.7
1.8 1
4.5 1
2.1
2.3
0.6
2.2
13.1
1.2
14.6
1.6
3.8
7.5
0.4
2.0
14.4
'
47.1
38.8
57.3
32.3
29.9 i 44.5
41.7 1 33.5
26.2 1 71.2
20.1
0)
i 47.1
! 39.7
52.7
56.5
51.8
(s>
3.4
7.9
0)
97.2
89.5
91 6
91 4
108.7
0,9
25,1
17.8
45.8 j
71.8
56.5
60.2
68.2
39.0
0.2
0.5
1.3
0.5
9.4
4.8
12.2
4.9
7.3
18.8
3S.5
27.1
25.7
53.2
71,4
62.1
97.2
90.5
86.3
74.2
53.3
67.9
65.5
47.1
10.7
15.1
19.9 ' 26.8
17.1
15.0
9.1
25.4
0.5
52.4 !
50.6
50.2
48.7
59.7
46.5
5.5
8.1
16.4
0.2
0.4
11.4
21.8
14.4
8.4
0.5
32.5
19.8
20.5
31.7
52.7
75.5
109.5
95.9
91.6
99.4
0.2
20.9
6.8
9.8
19.4
61.2
64.9
66.9
51.6
85.6
5.0
15.3
3.6
2.5
8.2
33.8
19.8;
29.5;
45.9
6.2
82.1
31.4
54.S
38.3
60.6
0.3
7.0
8.9
5.6
7.4
6.7
9.1
3.5
2.2
6.5
10.9
52.5
32.8
54.0
25.5
134.7
59.2
95.2
84.9
79.4
2.7
1.0
21.8
2.3
5.1
15.7
10.0
1.3
24.6
23.6
69.2
5S.5
68.6
74.8
67.4
15.5
5.2
22.0
15.2
12.2
15.3
36.3
9.4
10.0
20.4
63.8
50.4
42.4
53.2
56.8
4.9
6.6
0.8
7.4
13.8
15.4
5.1
13.8
12.3
12.8
15.8
38.0
43.0
27.1
16.6
99.4
97.3
62.9
81.0
104.8
3.0
16.0
31.3
14.8
11,2
0.2
64.0
62.4
69.6
50.9
67.0
17.2
2.8
11.8
6.1
3.9
18.8
34.8
18.6
43.0
29.1
53.3
57.6
44.7
41.8
71.0
3.2
19.0
2.5
5.5
0.6
15.1
3.5
8.0
5.7
4.2
23.4
19.9
44.7
46.9
24.2
88.2
122.7
67.9
93.1
•106.9
0.2
0.2
1.3
4.7
10.3
18.6
-23.1
5.5
10.1
9.6
11.7
10.9
25.5!
25.1
28,3 j
3.5
39.0
64.7
68.2
43.7
66.6
38.1
4.6
9.0
8.6
69.0
64.8
62.1
84.8
50.1
4,0
5.1
11.3
8.1
9.2
9.2
30.2
15.9
39.2
24.2
48.6
93.7
112.2
84.7
78.6
84.2
4.1
1.4
1.4
1.2
2.2
0.2
1.4
0.8
3.0
2.2
11.2
3.1
3.4
17.6
12.8
68.4
67.0
53.8
56.6
51.5
4.8
4.2
3.6
12.3
24.9
26.8
28.8
42.6'
31.1
23.6
53.5
82.6
56.5
61.5
21.2
4.0
0.2
3.7
6.8
3.2
4.0
5.2
4.0
14.9
11.8
38.5
12.0
35.8
16.8
63.8
1.9
1.8
2.7
2.3
1.7
1.3
0.6
3.9
1.6
1.8
2.2
14,2
0.3
10.1
14.3
65.1
59.1
56.3
66.2
16.6
14.2
7.0
15.2
18.3
26.7
36.7
18.6
59.9
53.8
39.2
44.1
2.5
0.2
4.5
5.9
16.0
13.0
5.4
11.5
21.6
33.0
50.9
38.5
84.0
123.5
111.9
120.7
47.4
96.0
91.4
77.5
75.5
1.2
0.2
0.6
0.3
6.1
9.7
14,8
8.8
1.3
2.1
1.8.
LI
3.1
0.5
6.5
4.8
38.9
14.9
10.2
9.6
57.6
62.7
71.8
65.2
11.6
11.1
22.5
9.1
43.9
30.8
26.2
51.6
5.7 I 61.5
25.7
59.3
17.7
9.5
6.5
4.9
1.0
3.0
0.2
0.4
4.7
3.8
8.6
1.7
1.3
1.2
2.2
1.7
. 4.3
3.2
0.2
2.8 "
11.6
5.2
21.1
13.1
49.5
64.4
64.9
53.3
17.3
6.1
10.8
5.8
33,2
43.6
29.5 j 33.5
24.3 1 53.3
26.3
40.9
12.5 25.9 j 107.0
10.8 1 28.1
97.5
21.3 1 10.7
94.6
9,0 26.9
98.3
2.3 16.0 38.2
92.7
0.7 1 3.2 62.5
53.1
9.8 31,8
5.1
90.0
3.3 65.8
57.9
4.6
3 Payments for expenses and interest are in excess of revenue receipts.
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
174
TABLE 7 , — R E V E N U E R E C E I P T S FROM T A X E S , SPECIAL
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number
RECEIPTS FROM TAXES.
Business taxes.
The general property tax.
City
num
ber.
Total.
Total.
Grand t o t a l . .
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
I...
II..
HE.
IV.,
V..,
Orij
Dridnal
levies.
1582,606,121 1512,289,64S| $507,920,329|
320,294,113
69,778,810
H86$,OSS
65,806,562'
41,858,548
2S4,593,77l|
60,684,902{|
82,218,622
48,300,298
36,492,055
281,663,283
60,430,155^
81,711,559
47,963,476|
36,146,856]
Penalties,
Interest,
and
collectors'
fees.
Special
property
taxes.
Other than on liquor
traffic
Poll
taxes.
TotaL
Onliqu
On
liquor
traffic
Collected
without
issue of
license.
Collected
with
issue of
license.
H 369,3191 $12,473,4Sfl |1,592,452|| 152,208,899; $41,142,774 12,562,743 IS,503,380)
2,930,4S»| 8,449,134 ~ 151,362 24,803,328)1 21,250,841 l,I68,Ood 2,334,481
254,747'
936,891 1,518,812]
104,354J 8,155,904' 5,700,201.
297,4961
9,532,67fl
507,063
524,034
1,957,775]
104,325 1,928,52H
7,499,8251
482,6481 £,734,42q| 4,009,861^
984,3ig
331,822
277,934 l,446,62d
330,054] 3,982,570] 2,632,046]
784,772
345,199
75,689 1,224,93d
GROUP I.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 500,000 AND OVER IN 1912.
New York. N . Y .
Chicago. Bl
Philadelphia, Pa.
St. Louis, Mo
Boston, Mass
Cleveland, Ohio..
Baltimore, Md...
Pittsburgh, P a . . .
Detroit, Mich
$158,716,791 $146,172,121 $144,201,045 $1,971,07«
43,074,881
43,198,*™'
123,708
52,641,38"'
22,171,9401
24,770,7L
22,421,
249,OSSl
14,289,14(
11,368,309]
11,493,
125,37a
25,681,25!
21,702,299]
21,857,
154,9S3f
10,895,835!
9,856,57S
14,837,474
8,604,-^
9,355,987!
8,434,84r
13,943,r~
7,717,
9,355,9871
8,287,134
13,828,844
7,672,844
147,714
114,179]
44,362
$5,060,799
$59,884|
666,22W
2,487,822]
9l,478|
$6,630,
8,446,
2,184,91
1,933,001
l,139,04r'
12,23a
168,717
$5,708,2 ,
7,283,015^
1,049,434.
1,137, GST
1,069,3-
$303,95SH
221,172]
636,409]
1,460,5
769,15;
759,3
53,344
$667,9971
942,49a
235,478]
218,903]
69,663]
17,724
113,191
0,466]
70 553
48,47fl
GROUP H.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 300,000 TO 500,000 IN 1912.
Buffalo, N . Y
San Francisco, Cal..
Milwaukee, w i s . . . .
Cincinnati, Ohio....
Los Angeles, Cal....
$9,032,633
10,670,9021
7,847,397
8,561,84(H
8,937,822]
Newark, N.J
New Orleans, La...
Washington, D. C .
Minneapolis, Minn.,
5,561,151
6,157,858]
6,709,153]
6,300,049]
$8,060,117
9,389,674
6,859,937
7,345,477
8,040,304
4,809,715
5,179,496!
5,281,634
5,718,548
$8,015,857
9,374,068
6,845,578
7,342,215
8,037,547
4,741,032]
5,138,370
5,238,992]
5,696,496]
$44,260
15,606
14,359,
3,262
2,757||
$209,745
68,6831
41,126!
42,642
22,052
2,7iq
$721,383
1,227,48$
912,974
1,136,499
772,182)
2,393
$56, OOO;
48,354;]
82,642
662,36^1
900,492'
1,336,590
485,929
$620,344
1,056,145]
458,594
1,037,476
439,576]
591,491
643,0
454,4
$24,430]
112,101
$76,611
171,341
342,279]
99,023
332,006)
748,213
33,137^
56,869
257,394
133,947
43,742
$3,810J
$23,140*
14,010)
GROUP HI.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 100,000 TO 300,000 IN 1912,
Jersey City, N.J..,
Seattle, Wash
Kansas City, Mo...
Indianapolis, Ind..
Providence, R. I . .
$3,261,035
4,307,912
4,449,059
3,653,628
4,403,752'
$2,726,818
3,925,81oT
3,815,871
3,178,940||
4,064,70ffl|
$2,610,4201
3,925,810]
3,802,305]
3,170,252
4,053,919)
Portland, Oreg...
Rochester, N . Y . .
Denver, Colo
Louisville, Ky....
St. Paul, Minn..,
4,661,344
4,083,318]
4,478,436
3,933,022
3,155,738'
4,132,35ffl
3,713,097
4,056,21fl
3,373,634!
2,686,93ffi|
Columbus, Ohio..
Toledo, Ohio
Oakland, Cal
Atlanta, Ga
Worcester, Mass..
2,961,472
2,857,403
3,003,822
2,289,007
2,882,402
$116,
$564
13,
16,757,
21,371
10,784
$126
4,132,35(4
3,683,967]
4,030,483
3,350, lid
2,682,054
29,1301
25,732
23,51ft,
4,876]
119,13a
2,615,453
2,533,667
2,725,320
1,954,047
2,216,108
2,615,453
2,533,667
2,721,335
1,919,353
2,196,923
3,935
34,694
19,180]
1,257,751
2,503,174
2,352,368
1,880,576
1,449,964
723,466
2,253,032
2,067,430
1,649,202
1,124,805
717,102
2,235,171]
2,055,593
1,649,202,
1,121,262
6,364
17,861
11,832
3,543
"40*666
Richmond, Va....
Paterson, N. J....
Omaha, Nebr
Fall River. Mass..
Spokane, Wash...
2,290,924
1,390,973]
2,445,667
1,898,028
1,713,373
2,077,339
1,181,607
1,893,584
1,572,500
1,502,652
2,069,874
1,137,536
1,893,584.
1,560,741
1,502,652.
7,465
44,071
12,196
7,000,
Dayton, Ohio
Grand Rapids, Mich..
Nashville, Tenn
Bridgeport, Conn.
Lowell, Mass
1,588,953
1,386,417
1,154,868
1,663,3921
1,688,9481
1,492,444
1,313,354
1,060,940
1,462,562
1,389,725
1,492,444.
1,307,906
1,053,904
1,452,171
1,365,303
Cambridge, Mass
San Antonio, Tex....
New Bedford, Mass...
Hartford, Conn
2,094,269
1,283,703
2,123,385
2,360,235
1,827,747
1,222,223
1,688,409
1,826,428
1,819,413
1,214,858
1,685,540
1,826,428,
8,334
7,365
2,869
Dallas, Tex.
Trenton, N . J
Albany.N.Y
Salt Lake City, Utah..
1,643,091
1,036,031
1,547,434
1,728,214
1,597,588
890,237
1,324,835
1,357,548
1,575,890
21,698
17,943
8,110
Birmingham, Ala...
Syracuse, N . Y
New Haven, Conn..
37 Memphis, Tenn
Scranton,Pa
872,294
1,316,725
1,357,543.
11,759
5,443
7,036
10,391
24,422
$517,711
374,793
541,087
365,999
302,231
$435,761
320,835]
SOS, 334
341,6001
265,375]
22,681
""ioil
tim
210,023
24,499]
36,747
71, ISO]
101,28H
153,182]
28*857
29,452
468,4621
239,745'
399,79li
515,062
432,6171
397,2321
212,071
293,502]
350,380]
403,760)
293,333
308,547
202,550
374,195
15,609
88,780
312,82<J
3is,osd
252,918
319,351
198,803
66,074]
61,537]
36,263
S0S,SGS
174,6661
173,199,
222,396]
277,931^'
218,000!
150,286
165,546
123,938
264,216
193,374
190,236]
539,3^
147,237]
205,G62JI
95,125
172,400
519,800]
138,406
187,245
33,763
65,7*H
90,006
142,837
115,191
73,009
49,413
19,250
138,347
107,133
5,754
16,367
70,758
3990
8,053
3,506
38,884f
90,270J
73,425
46
33,013
82,928
69,271
3,550
5871
7,329
4,154
44,360
124,496fl
135,553'
332,104
37,593
110,975
124,549
223,452
122,276)
54,698
15,672
144,736
34,1741
38,0001
231,107!
30,504
11,776
46,929
40,016
296,527
418,836
9,355
78,099
*20*6i2
1 Exclusive of receipts from permits issued b y public service enterprises, w h i c h are Included i n Table 11
12,236
36,354
135,5
8,250
3,810
2,962
13
3,155
5,945
14,432
9,543
50 368
282,997
13,274
290,368
16,130]
7653
98,458
13*715
93,249
14,026
16,539
8831
18,417
6,762
10366
5059
103,652
GENERAL TABLES.
175
ASSESSMENTS, FINES, FORFEITS, AND ESCHEATS: 1912.
assigned t o each, see page 20.
For a t e x t discussion of this table, see page 79.]
EECEHTS TBOic TAXES—continued.
RECEIPTS rEOM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND FBOM SPECIAL CHARQES FOB OUTLAYS.
Special assessments for
expenses.
Nonbusiness license taxes.
Paid by persons granted—
Special assessments for outlays.
Penal
ties,
In
terest,
and
collect
ors'
fees.
Total.
Total.
TotaL
Dog
General
licenses. licenses. Permits.*
RECEIPTS FROM FINES, FORFEITS,
AND ESCHEATS.
TotaL
Special
charges
Penalties,
for
outlays.
Original interest,
and ,
levies. [collectors
||
fees.
Court
Total.
and
forfeits.
Com
mer
cial
for
feits.
city
num
ber.
Es-
$4,041,635 $660,197m, 163,632;$2,217,806| 171,685,270] [$2,220,950 !$2,211,53S| $9,412;|$68,401,758 $66,155,774|$2,245,984 1*1^052^562]j$4,243,587| |$3,991,329j1176,350]|$75,908
2,296,51% 221,689
536,154 112,421
634,980 177,82M
304,8Sd 75,729
269,09fl' 72,523
714,171 1,360,659 22,431,870
121,643] 302, OSS 8,686,616]
208,937^ 248,214 23,558,668
62,401 166,756^1 10,324,88a
66,480 140,089' 6,683,228
373,124!
625,392
871,848]
212,683
237,903
360,O7l[
524,118]
871,193
212,365
237,791
7,053]
1,274
655
3181
112]
21,883,364
8,086,156
22,329,618
9,943,9361
6,158,684'
21,019,888
8,009,033
21,612,306
9,457,111
6,057,436
863,476
77,123
717,312
486,825
101,248!
175,382i 1,782,019| 1,664,684) 96,253 21,OS0|
75,068 548,760 463,143 58,867^ 26,750
357,202 828,814 795,177] 19,359 14,278
168,269 551,531 542,067^
232] 9,232)
286,641 532,463 526,258
1,63: 4, sea
GROUP I.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 500,000 AND OVER IN 1912.
1803,643
996,113 *115,l46j $596,758
104,891
136,238
20,58% "*76*W0
105,6281 27,498
49,322H
25,890'
54,743
20,050
4,476
23,281
14,002]
16,697]
40,423
so!
$S03,643 110,839,
9,457^!
284,209 5,807
17,0111
104,891
530,606
38,710 2,297,143,
556,8S2.|
78,130
44,846
2,609!
3181
3,303
933,981
61,098
530,871
874,821
$2,507fl
352,303
16,18s!
1,318
$10,839,45' $10,092,572 $746,885
5,804,504} 5,772,353
32,151
509,655
509,655fl
242
345,250 $7,05fl 1, v 4 4 , o4U| 1,944,599
491,894
48,800
16,188}
540,694
1
$2,50fl
859,075
59,780
496,930
828,429
1,318
80S'
859,075
59,780
496,930
793,031
$20,951
74,906
33,941
45,5841
35,398
$8,794
$705,370 $696,576]
$731 6,806]
497,580 490,043
95,846] 67,82fl
877]
164,550
96,940
98,076
40 1,096
108,923 108,811
lOO]
45,055
5,990
116,557||
39,918!
4,402^
650
89,231 26,907
38,953
1,173
938
419
965
G R O U P H . - C I T I E S H A V I N G A P O P U L A T I O N O F 300,000 TO 500,000 I N 1912.
$41,388
53,742,
74,486]
77,471'
125,336
$17,882
43,14$
35,745,
17,157
94,447
$592,950
1,474,525
615,769
329,589
3,193,115
$43,331
$43,331
235,673
11,703
30,103
235,673
11,703
30,103
30,351
29,516
90,934
12,930
25,922
16,018
43,539
8,230'
988,315
7,840
7,560
394,845]
1,097,
816
195,926
814
194,934
$280
$549,619
1,466,773
380,096
308,056
3,163,012]
$549,619
1,466,773
380,096
308,056
3,163,012]
980,47^
922,652
$57,823
336,543
901,582!
321,70fl
897, U S
14,836
4,464
$7,752
9,830
57,486
$21,646
49,445
52,493
27,137
154,921
$21,636
40,470
52,423
26,502
153,547
25,216
100,208
81,108
36,586
24,643
.28,493
79,016
36,413
$7,381
447
60,000
1,000
GROUP III.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 100,000 TO 300,000 IN 1912.
$15,942
7,309
92,101
91,932
15,321 |
$3,440
6,788
17,288
12978
10,766
60,532 !
11,338
22,428
44,3261
6,739]
17,562
8,645
£634
7,830
878
33,199
6,646
30,584
3,141
4,449
8,246
4,456
25,417^
9,402,
13,939 1
8,978|
7/228
2,805
8,015 1
12,130
12,782
1,317
5,059 1
12,746
7,283
3,920
8,147
1,296
I
$39,236
60,625
26,321
6,151
36,496
2
19,633
6,691
328
7,488
627
6,150
3,078
37
3,798
10,065
2,489
1,315
10,820
1,250
1*630
1,258
1,143
11,943
8,947
18,520
1,143
5,986
3,542
7,881
$183,757
4,015,586
3,430,033
997,371
80,110
16,649
2,693
8,643
3,355,808
1,048,154,
909,337
404,693
388,998
517,142
447,989
1,384,991
519,422
175,791;
5,859
10,425!
1,197
22,338
i,isi
4,292
4,604
2,291
1,557
3,468
773
6,312
$12,502
521
35,577
18,329
4,555
14,434 i
4470
11,648
7,421
3,760
5,980
9,704
1,280
1,261
1,908;
1,971
3,920
5,658 1
1,296
19
20
21
22
23
45,315
13,740
23,165
17,045
40,476
44,472
13,435
12,515
16,777
40,176
24
25
26
27
23
12,516
3,594
73,896
92,024
5,737
12,516
3,562
73896
91,524
5,737
42,304
35,376
1,192
29,324
71,924
i6,655 1 8,497
25,569
19,201
24,189
11,520
10,304
71,924
7,898
25,569
24,189
10,304
11,165
86 911
373,356
48)913
20i,963
29,533
4,178
34,460
8,196
19,462
29,283
4,178
28,750
8,196
18,906
4,448
6,924
15,825
I 13,292
2,S52 1 5,982
3,412
6,924
15,825
13,292
5,982
3,392
19,592
4,599
9,835
3,392
19,592
4,599
9,828
23,367
8,644
2,097
11,286
23,053
8,644
2,097
11,286
3,352,198
935,978
909,337
402,205
301,063
3,352,198
873,240
793,887
402,205
292,676
396,465
377,031
1,384,991
321,952,
76,683
396,465
377,031
1,384,991
321,952
73; 897
397,799
387,107
29,297
486,295
198,940
355,495
351 731
28 105
456,971
198,940
11,165
91,670
422,269
3,610
99,648
3,610
99,423
87,410
87,4i6
106,790
70,958
106,790
70,958
108,759
64,968|
i6s,7S9
29,654
14
29,654
14
62,753
91,670
422,269
12,843
1,158,427
51,688
51,588
100
100
1,151,250
949,347
204,924
482,303
28656
74,077
39,795:
20,033
20,033
184,235
482,303
184,235
482,303
397,799
433,316
48,512
497,815
198,940
47,473
1,315
7,285
1 170
1,298
51,516
64,978
5C5
5 957
4)900
10,639
426,095
277,687
184,308
493,330
$5,593
49,496 $5,6™ $134
47,987
200 6,344
918
13,438
6,930
$165,745
3,971,122
3,321,227
994,658
78,727
$108,806
780
2,277]
80
232
$5,593
55,301
53,531j
14,356
6,930
$183,757
3,971,122
3,321,227
996,591
80,110
$108,806
780
32,407
23,647
34,433
23,543
64^438
$125
630
$18,012
$44,464j i
1,933
1,383
12,628
62,738
115,450
2,488
525
8,387
13,887J
1
88,7"
34,140
2,7S6J
i2,743
7,177
656
28,656]
32,407!
23,547
41,670 1
13,396
41,670
34,433
11,409
11,313
96
28,543
21,201
36,435
20,840
35,386
1,049
397,960
277,687
184,308
492,512
397,960
250,007
163,407
399,747
27,680
20,901
92,765
1
13,396
1,631
28,135
sis
843
305
6,700 4,950
141
127
300
29
30
31
32
33
32
500
575
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
24
250
5,000
710
556
1,036
!
]
7j
314
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
66
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
176
TABLE 7 . — R E V E N U E RECEIPTS FROM T A X E S , SPECIAL
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number
BECEOTS FROM TAXES.
Business taxes.
The general property tax.
City
num
ber.
CITY.
Total.
Total.
Original
levies.
Penalties,;
interest,
and
j
collectors'
fees. 1
Special
property
taxes.
Other than on liquor
traffic.
Poll
taxes.
Total.
| On liquor
traffic.
Collected
without
issue of
license*
Collected
with
Issue of
license*
G R O U P I V . - C I T I E S H A V I N G A P O P U L A T I O N O P 50,000 TO 100,000 I N 1912.
4
S34,O0O>|
Reading, Pa
Camden, N . J
Springfield, Mass.
Tacoma, Wash...
Lynn, Mass
5878,374'
869,098,1
2,371,439
1,356,886;
1,484,702'
$759,143
714,086
1,968,614
1,219,821
1,322,382
3758,537
703,077
1,949,884
1,219,821
1,304,908
Dcs Moines, Iowa...
Lawrence, Mass....
Wilmington, D e l . . .
Kansas City, Kans.,
Yoniers,N.Y.....
1,683,93111
1.474,933
805,227
1,327,358
1,948,894'
1,453,097
1,202,816
797,264
1,254,905
1,815,4181
1,449,903
1,183,694
791,2504
1,254,905
1,774,227
Yoongstown, Ohio.
Houston, Tex
Fort Worth, Tex...
Duluth, Minn
Norfolk, Va
:..
1,078,4271
1,359,088
1,120,520
1,568,966
1,374,928
909,543
1,302,430
1,083,790
1,298,811
969,655
909,543
1,290,614
1,067,819
1,298,811
956,316
"i3,*339;|
Oklahoma City, Okla.
Schenectady, N. Y
Somerville, Mass
.
St, Joseph. Mo....
Utica,N.V
945,013
1,171,341
1,264,261
1,036,813
1,168,025
917,285
1,048,763
1,148,305
885,553
992,537
917,235
1,041,133
1,140,063
884,419
989,635
7,630;|
8,242;
1,134|
2,90^
Elizabeth, N. J . . . .
Waterbury, Conn.,
Troy,N.Y.
Akron, Ohio
Manchester, N. H.*
794,087
1,007,234,
1,532,233
859,147
1,004,543
642,006
885,005
1,387,758
750,448
771,843
626,087
874,880
1,378,763
750,446
770,058]
15,919,
10,1251
8,9951
12,89S|
36,108
l,785j
56,961!
Hoboken,N.J....
Wilkes-Barre, Pa..
Erie, Pa
Evansville, I n d . . .
Peoria, 111
785,514
722,385
691,009
819,148
1,180,274
654,965
605,563
612,038
. 703,194
965,873
'649,336
602,465
609,737
703,194
965,873
5,629,1
3,098
2,4301.'
Fort Wayne, Ind..
Harrisburg, Pa
Savannah, Ga
East St. Louis, 111.
Jacksonville, Fla..
716,602
848,975
853,283
697,684
741,250
621,004
775,631
641,052
494,066
565,168
621,004
775,631
639,936
494,066]
657,878
7,290^
South Bend, Ind..,
Terre Haute, Ind..
Passaic, N.J
Johnstown, Pa
Bayonne, N. J
734,737
716,328
429,064
515.548
750,324
600,657
622,782
356,797
436,294
693,841
600,144
622,782*
352,282]
431,674
667,933
4,515
4,620
25,908'
97
98
99
100
101
Brockton, Mass....
Portland, M e . . . . . .
Holyoke, Mass
Charleston, S. C . . .
Wichita, Kans
985,239
1,163,152
1,011,205
667,014
812,524'
858,733
1,083,688
793,605
544,394
781,892
842,061
1,081,639
786,451
543,600
781,892
102
103
104
105
Allentown,Pa
Springfield, 111
Covington. Ky
Altoona, Pa
486,754
741,4331
524,383
682,217
421,317
609,391
457,243
539,064
419,783
609,391
453,781'
539,064
106
107
108
109
Pawtucket, R . I . ,
Canton, Ohio
Mobile, Ala
Sacramento, CaL,
828,696
611,80?
49^,209
1,008,785
765,939
526,918
322,360
896,914
762,4251
526,918
317,475
896,497
3,514|
110
Saginaw, Mich
Sioux City, Iowa...
Binghamton, N. Y .
AtlanticCity,N.J..
688,136
689,548
682,599
1,338,238
644,576
601,371
521,245
1,081,447
637,150
601,371
517,843
1,071,122
7,426f
in
112
113
$82,601
137,450
$236,065!
47;822J
liters!
106,200!
48,075]
3,194
19,12^1
123,454]
26.3S0JI
41,1911
21,510j
130,501
6,809
121,487
121,071
2,172
57,990,
103,307;!
18,73<K
17,4741
11,816
15,971j
9,205]
14,712]
2,1311
167,4931
40,352
31,919
234,447
395,371'
w
12,060(
78,980j
1,116!
513
16,672
2,0t9
7
«'l
33,082{]
64,893]
90,4l0j
112v393i
1,534!
10,000{!
27,128]
15,154]
130,049
107,586]
116,344
04,6561
164,021
33,815
29,042]
1S0,300J
119,640]
97,859^
29
78,725
100,007
133,76o!
78,0221
98,151
103,356
63,842
125,916]
77,7S7i!
63,420;j
95,489
205,708
116,244
64,0001
56,400
86,427
183,797
26,701!
6,967
66,316:1
58,592]
50,200]
64,481]
206,884,
195,301
164,122 j
167,061
88,000j
5,593
l.SSd
l,100i
13,30s!,'
' 113,8271
31,8821
27,312:
29,478j
3,504
51,14tf
75,155
122,158
22, W7
72,104)
21,800]
42,081
127,197
60,809
37,68l'
3O,00O»
106,147
42,471
20,000j
55,423
82,648
169,913
105,869
47,6504
81,911
65,967
79,175
42,062]
83,8671'
42,746
241,780]
38,177
75,023
35,857
107,900]
4,885!
Ul7
16,3061
265!
86,900
66,075
63,93?,
52,208]
$3,6381
109,20a
80,52o]
60,464
34,710
48,917
$13,399
3,763
5,092
14,157]
6,S09|
5,7281
3,256)
14,673
6,164
2,172]
52,262]
6,395]
45,253]
22,028]
3,472
6,537
2,877
8,894
253,703
108,614!
115,907]
735
33,000)'
11,417
6,000j
3,4621
3,402)1
10,325]'
»ZSi
106,7001
2,981
143,964
107,035'
139,828
80,49ft
104,459,
106,205
153,881
$69,2oJ
3,2351
5,8521
3,749
1,927
4,620)
95,9871
2,957
7,481!
2,643]
1,523]
1,0711
24,743
5,55ft
2,95fl
59,387
3,279j
4,141
2,474
1,688]
4,849
4,052j
6,715
13,787
7,02C]
9,06H
14,430|
7,724
14281
206,884
25,577
76j 122
4,627
6,380
4068
29,227
2,2201
2,1831
4,382
3,504
1302!
3,051
119,975
17,6651
2,029]
12,081
17,021
49,838]
17,6811
7
4,016]
4,488]
>d
737
113,946
26,694
3,905
8,844
2873
129,401
G R O U P V . - C I T I E S H A V I N G A P O P U L A T I O N O F 30,000 T O 50,000 I N 1912.
114
115
116
117
118
Rockford,Ill
Little Rock, A r k .
Augusta, G a . . . . . .
Springfield.Ohio.
Lancaster, P a
119
120
121
122
123
Pueblo, Colo
N e w Britain, Conn.
Chattanooga, T e n n .
York, P a . . . .
Maiden, M a s s . . . . . . .
670,387
613,271
523,522
302,190j|
755,402j
124
125
126
127
128
Berkeley, Cal
B a y City. M i c h . .
Haverhill, Mass.,
Topeka,Kans...
Salem, M a s s . . . . .
536,613
527,776
751,654
653,355
676,4691
$711,856]
461,310
510,288]!
533,701
373,765
$703,336]
350,371
401,239
468,422
322,215
553,257
655,990
441,340
270,342!
636,406
$703,3361,
350,3m
399,216}
463,422],
321,368
653,257.
551,601
440,769
265,764
621,675
$2,023]
8471
4,389
571
4,5?8
14,731
$2,027:
$10,224]
17,787;
93,883]
3,577]
23,800
$8,520)
95,622
107,471
60,518]
34,900j !
114,565
27,658
82,182
25,643
794
516,705
516,705
13,2391
488,003
476,50d
U,49?|
39,542
605,903
595,536
10,367
25,506]
58,217]
628,000
623,000
20,086
580,050]
6,560|]
66,987]
586,610
19,2141!
1,1*61
i Exclusive of receipts from permits issued b y public service enterprises, which are included i n Table 11.
$3,153]
76,15ol,.
10,8221
58,7231
30,400
$5,365j
* 18,872
96 649
1795
4^600]
I0,16fl
2723
82,182
11243
794
104,403
24,935
14,400;
U,592'
55,736
3,685]
13,239
950]
2,481
16,401
1H61
GENERAL TABLES.
177
ASSESSMENTS, FINES, FORFEITS, AND ESCHEATS: 1912-Continued.
assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 79.]
RECEIPTS FROM TAXES—Continued.
Special assessments for
expenses.
Nonbusiness license taxes.
Paid by persons granted-
Total
Doc
General
licenses. licenses. Permits.*
Special assessments for outlays.
Penal
ties,
in
Original terest,
and
levies.
collect
ors'
fees.
Total
Total.
RECEIPTS FROM FINES, FOBFEJTS,
AND ESCHEATS.
RECEIPTS FROM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND FROM SPECIAL CHARGES FOR OUTLAYS.
Special
Penalties, charges
for
Original interest,
outlays.
and
levies. collectors'
fees.
TotaL
Total.
Court
fines
and
forfeits.
City
Com
num
mer
cial cheats. ber.
for
feits.
GROUP IV.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 50,000 TO 100,000 IN 1912.
]
1
$2,630
9,893
6,240
6,564
1,236
$2,790
9,347
1,212
4,453
14,463
8,659
2,026
1,391
7,101
4,811
20,996
567
512
2,272
670
4,363
3,022
7,034
2,518
7,771
1,391
2,541
2,253
1,707*
3,908
496,
6,704
2,991
3,898
6,035 |
4,164
14,465
8,693
2,626
86
1,783
3,115
1,687
2,581
1,896!
3,317
Ml7j
11,960,
1,057
2,511
966
323
710
M12
1
1,357
1,088
i90
496
2,790
11,660
4,788
5,092
2,009
4,275
1
12,951
2,985
2,354
2,985
3,818 |
913,
7,296'
3,560
1
$2,310
8,946
3,970
11,637
9,960
166
2,110
1,320
1,152
20
2
574
462
8,585
462
1,112
1,556
4,845
6,331
5,472
703
265
3
910
1,765
4,920
2,748 • 2,309
458
2,241
866
4,936
3,337
6,002
1.478
889
4,310
531
2,300
1,554
14,737
1,508
150
2,870
857
$2,630
9,693
6,240
3,774
1,236
$22,966
58,397
41,331
992,552
51,594
7,321
1,212
1,431
5,119
6,141
824
6,589
2,539
7,375
3,408
1
307,931
26,636
540,089
209,818
540,089
209,164
1,681,671
254,526
25,034
207,607
154,546
1,487,117
228,424
25,034
207,607
148,362
194,554
26,102
87,445
43,617
55,825
199,636
80,204
*41,929
54,888
199,636
7,241
1,6S8
937
189
110,053
75,822
172,374
196,363
148
108,370
72,770
172,374
196,363
41
1,683
3,052
372,868
307,975!
92,232
335,097
112,650,
372,868
307,975
92,232
333,339
110,376
156,684
10,182
26,814
156,321
10,182
24,869
1,945
iS0,572
166,60i
13,971
20,663
889
30
2,140
24,693
309,515
1,584
1,272
5,949
2,381
2,404
7,006
189
110,053 i
76,178 I
189,642
196,363 |
2,581
839
836
3,381
372,948
324,855 1
104,287
335,097
122,136
4,700
4,622
2,982
659
3,103
156,634'
12,3S5 i
26,814
6,027
180,572
1
650
34,861 1
1W
5,708
853
4,580
1,408
4,562
40,713
133,315
32,430
27,216
439
1,633
1,200
1,808
17.604
119,330
263,833
386,395 j
650
34,543
7,811
987
937
3 788
' .
$318
i&4
7,811
3,783'
~!
!
12,055
12,055
392,
1
14,341
[
392
i
197,526
189,357
63,693
38,726
$4,970
145
167,187
265
387
2,993
8,403
i,5iS
14,747
654
503
6,184
U
356
13,485
1
1
SO
16,SS0
9,486.
1,758
2,274
363
2,203
6,027
14,341 1
23,880
46,418
34,216.
14,302
855
549,502
m\ !
307,931
2,140
24,693
3,914
3,779i
746
13,229
1,584
222,553
33,819
62,698
473,103
161,882
87,445
51,428 j
55,825
199,636 t.
|
703 1
1,012 i
574
212,010
9,126
61,183
473,100
147,1,35
24,958
1,682,321
254,526
i,464
60,39S
913
4,545 * 207,607
154,710 1
1,019
1,165
1,707
724
212,010
9,126 1
61,183!
473,100
161,882
24,958
20,030,
$22,966'
$53,427
11,359
824,978
23,378
$29,827
540,089
229,848
1
$58,397,'
11,504
992,165
23,643
$29,827
1
9,296 j
9,296
i,23i
1,231
21,552 1
5,817 1
11,249
5,787
11,249,
549, H6
549,ii6
28,551
126,226
32,430
21,732
28,551
126,226
32,430
21,732
17,159
119,330 !
263,764J j
377,099
16,796
119,330
235,220
377,099
179,074
188,126
52,207
29,880 !
176,190
188,126
51,265
26,468
10,525 1
4,519 1
3,053
855
12,162
7,089
5,484
363
445
28,544
69,
2,884
18,452
942
3,412 |
ii,486
8,846
$1,453
4,959
11,405
14,813
9,875
$1,453
4,953
11,388
11,012
9,694
17,808
7,221
7,237!
14.636
3,552
17,573
7,221
7,230
10,844
3,452
13,418
23,251
14,930
19,270
1,614
13,361
23,251
. 14,826
19,230
1,614
59,315
5,050
2,136
9.7651
2,627
58,855
5,015
2,136
9,765
2,627
4,221
11,549
491
12,595
1,192
4,221
11,534
491
12,588
1,192
2,935
3,446
3,352
1,963
11,249
2,935
3,446
3,319
1,963
11,249
2,530
3,404
25,354
1,808
41,139
2,529
3,404
25,354
1,808
41,073
1,014
1,467
6,531
13,044
2,592
1,014
1,253
6,507
13,014
2,592
9,887 1
9,887
1,728 1
5,211
58,276
11,058
1,728
5,211
58,118
11,058
1,861
7,641
2,598
4,365
l;86l
7,641
2,598
4,365
1,606
1,862
19,698
10,463
1.606
1.862
19,698
10,463
1,953
6,234
1,031
8,898
1,942
6,234
1,881
8,893
$7,180
32,795;
12,864
4,052
389
$7,180
32,795
12,864
4,052
389
8,858 1
10,202
15,199
1,091
1,747
5,867
10,202
15,199
1,091
1,747
2,737
317
4,223
3,867
5,069 1
2.737
257
4,174
3,*i7
5,069
57
58
59
60
61
$6
17
3,801
181
62
63
64
65
66
235
7
3,792
100
67
68
69
70
71
$57
104
40
72
73
74
75
76
460
35
77
78
79
80
81
15
7
82
83
84
85
86
33
87
83
89
90
91
1
66
92
93
94
95
96
214
24
j
is§|
!
97
93
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
I 107
i
11
100
103
109
110
111
112
113
GROUP V.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912.
„
$15,917 !
1,578 !
4,76ll I
14,623
$2,102
1,578
485
2,665
1,612
280
294
2,628
-
$11,568
$2,247
3,791
485
14,623
4
1,574
322
2,306
519
1
1
6,669
231
2,198
5,269
2,5121
2,342
10
2,532
28656°—1
711
1,318
782
4,327
221
2,198
1.955
2,512!1
$64,977 |
345.221
22,181
82,180
2,050
36,377
69,475
48,561
3S,789|
133,410
44,915
29,658
194,295
21,07911
$9,119 I
$9,119
2,775
2,775
7,268
7,172
13,041
i3,6ii
12,707
26
6,5231 !
i2,697
26
6,523
$96
io.
$46,024 1
337,513
13,947
82,180 !
$46,024
337,253
13,947
82,180
40,779
29,109
69,475:
48,5611
25,649
40,779
27,481
62,344
48,561
25,649
133,410
39,583
3,332
194,269
133,410
37,431
3,332
194,269
$260
$9,834
7,708;
5,459
2,050
i,628
7,131
99.
2,i52
5,332
13,619
1 i4,556 1
114
115
116
117
118
$2,991
60
49
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
178
TABLE 7 . — R E V E N U E RECEIPTS FROM T A X E S , SPECIAL
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number
BECEIPTS FROM TAXES.
Business taxes.
The general property tax.
City
num
ber.
Total.
Total.
Original
levies.
Penalties,
interest,
and
collectors'
fees.
Special
property
taxes.
Other than on liquor
traffic
Poll
taxes.
Total.
On liquor
traffic
Collected
without
issue of
license.
Collected
with
Issue of
license.
G R O U P V . - C I T I E S H A V I N G A P O P U L A T I O N O F 30,000 T O 50,000 I N 1912-~ContinUed.
129 Lincoln, Nebr
130 Davenport, Iowa.
131 El Paso, Tex
132 San Diego, Cal....
133 Tampa, Fla
$684,459
742,917
650,870
1,158,951
499,595
1614,289
687,015
625,628
983,248
414,725
$606,669
685,931
625,628
983,248
407,503
$7,620
1,084
501,238
403,451
423,833
497,537
585,822
466,260
379,638
393,011
418,139
495,769
457,337
379,199
391,429
418,056
495,769
8,923
439
1,582
$56,559
53,536
23,591
133,178
83,670
$50,002
41,911
16,224
117,210
38,000
$6,557
11,625
7,367
15,968
45,670
34,039
24,409
33,467
76,948
89,112
2S,800
15,340
30,477
71,178
81,000
5,239
9,069
2,990
1,720
2,375
2,984
3,354
19,701
21,178
2,385
63,826
103,126
85S
85,019
45,098
42,218
17
46,785
18,604
101,256
841
38,234
6,460
11,862
11,593
19,424
134,215
22,357
42,846
36,729
18,129
34,136
18,656
40,518
34,560
17,325
100,079
3,701
2,328
2,169
804
1,000
51,637
12,159
100,467
42,662
35,956
49,525
43,317
37,770
29,500
2,112
12,159
57,150
2,472
6,456
12,248
74,753
58,186
104,627
54,839
57,127
71,003
30,650
2,608
74,493
2,787
$11,274
7,222
134
135
136
137
138
McXeesport, P a . . .
Flint, Mich.
Kalamazoo, Mich..
Racine, Wis
Superior, Wis
.139
140
141
142
143
. Wheeling, "W.Va..
Macon, Ga*
Newton, Mass
Butte, Mont
Woonsocket, R. L.,
468,708
412,780
1,421,609
615,485
436,452
399,912
300,292
1,258,100
50*,569
387,086
398,854
298,941
1,248,113
498,443
384,155
1,058
1,351
9,987
6,126
2,931
$142,545
144
145
146
147
148
Montgomery, Ala..,
Chester, Pa
Fitchburg, Mass...
Dubuque, Iowa.....
Galveston, T e x . . . .
410,915
329,895
659,594
527,712
526,575
260,984
287,162
526,813
489,908
496,768
258,413
284,717
521,617
483,349
490,165
2,571
2,445
5,196
1,559
6,603
70,088
149
150
151
152
153
West Hoboken, N. J..
Newcastle, Pa
Roanoke, va
Elmira,N.Y...
Huntington, W. V a . .
221,065
294,111
535,576
549,830
320,400
166,683
280,363
429,111
490,525
276,245
159,236
276,792
428,429
485,714
273,138
7,447
3,571
682
4,811
3,107
154
155
156
157
158
East Orange, N . J .
Knoxville, Term...
Hamilton, Ohio...
Lexington, Ky
Springheld, Mo
621,290
435,969
392,123
506.082
344,235
592,484
356,126
330,876
401,001
278,786
583,311
355,533
330,876
398.655
irf0,401
9,173
159
160
161
162
163
Quincy,Hl
Charlotte, N. C.
Joliet.111
Pasadena, CakAuburn,N, Y . .
488,285
248,367
540,115
706,070
379,866
402,919
207,932
394,151
691,684
337,040
402,919
207,932
394,151
691,684
333,216
3,824
10,045
164 Everett, Mass
165 Decatur, 111
166 Portsmouth, Va
167 Perth Amboy, N. J..
168 Taunton, Mass
585,366
423,606
233,606
282,941
526,648
519,250
361,399
175,054
215,448
392,979
506,660
361,399
170,920
212,834
389,576
12,590
47,259
4,134
2,614
3,403
85,580
169
170
171
172
173
Quincy, Mass
Lansing, Mich
Pittsfleld, Mass
Cedar R apids, Iowa.
Oshkosh,Wis
411,297
569,100
614,355
406,6Sl
610,804
405,622
476,987
534,960
364,924
598,144
404,765
471,297
534,960
364,924
12,660
857
5,690
28,513
18,320
'*42,"291
*i5,*42S
174
175
176
177
178]
SanJose,Cal
Amsterdam, N. Y . . . .
Jamestown, N. Y
Mount Vernon, N. Y .
Niagara Falls, N. Y „
429,548
340,158
416,983
792,386
812,075
364,593
287,974
379,928
748,385
733,005
364,598
287,424
377,981
704, So*
728,007
179
180
181
182
183
Jackson, Mich
.
Williamsport,Pa..
Joplin, Mo
,
Lima, Ohio
Muskogee, Okia...
402,158
349,187
341,180
291,635
302,494
373,534
304,087
272,224
252,025
290,936
372,849
302,232
269,934
251,600
290,936
184
185
186
187
Chelsea, Mass
New Rochelle, N. Y .
Aurora, 111
Lorain, Ohio
,
702,839
926,239
387,074
619,938
881,655
330,601
283,132
601,858
850,102
330,601
283,132
18,080
31,553
188
189
190
191
Austin, T e x . . . . .
Newport, Ky.
Orange; N . j
La Crosse, Wis
347,567
294,419
357,476
408,753
337,052
255,933
315,868
363,972
326,594
254,380
309,060
353,143
10,458
1,553
6,803
10,82':
192
193
194
195
Lynchburg, Va
Shreveport, La
Colorado Spring", Colo..
Council Bluffs, Iowa...,
570,497
288,946
487,135
407,048
412,269
250,544
447,258
376,329
409,402
248,125
445,029
376,329
2,867
2,419
2,229
4
..,
,
'3,'i50
14,391
6,299
6,127
2,720
2,346
2,385
6,570
*6*746
550
1,947
43,433
4,998
17,268
824
10,740
20,193
17,539
9,828
21,114
1,855
2,290
425
13,008
34,231
10,233
14,036
1,000
5,361
3,489
2,300
$4,050
5,737
3,004
6,870
2,420
8,950
79,764
32,112
144,941
4,480
31,315
138,200
2,693
"*29,*i90
*i,"36i'
1,164
61,533
56,478
65,418
37,071
54,801
19,172
63,450
34,844
2,818
2,017
4,179
33,980
76,587
40,596
32,374
73,606
28,180
62,316
30,334
18,996
31,523
55,734
49,120
28,306
15,587
28,180
51,871
27,9TO
29,413
65,835
38,059
8,480
25,661
19,600
45,170
36,587
32,490
31,512
56,473
55,066
30,307
29,438
49,655
53,503
9,857
33,468
38,549
41,680
8,309
22,728
36,042
31,400
151,437
31,012
31,340
26,633
34,750
* Exclusive of receipts from permits issued b y public service enterprises, which are included in Table 1 1 ,
2,140
3,488
1,765
2,183
1,247
2,479
32.112
4,048
4,480
764
1,164
3,914
37,306
1,968
2,227
2,017
2,039
1,600
2,921
8,928
13,196
263
1,226
2,096
3,863
2,318
9,813
20,665
1,472
8,480
1,197
2,165
2,771
*6,"625
19,800
23,329
3,298
74,753
1,059
33,564
21,581
2,183
877
4,653
1,563
1,458
10,740
2,507
7,509
116,687
24,387
11,540
3,304
GENERAL TABLES.
179
ASSESSMENTS, FINES, FORFEITS, AND ESCHEATS: 1912—Continued,
assigned to each, see page 20.
For a text discussion of this table, see page 79.]
RECEIPTS FROM TAXES—continued.
RECEIPTS FROM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND FROM SPECIAL CHARGES FOR OUTLAYS.
Special assessments for
expenses.
Nonbusiness license taxes.
Paid by persons grantedTotal.
Total.
Bog
licenses.
General
Total.
Permits.*
Penal
ties,
in
Original terest,
and
levies.
collect
ors'
fees.
RECEIPTS FROM FINES, FORFEITS,
AND ESCHEATS.
Special assessments for outlays.
Special
Total.
Penalties,
for
outlays.
Original interest,
and
levies. collectors'
Total.
Court
fines
and
forfeits.
City
Com
num
ber.
mer
Es
cial
for cheats.
feits.
GROUP V.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912—Continued.
$2,337
2,366
1,651
42,525
1,200
$1,400
2,366
555
1,230
1,065
1,404
2,355
2,450
941
641
1,404
1,697
2,450
941
536
1,008
1,450
1,986
1,008
405
4,719
1,883
2,575
1,486
$937
$712
1,096
40,583
135
56
242
373
285
794
3,854
8,783
423
1,075
11,678
1,075
1,488
1,745
1,589
2,848
2,252
1,900
576
652
2,162
550
174
10,431
2,370
3,061
454
4,040
496
298
429
1,090
1,563
5,602
1577
1023
9,906
1,466
2,107
1,002
1,015
1,807
1,066
3,495
575
425
674
2,074
1,251
278
610
1,620
500
2,597
1,339
29
1,647
99,324
18,463
58,965
12,300
1,647
99,324
18,303
58,965
11,100
104,537
49,843
9,866
62,013
94,587
49,843
9,866
58,733
26,905
39,574
7,194
19,263
222,184
22,918
36,216
7,194
19,263
219,815
3,987
3,358
499
1,726
26,905
39,574
7,194
19,263
222,184
9,935
2,370
1,195
25
1,482
26,998
74,469
80,966
84,413
232,654
26,998
74,469
80,966
84,413
232,654
26,185
68,069
80,966
84,413
232,654
813
6,400
8
8,099
351
14,355
27,277
75,923
473,972
76,870
14,355
27,277
75,923
464,736
51,265
14,355
27,042
75,923
464,736
51,265
14,747
82,203
14,578
82,203
169
39,742
15,434
38,527
14,911
1,215
5234
37,115
58,748
10,514
162,651
17,312
34,326
54,252
10,257
162,651
17,312
2,789
4,496
257
105,555
7,116
77,367
69,171
142,694
105,555
7,116
73,093
69,171
134,441
48,334
11,435
109,484
62,815
294,007
48,334
11,435
109,484
62,815
294,007
3,506
97,550
125,165
102,692
3,506
89,864
125,165
102,692
7,686
14,271
35,742
14,271
4,147
5,626
158,700
103,058
201,882
5,626
158,700
101,714
201,882
405
1,350
397
1,257
7,444
423
1,647
" 99,324
58,256
90,588
12,300
109,330
51,867
24,143
62,534
2,702
22,891
82,208
425
64
454
751
278
39,742
27,642
43,882
58,748
32,431
162,651
25,720
484
984
39S
443
414
2,324
177
2,634
1,657
520
2,650
2,222
548
868
53
2,400
1,551
159
2,0S6
789
467
250
512
105,555
7,116
78,021
75,875
142,694
645
2,679
3,121
1,551
3,078
605
869
.1,046
177
592
1,098
1,318
• 40
1,810
2,075
276
1,168
55,978
11,476
111,836
65,561
294,007
2,134
2,839
1,528
1,575
606
1,264
5,018
2,059
3,101
1,104
1,728
1*430
3,901
8,537
1,786
1,301
784
2,635
823
S3
482
11,774
97,550
125,165
102,692
30
3,826
183
1,192
955
1,373
300
41,183
39,839
U,S42
1,481
617
963
5,626
153,700
103,058
201,882
•
129
1,636
5,285
$15,654
32,941
33,879
76,963
70,039
86,583
1,053
445
$113,608
127,592
32,941
34,096
84,269
70,089
86,588
32,941
34,096
100,116
79,828
107,746
1,496
414
2,808
1,161
570
12,057
$129,262
127,592
$319
434,489
11,600
1,169
937
1,468
$319
434,489
11,600
10,190
686
1,203
$129,861
128,049
95,968
446,546
11,817
31
9,483
21,153
39,793
31,623
9,396
521
12,057
31
9,483
21,158
39,793
31,623
9,396
515
605
605
7,765
7,765
12,203
12,208
6,767
6,767
11,197
11,197
"8*364"
6,614
6,614
41
41
7,926
7,926
571
571
$6
$599
133
95,968
$2,761
4,614
21,521
19,541
26,264
$2;761
4,614
21,515
18,014 $i,527
26,264
$6
129
130
131
132
133
7,862
2,900
1,612
6,423
18,767
7,862
2,900
1,592
6,423
18,750
20
134
135
136
137
138
12,643
27,192
2,164
10,175
709
12,643
27,192
2,164
10,175
709
21,731
1,143
3,179
402
4,850
21,731
1,143
2,895
402
"4,850
549
2,553
13,817
1,683
8,823
549
2,553
13,817
1,683
8,823
149
150
151
152
153
22,718
47
3,055
2,509
2,170
2,170
22,718
47
2,911
2,509
154
155
156
157
158
3,148
5,937
3,260
2,320
1,842
3,148
5,937
3,059
2,301
1,842
7,057
3,142
2,580
1,904
7,057
3,142
2,580
1,904
164
165
166
167
168
3,614
5,695
3,607
3,855
2,270
3,614
5,695
3,607
3,855
2,270
169
170
171
172
173
4,287
1,942
2,736
2,705
3,780
4,277
1,942
2,736
2,705
3,345
2,875
1,173
8,666
4,744
28,247
2,875
1,173
8,246
4,744
28,247
342
4,246
1,954
2,911
2,854
4,246
1,954
2,911
2,854
184
185
186
187
300
41,183
8,612
723
3,601
1,872
8,612
728
3,601
1,872
188
189
190
191
7,344
16,230
1,330
3,355
7,844
16,230
1,308
3,355
217
217
7,306
15,816
251
160
1,200
9,950
3,275
4,793
2,019
4,881
2,702
2,369
235
9,236
25,000
379
10,720
44
4,274
654
8,253
7,644
2,352
2,746
1,344
17
139
140
141
142
143
284
144
100
101
19
10
435
420
22
144
145
146
147
148
159
160
161
162
163
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
192
193
194
195
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
180
TABLE 8.—REVENUE RECEIPTS FROM SUBVENTIONS, GRANTS, DONATIONS, GIFTS, AND PENSION ASSESSMENTS:
1912.
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetical]y by states, with the number assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, iseepage 82.]
RECEIPTS PROM DONATIONS AND CUTS BY PRIVATE
PERSONS A N D CORPORATIONS.
RECEIPTS FROif SUBVENTIONS AND GRANTS BY OTHER CIVIL
DIVISIONS.
City
num
ber.
Other subventions,
and grants.
Subventions for
education.
CITY.
Total.
Total.
*
By state.
By
county.
By state.
By
county.
8,499,663 1 6,099,285
10,671,800
5,344,937
7,447,903 ! 5,248,268
4,312,251
3,250,963
3,383,882
2,152,577
2,400,378
5,325,333
56,464
29,347
201,786
2,023,891
938,338
957,912
1,530
119,280
93,603
71,607
Other
i than
pensions.
$2,592,868
$152,695
ri,on,849
1 45,790
24,944
21,683
26,801
33,472
$34,315,499 J $22,096,030 $3,920,141 $8,013,303 $236,020
Group I
Group II
Group III
Group IV
Group V
Receipts
from
pension
assess*
mcnts.
For expenses.
3S6,I95
822,377
259,798
112,649
For
principal
For
public
outlays. oftrust
funds.
Pensions.
$98,673 $1,566,672 $774,828
$1,887,292
401,297
303,713
703,936
114,989
42,737
536,087
50,485
68,032
9*, 957
25,267
11 1,290,214
283,341
1 211,416
!
74,173
!
28, H»
$5,519
1,360
$2,434
9,425
390,473
1,000
$500
24,539
$768,557
299,873
80,203
14,712
50,803
12,371
7,390
28,675
7,053
23,721
23,051
11,173
GROUP I.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 500,000 AND OVER IN 1912.
1
2
3
4
5
New York. N . Y
Chicago. Ill
Philadelphia, Pa
S t Louis, Mo
6
7 Baltimore, Md
8 Pittsburgh, Pa.
9 Detroit, Mich
$1,970,611
744,915
2,761,641
355,427
47,770
281,579
562,291 !
870,450 I
904,979
1
$1,970,611
744,915
963,433
355,427
20,570
i
1
1
i
$1,798,203
27,200
281,579
549,750
313,703
899,297
j
i
12,541*
556,747
5,682
j
j
$5,519
5,024
28,335
399,898
527,217
$730
3,796
i5,169
19,761
13,226 1 i3,226
7,894
7,894
4,975
4,975
511,048 |
35,651
17,394
23,021
GROUP II.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 300,000 TO 500,000 IN 1912.
10
11
12
13
14
Buffalo, N . Y
Milwaukee, Wis
Cincinnati, Ohio
Los Angeles, Cal
15
16
17
18
$301,683
788,205
432,993
174,598
1,027,909
$165,835
586,215
353,968
174,598
848,481
$135,843
201,990
77,495
1,340,013 i 1,229,973
198,371 !
198,371
16,145,334 U,536,234
262,694
251,262
1
$1,530
j
I
179,428
j
110,040
1[
4,609,166
11,432
$559
1,899
938
110,731
5,556
$654
600
12,517
253
216,001
25,693
24,560
13
10,755
120
285
$559
338
440
245
4,961
510
|
$53,791
34,598
28,303
35,532
21,295
2S5 !
!
13,899
15,816
14,254
65,853
$1,245
47,574
5,556
$50,200
200,000
25,573
23,765
GROUP IIL-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 100,000 TO 300,000 IN 191Z
Jersey City, N. J
Seattle, Wash.
Kansas City,Mo..
Indianapolis, Ind.
Providence, ft. I . .
$335,902
930,657
144,093
324,692
32,090
$835,902
511,649
134,170
211,047
32,090
Portland, Oreg..
Rochester, N . Y
Denver, Colo...,
Louisville, Ky.,
St. Paul, Minn..
454,475
86,130
91,745
253,602
155,649
74,659
86,130
91,745
210,771
153,899
Columbus, Ohio..
Toledo, Ohio
Oakland, Cal
Atlanta, Ga
..
Worcester, Mass.
84,212
82,426
723,541
102,539
19,226
84,212
82,426
361,080
96,039
13,487
5,739
Birmingham, Ala..
Syracuse, N . Y
New Haven, Conn.
Memphis, Tenn....
Scranton, Pa.
219,890
62,458
73,669
289,047
112,442
108,955
62,458
70,459
266,547
108,015
03,045
Richmond, Va
Paterson, N. 1
Omaha, Nebr
Fall RiveTjMass...
Spokane, Wash
80,283
323,835
65,720
5,708
473,502
80,283
323,835
37,011
Dayton, Ohio
Grand Rapids, Mich.
Nashville, Tenn.
Bridgeport, Conn.
58,745
28,341
336,934
54,983
3,793
58,745
18,497
34,842
52,128
Cambridge. Mass
San Antonio, Tex.
New Bedford, Maas...
Hartford, Conn
8,890
139,330
15,257
57,137
4,454
137,915
9,884
53,859
4,436
1,415
5,373
Dallas, Tex
Trenton, N.J
Albany, N . Y
Salt Lake City, Utah.
124,402
239,651
44,404
308,503
123,185
239,651
44,404
175,033
1,217
253,802
$50
$419,003
9,923
113,645
139
6,503
604,632
115
379,816
$1,750
326,205
36,256
$42,831
6,500
17,890
3,210
22,500 !|
"4*427'
5,703
214,700
4 444
302j 092
3,655
1,050
3,500
27,659
1,900
2,855
103
3,278
133,470 I
1 By the United States.
1,347
6,421
95,637
19,370
10,037
"2*327
1,097
2,341
622
721
522
29,568
23
821
1,375
5,403
5,000
6,750
495
825
2,397
2,348
5,507
2,500
2,863
200
860
$10,921
14,562
5,275
17,456
$50
$139
1,124
100
3,800
1,800
5,379
1,420
115
2,621
267
704
$603,162
100
$1,247
28,570
13,666
7,710
65,000
13,301
10,252
8,776
159
1,620
100 I
28,*i5oT*""i"395,
14,484
8,402
550
5,408
5,000
989
6,750
2,056
2,343
250
9,423
3,030
5,516
341
5,257
2,500
2,663
50
6,480
27,712
4,877
6,413
11,881
200
4,271
9,375
150
660
162
*l62
822
297
822
11
2,365
2,000
315
3,085
860
425
315
286 1.
175
*3,*085
"*42S
190
1,707
2,323
7,863
6,127
GENERAL TABLES.
181
TABLE 8 . — R E V E N U E R E C E I P T S FROM S U B V E N T I O N S , GRANTS, DONATIONS, GIFTS, A N D P E N S I O N ASSESSMENTS:
1912—Continued.
(For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 82.]
RECEIPTS FROM SUBVENTIONS AND GRANTS BY OTHER CIVIL
DIVISIONS.
City
num
ber.
Subventions for
education.
RECEIPTS FROM DONATIONS AND OUTS B Y PRIVATE
PERSONS AND CORPORATIONS.
Other subventions
and grants.
For expenses.
Total.
Total.
By state.
By
county.
By state.
Other
than
pensions.
By
county.
For
principal
For
public
outlays. of trust
funds.
Pensions.
Receipts
from
pension
GROUP IV.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 50,000 TO 100,000 IN 1912.
57
58
69
GO Tacoma, Wash
61 Lynn, M a s s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
62
63
64
65
66
Des Haines, Iowa
LatsTenofl, Ma«S
l(
Wilmington, Pel*.,
x.......
K"ftr«asCityl Kans...
, l t .'
Yonkers,N7Y
$81,713
183,045
4,708
406,686
4,882
$79,695
183,045
207,704
36,671 1
6,203
39,200
43,603
42,480
36,671
5,083
39,200
43,603
42,480
38,057
122,344
85,408
73,869
48,618 \
38,057
120,526
85,408
68,975
45,122
67
68
69
70
71
YonngstovmiOhio...
Houston, Tex
Fort Worth, Tex
Duluth, Minn...
Norfolk, Va
72
73
74
75
76
Oklahoma City, Okla
Schenectady, N. Y
Somerviile "Mass..
St. Joseph. Mo..
Utica,N.Y
77
78
79
80
81
Elisabeth, N.J
Waterbury. Conn....
....
Troy.N. Y.
Akron, Ohio
Manchester, N. Hxi. ....^ **
193,565
49,938
35,230
34,310 j
4,551
193,565
47,971
35,230
34,310
4,551
82
83
84
85
86
Hoboken, N, J
Wilkes*Barre Pa
Erie, Pa.
226,599
50,239
58,355 !
163,368 j
18,860
226,599
46,578
66,629
77,902
18,860
Peoria, 111
»w**»«.
„J
20,090
37,963
8,615
40,101
34,674
87
88
89
90 East St. Louis 111
01
102,199
52,385
194,650
16,972
121,785
92
93
91 Passaic, N . i
95
96
61,747
105,551
133,300
34,089 1
228,336
12,018
$4,70S
198,982
3,465
i6,972
4,565
155,863
1,554
139,455
12,261
102
103
104
105
38,576
17,393
79,299
41,542
34,959 !
17,393
79,299
40,085
106
107
108 Mobile/Ala
109
11,134
28,248
129,614
203,540;
11,134
28,248
112,210
110
111
112 Blnirhttmtnn N Y
113
17,650 i
17,343
23.945
145,310
7,009
17,343
23,945
145,310
i54,5Sl
12,261
1,205
1,400
5,326
6,633
327
1,818
3,394
1,500
3,496
1,826
3,872
5,586
85,466
27,641
$903
$225
205
i,621
6,000
177
i,500
1,500
1,998
298
i,793
6,000
3,271
235
525
327
1
1,888
$1,150
$1,923
6,144
3,367
2,700
4,337
1,000
i,666 1
1,737
1,633
9,832
10,127
3,630
1,700
1,268
6,666
3,271
235
38
325
410
650
5,033
9,483
700
13,489
538 !
7,719
538
350
50
400
400
4,369
893
4,430
6,423
7,949
894
1,985
1,803
1,487
3,666
1,432
6,197
50
194,650
3,250
1,684
is, 666
1,255
1,255
3,661
1,726
$1,625
242
i,466
177
73S |
5,358 !
24,893 !
14,139 !
7,949
1,967
i
121,785
1,442
2,282
1,554
67,312
2,206 j
1,282
220
2,539
1,012
1,020
2,539
1,012
4,345
57,402
105,551
133,300
32,647
228,336
97
98 Portland Me
99
100
101 Wichita Ivuu
1,417
1,120
18,264
37,963
4,743
34,515
34,674
74,558
60,497
$903
1,625
2,148
6,386
i,66i
12,283
72,143
1,411
i05,24i
1,687
54
i
636
ii091
60,666
1,687
12
1,110
1,403
347
800'
45,241
54
i,3si
12
1,390
1,457
'
9i
129,614
75,151
6,082
10,097
9,080
1,561
155
66
25
155
25,000
25,000
17,880
j
1,380
16,500
752
597
2,894
$1,000
2,250
2,505
50
50
GROUP V.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912.
114
115
116
117
118
Rockford,H!
Little Rock, Ark....
Augusta, Ga
Springfield, Ohio...
Lancaster, Fa
$14,106
92,761
$14,106
53,901
136,923
25,758
42,844
25,758
40,982
119
120
121
122
123
Pueblo, Colo
New Britain, Conn.
Chattanooga, Term.
York, Pa
Maiden, Mass
48,972
27,293
109,123
39 967
2,680
48,972
26,159
8,379
38,829
47
124
125
126
127
128
Berkeley, Cal
Bay City, Mich
HaverhULMass
Topeka,Kans
Salem, Mass
211,558
10,562
2,952
14,919
1,494
112,929
7,676
$23,929
$14,931
136,923
$65
4,516
1,000
4,057
$25
4,516
2,519
3,296
1,000
1,649
1,969
49
151
151
$40
$923
$4,057
$1,862
1,134
12,833
87,916
*i*i38
2,633
97,334
2,862
14,919
1,451
1,295
66'
.......
550
2,481
606
1,000
1,149
500
2,886
16,000
1,513
4,873
15,000
1,513
4,873
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
182
TABLE 8 . — R E V E N U E RECEIPTS FROM SUBVENTIONS, GRANTS, DONATIONS, GIFTS, A N D P E N S I O N ASSESSMENTS:
1912—Continued.
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 82.]
RECEIPTS FROM DONATIONS AND COTS B T PRIVATE
PERSONS AND CORPORATIONS.
RECEIPTS PROM StTBVENTIONS AND GRANTS BY OTHER CIVIL
DIVISIONS.
Other subventions,
and grants.
Subventions for
education.
City
num
ber.
For
For
outlays.
Other
than
Pensions.
pensions.
Total.
Total.,
By state.
B3
L
county.
By state.
county.
For
principal
of public
trust
funds.
Receipts
from
pension
ments.
GROUP V.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912—Continued.
$23,324
18,838
55,228
150,167
159,407
$15,601
18,838
52,526
83,901
33,391
6,281
5,028
62,416
25,056
32,283
5,319
5,028
35,986
25,056
16,170
115,559
7,233
127,393
10,537
16,170
33,229
10,537
144
145
146 Fitehburg, Mass
147 Dubuque7lowa
148
27,378
33,571
1,978
13,067
127,293
27,378
32,700
'131
13,067
45,676
149
150
151
152
153
108,978
26,165 1
22,020 1
18,932
11,722
108,978
25,222
19,874
18,932
n;722
154
155 Knoxvflle, Tenn
156 Hamilton, Ohio
157
158 Springfield, Mo
132,135
77,185
21,274 1
42,608
15,386
132,135
14 593
21 274
41 478
15)386
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
12,325
52,849
9,947
120,361
17,885
129 j Lincoln,Nebr.......
130 I Davenport, Iowa..
131 |ElPaso,Tex
132 1 San Diego, Cal....:
133 1 Tampa/Fla
......
134 Hc&eesport, Pa...
,
135 Flint, Mich
«, 1361 Kalamazoo, Mich .*... ,.
137 1 Racine, Wis
- .138 Superior, W i s . . . . ;
139
140
141
142
143
Wheeling, W. Va
Ifaeon, Ga
Newton, Mass
Butte, Mont
Woonsocket, R. I
i
,
!
West Hoboken, N . J
Roanoke, Va
Elmira,N.Y
Huntington, W. Va
|
Charlotte, N. C
Joliet.Hl'
1,818
9,689
22,534
62,371
3,506
Decatur, 111
Portsmouth, V a . . . . .
i,i79 |
1 $7,723
$2,702
59,350
159,407
962
115,559
3,570
1,847
1,667
2,484
94,164
871
14,926
277
8,926
i,350
i,oi6
31
79,950
9,947
117 265
17)885
252
9,689
22534
62)371
$6,000
5
26
$277
300
4,864
220
800
1SS
64
1,861
i25
31,849
21,660
3,096
i
!
"
2
776
525
167
788
1,131
2,939
2,532
125
j
130
142
50
776
167
525
994
1,566
1
2,206
155,674'
11,982
19,211
20,728
17,425
08,180
li;9S2
19,211
20 728
17)325
55,833
179
180 Joplin, Mo
181
182
183
3,444
30,247
21,987
16,556
30,007
8,444
28 714 j
21 987
16 556
16)117
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
22
18,446
10,208
15,120
22!
18,446
10,208
15)120
42,513
44,665
84,865
28,420
40,086
44,665
84 865
28,420
25,977
20,101
69,337
11,728
23,984
20 101
15,832
11728
\
1,300
642
535
220
9S8!
12,325
!
1.282
1,032
$43
161
48
161
1,130
174
175
176 1Jamestown, N. Y
177
178 Niagara Falls, N. Y
$25
120
$25
120
62,592
1,369
Orange, N . J .
LaCrosse, Wis
Lynchburg, Va
1,103
'
Oshkosh/Wis.
New Rochelle, N. Y
327
943
2,146
47,336
13,527
29)783
......J
$879
2,036
26,430
2,282
47,336
1,369
13,527
29,783
Pittsneld,Mass
$4,880
*>
306
GO
4o6l
4o6"
'...
2,282
2,049
20
4,843
664
75
664
75
548
478
1,661
100
1,050
1,533
1,227
50
11
!
350
130 !
200
20
|
257
366 1
3,500
19,703
141
366
1,200
1,993
i
7,947
100
6,500
510
4,793
50
531
5,322
1,050
50
11 I
500
13,890
53,505
2,049
20
500
i,235
668
150
110
116
20
3,500
19,683
980
291
7,947
100
5,500
10
430
1,236
500
398
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES-
184
TABLE 9 . — R E V E N U E RECEIPTS FROM EARNINGS OP GENERAL DEPARTMENTS, B Y
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number
U.—PEOTECTIOK TO PEBSON
JJJD rftOrEETT.
I.—GENERAL GOVERNMENT.
Executive branch.
City
Dum
ber.
Total.
Law and
tive
other
Chief
branch. execu
Financial. general
execu
tive.
tive.
Grand total.
Group I
Group II
Group HE
Group IV
Group V
$20,956,524
10,896,244
3,656,400
3,273,680
1,631,145
1,499,055
Judicial
branch.
Elec
tions.
General
govern
ment
build
ings.
$56,016 $1,648 $S97,251 $236,094 $2,709,996 $147,731 $114,253
37,098
7,922
1,489
1,775
7,732
1,074
24
445
70
35
551,034
117,260
156,360
32,639
39,958
97,143
30,330
47,609
28,477
32,535
1,818.073
621,112
205,085
45,245
20,481
133,535
5,677
4,935
591
2,993
12,551
11,091
23,031
19,275
48,305
Police
depart
ure
depart
ment.
All other.
$262,232 $147,183 $2,877,498
79,956
52,535
53,933
41 166
34,642
30,315
47,572
32,415
20,324
16,562
1,757,260
681,138
259,227
111,092
68,781
GROUP I.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 500,000 AND OVER IN 1912.
New York, N . Y
Chicago, HI
Philadelphia, Pa
S t Louis, Mo....
Boston, Mass....
Cleveland, Ohio.
Baltimore, Md...
Pittsburgh, Pa..
Detroit, Mich....
$1,422,821
2,287,475
2,123,122
541,240
853,075
650,583
282,372
1,941,958
793,598
$20,291
4,405
8,666
12
$35,153
222,180
131,226
50,466
33,895
$31,766
9,507
39,131
1,146
9,988
$241,301
536,584
366,133
217,303
54,970
$491
383
93,185
8
778
$2,376
1^737
10
1,499
$768
60,737
2,864
813
2,063
$9,150
7,133
4,430
1,237
1,594
$361,012
712,346
324,724
122,825
173
2,034
2,331
1,067
85,584
2,981
743
31,419
55
39,546
7^094
201
1,150
19,910
17,429
3,083
3,139
549
158
1,117
196
10,241
11,157
2,132
1,212
2,647
780
49,108
888
60,632
64,356
$23
1,046
4519
215,403
46,276
61,369
GROUP H.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 300,000 TO 500,000 IN 1912.
Buffalo, N . Y
San Francisco, Cal..
Milwaukee, Wis
Cincinnati, Ohio...,
Los Angeles, Cal...,
$857,839
433,787
235,548
445,845
423,993
$113
Newark, N.J
,
New Orleans, La...
Washington, D.C..
Minneapolis, Minn.,
338,451
228.195
383,719
309,018
1,655
$10
52
17
14
6,085
$7,842
16,928
6,086
18,379
24,153
19,539
8,775
8,444
7,114
$101
22,572
1,480
$89
3,450
2
"*4*477
$18,059
123,881
40,172
99,552
71,619
222
605
849
24
78,749
67,037
76,138
40,905
747
$56
657
4,3S4
626
1,033
$366
1,406
3,432
497
907
$1,528
34,542
2,004
1,704
995
$34,262
108,828
30 838
43,9'Q
185,899
26
3,885
4,835
1^732
1,363
450
27
4,175
39,621
2,104
232
71,442
88,696
80,995
36,222
$6,221
19,666
17,434
2,486
25,401
GROUP in.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 100,000 TO 300,000 IN 1912.
Jersey City, N.J
Seattle, Wash
Kansas City, Mo
Indianapolis, Ind. - . .
Providence, R. I
$59,478
133,929
131880
63,942
163,379
Portland, Oreg
Rochester, N . Y
Denver, Colo
Louisville, Kv
St. Paul, Minn
57,172
82,823
355,933
63,277
117,011
296
Columbus, Ohio
Toledo, Ohio
Oakland, Cal
Atlanta, Ga
Worcester, Mass
293,853
44,274
51,590
164,344
253,532
10
Birmingham, Ala....
Syracuse, N . Y
New Haven, Conn...
Memphis, Tenn.
Bcranton, Pa
94,005
43,797
51,981
122,936
7j 747
Richmond, Va.
Paterson.N. J
Omaha, Nebr
Fall River, Mass
Spokane, Wash.
33,663
55,702
54,051
51,157
164,752
Dayton, Ohio
Grand Rapids, Mich.
Nashville, Tenn
Bridgeport, Conn....
Lowell, Mass
34,837
84,521
42,179
29,734
60,045
Cambridge, Mass
San Antonio, Tex
New Bedford, Mass..
Hartford, Conn
75,315
24,010
58,425
49,836
Dallas, Tex.
Trenton, N.J
Albany, N . Y
Salt Lake City, Utah
27,110
21,801
10,577
34,032
$10,067
160
3,322
10,005
6,961
$552
165
19
14
6,290
63,292
3,590
1,336
839
3,054
3,496
*i85
$149
15
313
"653"
23
1,533
85
3,907
11,928
3,723
22
2,990
1,157
1,970
249
6,592
7,101
37
1,122
3,787
*Z,SU
101
61
1,374
634
189
$1,521
$1,427
4,115
$3,250
4 950
773
537
12
713
9,774
$374
2,258
824
8,409
13
648
5
16
13
4,992
1^255
54
262
583
1,554
1,422
676
1,512
2,430
94
59,152
76
481
952
521
830
25
5,197
926
366
1,109
1,066
2,026
3,044
1,672
* 809
2,134
2,706
25
11
1,384
121
5
6
16,812
296
9,864
19,695
1,065
578
496
3,034
192
7
1,553
229
1,191
269
484
13,458
1,097
10,826
183
5,061
597
885
4
890
39
4,661
3,435
4,203
5 241
120
593
89
88
803
11,761
2,873
21
1,248
137
1,270
129
6,320
13
201
3,699
$16,038
$2,465
8,131
21
467
15,026
7,756
115,394
4,006
1,958
19
5,777
4,232
161
262
11
"8,"i30
224
244
3
2,435
9,011
5,801
2,154
31
7,325
71
2,341
1,212
60
930
"m
3,995
3,843
171
106
3,957
2,215
93
1,976
79
2,776
1,826
517
1,366
3,337
625
4,881
1,665
5
338
738
4
2,412
2,011
1,191
1,400
40
3,409
466
116
900
26
232
2,055
248
GENERAL TABLES.
185
PRINCIPAL DIVISIONS OF THE GENERAL DEPARTMENTAL SERVICE: 1912.
assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 83.]
IV.—SANITATION Ott PROMO
TION OF CLEANLINESS.
Sewers Refuse
collec
and
sewage tion and
disposal. disposal.
All
other.
I VI.—CHARITIES, HOSPITALS,
AND COERECTIONS.
V.—HIGHWAYS.
Road
ways,
and other
street,
road,
and alley
struc
tures.
General
care of
highways.
Includ
ing
street
lighting.
Repair
General Penal in
and con
hospitals stitutions!
struction Charities. and
and i Schools. Libra
ries.
for com
insane in reforma
pensation.
hospitals. tories.
[$363,849 $748,597 $113,519 '81,062,967 *151,850 $2,749,076
82,753
51 052
48,590
111,695
69,759
71,112 | 1
15,559
18,619
5 899
2,330
326,689
44,165
242,866
88,439
46,438
328,330
103,691
433,219
109,636
88,091
Vm.—RECREATION.
VH.—EDUCATION.
Educa General
tional recrea
tion,
recrea parks,
tion. and trees.
IX.—
City
X.—GEN num
Quasi I MIS
ERAL.
produc CELLA
ber.
NEOUS,
tive
park
enter
prises.
$684,647 $894,425 $1,425,409 ^994,206 $399,219 |$64,941 $689,165 f381,175 $12,383 $2,289,833
63,155
957,680 |~36V76f
25,611 1,017,084 ! 39,105
40,630
338,051
115,903
21,870
95,028
362,043
10,534
74,218 j 69,850
509,341
62,960
120,023
11.019
191,082
791,363 1 221,204 141,989 | 49,918
1,088
215,802 128,090 59,395
238,466 278,236 127,354 6,357
6,760
65,913 159,691 36,325
113,865 206,985 34,156
818
322,446 166,555
101 106 136,018
160,892 70,658
53 093
3,595
51628
4,349
97
9,886
577
1,797,121
10,477
124,856
146,512
210,867
$i,823
$15,585
10,582
173,549
15,593
134,452
1,823
GROUP I.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 500,000 AND OVER IN 1912.
$10,438
23,606
3,035
1,232
23,445
$61,133
17,966
62
1,408
1,511
168,605
4,097
$45,105
5,282
■ 5,100
80)211
652
165
9,112
16,078
2,261
$14,844
21,129
20,853
26,969
40,745
$60
41,606
120
1,721
5,292
144,217
5,823
48,458
9,268
140
33
207
41,136
$144,949
6 615
18,308
1,483
82,500
$4,175
324,986
21,852
84,292
$277,241
87,886
37,263
26,199
30,631
140,904
2,017
46,380
43,865
879
1,209
12,150
96,668
22,800
37,786
13,012
438
23,269
4,984
75,890
228,000
$180,898
502,480
$10,303
25,127 $18,020
13,821
3, OSS
17,9S2
8,728
62,648
12,003
28,940
18,894
25,949
17,535
$633 $109,526
69,078 $isi,2si
1,415
4,723
46,686
11 210
439
36,420
9,148
86,946
4,056
200
545
23,923
20,606
11,884
35,076
j
1,633
1,314
1,297,657
146,756
15,274
GROUP IL—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 300,000 TO 500,000 IN 1912.
$10,082
$33,501
3,801
4,306
3,242
3,072
1 i,in
1 20,061
6,292
105
1 3,540
$122!
10,267 |
1,948
3,222
44
$67,043
200
11,997
3,047
14,144
$366
2,333
204
1,232
3,491
23,378
736
215
6
612
298
$613,091 i $15,448
54,039
2,001
395
iii,7ii 1 2,549
6,623
47,43S
1,130
35,828
2,130
1,543
102,860 I " 7,59S
20,574 j 1,231
$2,685
1,372
15,789
7,477
2,851
27,215
2,792
$13,334
7,355
59,632
30,830
32,065
$7,666
690
23,930
72,958
7,296
$4,712
3,201
4 836
5,664]
7,454
4,140
- 842
46,328
21,276
7,2S2
929
1,060
6,279
16,879 !
2,920 1
5,354
8,375
$i,6s8
\
1
|
$3,421
2,569 $39,995 !
355 10,727
2,253
5,729
11.653
9,629
6,057
59,440
85,296
$345
3,776
3,074
495
586
10
11
12
13
14
2,i99
2
15
16
17
18
$1,009
633
3,870
935
8,144
344
360
3,517
3,i<34
14
391
18,261
1 106
241
1,332
\l\
$94
2,193
946
882
687
45,116
1,192
37559
756
1,072
72,461
241
12.656
1 468
22,467
148,387
1,023
934
321
44,958
2,426
273
325
632
65,210
4,420
132
190
4,650
4
874
600
8,117
307
66
1,601
188
98
64,579
14,685
687
—
15,825
1
737
71
4,144
500
3,595
1,191
4
1,308
94
1,445
3.081
7,755
2
477
764
i
$6,149
242
1,885
71
1,609
9053
65
417
4,518
6,141
187
$1,621
23,179
14459
6,671
15,912
$1,378
650
i8S§ 1
GROUP ni.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 100,000 TO 300,000 IN 1912.
$38,043
!
890 [
8,286 |
13,351
2,051
1,556!
49,488 |
48,314 i
5,617
4,030
4,042
12,805
12,921
15,082
810
4,526
4^265
165
992
77
65,995
64
452
843
123
72
8,734
6,030
23
2
191
4,103
3,879
5,372
3,377
i,357
4,004
294
2,282
7,817
377
2,140
1,646
6)187
8,948
37
""Yaw"
8,990
304
2,215
8,660
3,399
333
13
103
$631
2,433
4,817
7,745
'951
i,i73
4
6,704
8,052
10,939
7)112
41
736
1,977
2,950
1,064
11,237
7,508
58,074
223
$6,435
$8,128 1 11,667
7,733
5,808
11,896
18,463
3,9S2
7,832
5 971
1,649 j 19,839
15,659 1 2,387
368
1,492
180
8,477
1)725
1,975
3,433
16,289
1,868
3,384
1,889
826!
2,284!
861 !
5,905
14,182
8,534
7,528
3,958
2,303
2,211
769
2,131
4,242
7,190
6,083
3,047
13,583
432
1,422
543
7,357
612
6,075
2,573
5,942
12,895
915
1,144
1,084
2,942
35
728
2,670
2,719
8,264
617
2,780
864
1,322
3,842
1,060
446
2,260
1,577;
8,750
3,940
206
59
821
24,362
33,731
2,986
8,115
42,431
332
52
15
12,409
11,142
486
1,813
13,115
7,118
7,771
17
3,579
25 689
31,027 !
$936
4,000
2,822
2,196
15,658
1 577 "5*311*
1,758
18
6,756
2i,996
11,314
4,336
$97
212
2,650
24,667
31
7,558
763
161
4,475
3,195
125
732 I
1,236
$100
7,714
1,448
$4,407 ;
21,891
5,897 $27,499
7,177
4,865
2,968
32,597
15,138!
7,000;
85,789 |
16,455
5,037
1,763
67
$1,147
8,190
2,887
2,692 !
i
227
100
1,785
235
3,724
32
4
19,805
6,680
24
25
26
27
2829
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
146 * 39
14
40
41
8,262
42
2,183
43
3
5,115
3,269
2,333
1,507
100
1,076
19
20
21
22
23
14,085
50
17,234
id
44
45
46
47
48
49
5061
52
53
54
55
56
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
186
TABLE 9
REVENUE RECEIPTS FROM EARNINGS OF GENERAL DEPARTMENTS, B Y
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number
n
I.—GENERAL GOVERNMENT.
PROTECTION TO FEESON
AND PROPERTY.
m\—CON
SERVA
TION OP
HEALTH.
Executive branch.
City
num
ber.
Total.
cur.
Legisla
Law and
tive
other
Chief
branch. execu
Financial, general
execu
tive.
tive.
Judicial
branch.
* Elec
tions.
General
Police
govern
ment
depart
build- 1 ment.
ings. |
Fire
depart^
ment.
AUother.
GROUP IV.-CTTIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 50,000 TO 100,000 IN 1912.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
[Reading, Pa
Camden, N . J
Tacoma, Wash
1 Lynn,Mass........
$11,929
13,648
120,537
29,985
76,072
.
i Wilmington, Del
Kansas City, TTans..... . . , ,
Yonkers, 3Sf/Y
14,914
42,233
19,966
5,253
10,910
67
6S
69 Fort Worth, Tex
70 Diilnth.Minn* ,.*, , x ,
71 I Norfolk, Va..'
30,560
49,935
32,747
23,517
14,798
72 Oklahoma City, Okla..
73 Schenectady, N. Y
74 fiomerville, Mass
75
76 | Utica,N.Y
61,816
18,295
Des Moines. Iowa.
mtm
15,401
160,179
24,683
15,113
11,394
21,421
10,734
77 Elfcabeth,N.J
78
79 Troy,N.Y.
SO
81
82 Hoboken,N. J
83 Wilkes-Barre, Pa
84
85
86
87
Fort Wayne, Ind
as
89
fluyannfth
9,526
1,736
16,011
6,922
31,340
1
Q% Mi
90
91 Jacksonville, Fla
92 South Bend, Ind
93 Terre Haute, Ind
94
95
96
"
97
98
99
100 Charleston, S. C
101 Wichita, Kims
11,559
2,003
18,047
11,256;
35,647
5,642
12,227
17,197
9,602
22,056
115,961
49,362
24,873
13,639
12,461
102
103 Springfield, HI
104 , Covington, K y . . . . .
105
$1,209
833
784
444
fifsi
62
$8
13
238
u
44
75
17
136
1
110
111
112 Binghamton, N . Y . . . . .
113 AtlAt.t.irt Citv K T
j
1
26,050
8,560
15,835
24,904 1
17,822
29,874
14,665
29,244
2,117
156
5,057
1,465
$40
373
60S
1,415
2,445
5
2,574
5,300
922
4,206
181
776
121
190
1,123
15
2,433
524
10
1,150
7
540
43
2,056
45
597
47
177
542
778
1,421
422
7,204
61
33
145
1,684
200
3,826
28
8
1,182
71
578
6,619
105
865
1,682 i
30!
150
1,733
953
76
231
552
177
3,690
779
241
4
1
27
1,965
843
1,685
98
5,060
290
1,000
826
841
131
585
30
3
518
101
78
*
204
122
1,462
12
142
52
1,069
2,638
42
3
230
730
990
2,779
60
2,147
80
684
500
566
2
3,513
2,711
8
559
1,685
506
1,458
616
2,044
95
4,489
217
422
14
273
50
765
3,117
3,512
2,364
17
6
75
54
25
3,707
276
38
78
156
1,088
15
363
813
1,553
4,917
104
i
ii,993
2
4,300 1
121
9,880
900
190
141
3,734
3,093
8,872
50
542
47
i55
312
39
532
134
565 !
303
1,800
432
142
.
273
1,013
i74
435
702
"2
122
52
675
114
523
397
389
66
99
2
1,325
2,740
485
514
492
427
27
1,510
346
197
56
587
2,738
144
49
180
26
872
2,263
60
220
1,068
229
37
19
5,042
1
50
190
$166
$l,51t>
l
8,117 1
4,530
8,287
190
23
1,342
195
25
7,823
1,604
4,872
766
3,927
168
50
$70
3,455
W6
4,366
4,223
255
150
214
134
453
4
10
1,080
5,542
207
875
418
643
121
244
375
302
1,408
$68
90
657 1
1,296! 1
1,741 j
$164
474
677
53
961
60
49
16 j
4,945
627
569
174
154
$33
58
2,163
9,139 1
89
394
60
6
$100
20
46
10
4,070
$6,099
61
1,277
68
27
1,731
2,725
19,421
5,792 i
4,228
106 Pawtucket, R. I
107
108 MobUe,Ala
109
25
$59
738
1,573
625
1,097
2,004
64
497
825
385
397
GROUP V*-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912.
114
115
116
117
118
Rockford.IH........
Little Rock, Ark...,
Augusta, Ga
,
Springfield, Ohio...
Lancaster, Pa
.
$14,591
33,134
51,314
25,099
1,962
119
120
121
122
123
Pueblo, Colo
New Britain, Conn..
Chattanooga. Tenn.
York, Pa...!
Maiden, Mass
7,667
31,065
36,975
2,755
57,435
124
125
126
127
128
Berkeley, Cal....
Bay City. Mich..
Ha verhfjj. Mass •
Topeka. Kai
Salem, Mass
14,222
5,682
43,283
$285
$37
$3,696
-in
$10
$1,508
2,023
650
$40
1,164
60
783
46
10
253
153
40
450
2,561
$4
14
453
"""29
223
467
60
158
220
186
3
2S4
211
35
633
418
661
521
181
$3,733
3,600
3,213
71
252
*260'
747
436
2,680
13,332
9,140
4,404
1,141
152
6,718
4,911
612
626
3,346
599
150
291
623
2,861
5,936
GENERAL TABLES.
187
PRINCIPAL DIVISIONS OF T H E G E N E R A L DEPARTMENTAL SERVICE: 1912-Continued.
assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 83.)
17.—SANITATION, OR PROMO
TION OF CLEANLINESS.
Refuse
collec
tion and
disposal. disposal.
Sewers
and
VI.—CHARITIES, HOSPITALS,
AND CORRECTIONS.
V.—HIGHWAYS.
Road
ways,
[and other
All
street,
other.
road.
and alley
struc
tures.
VD>-EDUCATION.
General
care of
Repair
General Penal to
high and
con
hospitals stitutionsl
ways, struction
and
and
Schools. Libra
includ for com CharitiesJ insane
ries.
in, reforma
ing
pensation.
hospitals.
tories.
street ,
lighting.
Vm.—RECREATION.
IX.—
MIS
X.—GEN City
Quasi
numCELLA
ERAL.
Educa-] General
produc
T>er.
recrea
NEOUS.]
tional
tive
tion,
recrea parks,
park
tion.
and trees enter-
GROUP IV.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 50,000 TO 100,000 IN 1912.
$1,826
29,532
221
4,378
$1,695
3,455
15
8,958
2,837
643
132
582
12
*
$45
2,543
126
150
2,907
1,016
14
10
41
18,013
1,603
538
20,847
200
11,744
100
21
323
24
335
467
810
457
]
6
2,790
3,034
i23
899
873
822
526
39
56,843
160
507
146
208
1
39
]
603
1
174
117
3
824
23
13,221
13
9,075
2,735
130
706
6,777
66
400
26
10,458
1,430
3
2,033
339
10
750
120
393
406
30
231
4,763
1,282
6,124
13,074
!
,
402
16
46
151
50
645
503
3,081
4,465
2,045
$573 i 2,492
2,156
997
177
9,585
11,889
607
15,202 |
27
891
9,193
417
1,055
966
4,550
S2,303
6,500
53
720
256!
3,666
301
81
219
871
1,785
710
2,953 1
2,405 I
11,024 !
1,100
3,296
5,541 1
2,250
1,107
2,023
1,007
9,901
3,110
654
275
748
9,375
7,317
883
93
1,131
90
8,100
316
442;
i,332
55
675
356
2,057
209
1,291!
242
3,808
597
12,351
4,087
1,248
1,087
621
335
2,204
989
132
1,009
iei
576
i3,074
1,154
10
12
962
498
3,032
146
5
7,255
1 513
1,928
2,383
196|
2,374
570
620
911
651
494
1,190
383
57
11,746
661
34,062
351 !
16,137
51
657
51
6,829
499 1
72
73
74
75
76
•!
j
77
9,906 * 78
79
80
81
112
$392
82
83
84
85
86
25
72
1,218
3,697
1,075
9,810
453
17,239
353
200
724
1,559
3,164
1,525
1,134
125
4,263
754
4,588
618
1,370
43
928
80
2,033
57
|
67
68
69
70
71
75
93
770 1
699
1,201
1,147
180
418
292
5,071
4,162
5,119
115
417
3,011
1,025
2,125
i
$9,836 i
100
333
56
10
581
92
570 i
981
50
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
6,174
i,304'
1,081
111
i,569
1,120
899
14,417
$15,218 1
15,370
33,688
5,902
608
657
193
2,151
193
-
$445
20
4,452
192
1,397
732
2,076
1,156
1,549
5,657
1)438
97
$141j
542
1,282
610 j 6,296
1,376
533
513
380
1.829
1,408
29
11,483
13,653
9,456
286
2,874
1,317
1,933
2,568
597
959
997
806
1,295
710
7,471
2,446
433
522
427
575
2,975
40
1,394
1,059
1,383 I
109,306
1,399
145,661
1,495 {
145
$63
797
i,250
4,979
32
791
37
27
2,207
1,490
4,043
79
77
8
2,600
| $1,383
2,534
16,671
6,381
1,235
116,328
1,802
6,219
2,973
383
796
377
675
2,397 i
1,600
29
687
40
2,709
182
39
1
1573
132
353
$4,661
7,724
5,402
3,639
3,467
260
207
3,512
11 15,883
350
2,430
i
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
5
18,830
9.347
2,850
2,671
97
98
99
, 100
1 101
10,746
102
103
i 104
! 105
1
i 106
107
108
109
I 110
111
112
113
532
1
GROUP V.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912.
$165
$4,491
$3,515
$1,496
5
1,177
1,308
225
10
6,218
$682
27
863
347
1,264
1,058
1,064
3,055
52
6
3,958
763
3,467
513
353
2,053
267
$3,221
22,703
18,605
$11,098
11,250
$3,197
340
15,745
3,714
8,970
44
tin
114
75
22,015
1,138
1,232
1,197
623
6,019
10,078
1,509
$6,209
682
4,147
3,326
439
$637
$1,128
268
$240
256
518
294
435
1,394
8,277
967
898
2,467
474
176
649
3,002
892
2,503
7,026
1,026
984
310
729
190
421
114
115
116
117
118
1,386
102
110
74
*8,"7D9
119
120
121
122
123
133
2,846
1,285
26
16,630
135
16,556
124
125
126
127
128
$818
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
188
TABLE 9.—REVENUE EECEIPTS FROM EARNINGS OF GENERAL DEPARTMENTS, B Y
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number
n.—PEOTECnow TO PERSON
I.—GENERAL GOVERNMENT.
AND PROPERTY.
Executive branch.
City
General
govern
ment
build
ings.
Total.
CITY.
ber.
Legisla
Law and
tive
other
Chief
branch. execu
financial. general
execu
tive.
tive.
Judicial
branch.
Elec
tions.
Police
depart
ment.
Fire
depart*
menu
Allother.
$130
1,293
17
255
100
$242
3,968
5,685
560
1,770
m.—CON
SERVA
TION o r
HEALTH.
GROUP V.-CITTES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912—Continued.
!
129
130
131
132
133
134
135 Flint Mir»h
136
137
138
!
!
!
19,051
17,483
38,436
24,819
39,567
12,792
25,040
12,601
15,981
4,780
139
140
141
142
143
9,771
33,565
41,924
18,071
21,457
144
145
146
147
148
21,139
7,882
36,362
3,197
61,095
149
150
151
152
153
"West Hoboken, N. J
154
155
156
157
158
East Orange,
N. J
rr
Roanoke, Va
Elmira,N.Y
1,758
8,487
18,081
7,742
9,978
*
HutitingtQTi, w . V&
Kjnpxvilip" *MiTi.
,
Hamilton,' Ohio
.'.....<.
Lexinpton, Ky . . , J
Springfreld, Mo
159
160
161
162
163
Quiucy, Til
Charlotte, N. C
Joliet, 111
1 Pas&nena, cA1
Auburn, &. Y
164
165
166
167
163
Everett, Mass
Portsmouth, Va
Perth Amboy, N. J
i
169 Quincy, Mass
170
171
172
173 Oshkosh, Wis
174
175
176
177
178 1 Niagara Falls, N. Y
.
,
20,307
22,674.
6,863
4,361
7,262
27,855
4,265
10,463
126,076 !
11,130
179
180
181
182
183
22,326
5,903
7,182
5,915
17,663
184
185 New Rochelle, N. Y
186 Aurora, 111...
187
20,740
18,709
7,906
3,344
188
189
190 Orange, N. J
191 LaCrosse, Wis
9,417
9,586
10,725
6,403
192
193
194
195
9,488
6,397
19,590
13,215
Shreveport, La
197
13
1,209
62
9
1,466
2,408
258
6
2,892
100
2,205
67
282
588
166
2,004
586
26
98
1,510
23
13
$2
13
$57
2,901
1,024
$204
100
$i3
$146
369
2
241
62
167
1,400
10
21
196 1
!
6,99i
1,271
54
34
34
6
105
2,963
45
84
456
320
375
53
4,537
2,508
316
1,519
11,129
6,040
4,211
22,688
7,925
19,510
6,081
4,721
4 659
33,833
19,234
6,832
14,489 1
5,784
6,474
$69
228
1,940
9
$56
414
-2
90
4,174
110
2,500
!
6,963
292
3
226
1,953
170
451
34
1,263
9
9,381
165
14 !
5
312
214
1,597
466
152
426
67
820
1,653
643
371
71
551
12
256
60
i,220
2,377
5,008
148
2,654
573
378
2,937
78
222
3
240
50
2,353
1,438
1,076 1
1,517 I
3
355
569
499
211
313
1,102
247
8
480
276
6,034
1,828
10
963
174
37 1
84
1
1,492
220
12,784
1,033
237
2
2
13
86
3
57
5
1
93
10
1
574
33
355
75
347
5
94
196
89
90
186
80
31
3,191
331
2,814
10
1,606}
21
618
1,601
1,694
13
639
10
1,761
371
115
641
1,521
40
774
16
18
230
24
132
1,979
260
125
1,139
36
178
2
28
20
90
22
2,413
149
561
17 !
28
505
102
2,318
107
5
87
300
1,486
140
2,341
32
150
25
24
78
1
2,559
2
36
762
m
105
(
395
6
1
473
350
923
983 J
31 [
is [
490 (
47
2501
2,470 j
205 |
1,105
42
3,435
3
98
90
234
602
16
177
1,597
10
15
529
602
302
9
726
160
213 I
3,20iJ
342 1
218 [
69
644
23
111
41
309
236
731
400
11
1,234
361
88
1,737
574
875 I
1,027 j
576
38
55
103
$182 1
278 |
471 j
358 L
4 |
658 [
61 |
100
8j
1,990
1,248 [
13
140
\
158
840 [
798
1,858
1,007
540
1
i
GENERAL TABLES.
189
PRINCIPAL DIVISIONS OF THE GENERAL DEPARTMENTAL SERVICE: 1912—Continued,
assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 83.]
j tV.—SANITATION, OH PROUOj
TION O f CLEANLINESS.
i
1 Sewers Refuse
collec
1 and
1 sewage tion and
(disposal. disposal.
All
other.
VI.—CHAfiTTIES, HOSPITALS,
A N D CORRECTIONS.
V.—nJGOWATS.
Road
ways,
and other
street,
road,
and alley
struci tures..
i
j VIL—EDUCATION.
General
care of
Repair
General Penal in
high- and
con
hospitals stitutions
Charities. and
struction
and
Schools. Libra
includ*- for com*
ries.
insane in reforma
ing
pensation.
hospitals.
tories.
street
lighting.
Vm.—RECREATION.
!
Quasi
Educa General
produc
tional recrea
tive |
tion,
recrea parks,
park ;
tion. and trees. enter
prises.
IX.—
MIS
CELLA
NEOUS.
City
num
ber.
X.—GEN
ERAL.
GROUP V.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912—Continued.
1206
2,068
3,814
1,674
S96
$73
12,000
11,645
100
460
$905
2,540
j
820
j
7,679
1
7
170
211
22,416
**
213
10
275
261
85
497
206
404
169
2,625
2,494
79
2,816
7,098
112
*
60
^
4,199
27
113
6
30
118
20
150
2,147
478
3,270
25
11
. ,4,701
59
37
j
27
124
2,616 !
14 |
2,090
510
487
246
6
100
75
2S6
32
20
19
16,515
230
2,816
942
3,690
21,090
i,308
796
13,973
6,769
13,702
688
365
2,075
1,910
8,527 J
340 1
4,350 i
128
16,422
24
83
2,346
4
1
2,836
279
1,000
1,548
1,482
32
292
759
573
821
47
7,iii
114
836
405
71
3,040
149
984
15
174
86
352
1,771
5,502
2,577
!
I
4,182
1,444
158
4,586
2,022
663
884
155
390
4,494
28
1,927
13,146
16
1,039
285
.
10,941
427
2,735
37
34
57
5,2i2
939
2,286 |
$2,521
1,673
2,499
7,937
55
$1,813
641
775
1,029
9,499
2,180
3,583
12,197
655
133
184.
524
317
•1,963
3,029
4,797
516
3,137
2,909
1,809
105
520
149
238
235
2,250
262
770
1,879
3,669
2,305
252!
502
4,72i
219
!
761 j
1,605
2
95
386
332
394
1,144
242
605
1,321
5,885
255
409
672
1,261 |
26
60
250
23
7
1,296
1,465
294
3S5
3,581
467'
970
562
3,043
1,862
665
2,213
243
497
641
622
901
111
21,228
597
1,808
1,163
3,581
455
2,857
337
369
1,725
1,080
13
2,837
2,678
2,222
1,649
1,671
4,050
190
305
14
1,448
!
^
7
200
5,880
1,237
8,275
36
4,862
6
4,729
isi
108,4i6
262,
iso
183
*
386
691 !
325!
155!
49
i
1,258!
236 |
632
112
8,166
7,670
$4,349
63
680
150
3,613
473
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
163
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
■
ii3
930
290
129,
130
131
132
133
154
155
156
157
• 158
2
2,618
4,335
1,586
75
35
3,111
143
12,066
100
2,955
2,501
385
1,096
94
121
$577
723
211
562
2,471 ! 2,915
3,389
1
30
3,334
3,858 !
168
$37
$1,927
2,968
310
1,250
2,337
3,455
863
31
289
280
1 1,016
2,369
! 1,185
3,709
106
1,819
780
690
2,381
13
71 !
$i4,000
$20,009
130
27
1,883
4,363
175
995
87
629
3,902
1,068
3,574
1,000
1,295
439
127
2,302
$1,344
17,276
iio
1,437
160
1,384
175
97
2,131
25
295
^2
4,321
31
i,323
414
226
1,144
|
495
678
249
m
54
29
10
126
231
57
1,142
2,503
366
52
137
1,329
2,213
6
J 10,576
;
2,709
312
$3,705
1,567
7,175
7,577 ]
296
543
2,241
4,700
24
12
213
93
893
0
1,612
1 "*
$2,97i
1
I
-
184
185
186
187
3,640
52 i
188
189
190
191
446
1,046
7,510
192
193
194
195
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
190
TABLE 10*—REVENUE RECEIPTS FROM HIGHWAY PRIVILEGES, RENT OF INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, AND
INTEREST: 1912.
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 84.]
RECEIPTS rROH BENT OF INVEST- j
KENT PROPERTIES.
RECEIPTS FROM HIGHWAY
PRIVILEGES.
City
num
ber.
Total.
Grand total
Group I
Group II
Group III
Group IV
Group V
Major
highway
privileges
(highway
privileges
granted
public
service cor
porations).
Minor
high
way
privi
leges.
Total.
By sink
ing funds
and
public
trust
All other.
funds for
munici
pal
RECEIPTS 7B0M INTEREST.
Total.
By
By
invest
public
ment
trust
On current] funds By sinking funds
All
and
funds.
for
deposits.
from
munici other.
invest
pal
ments.
uses.
[$12,327,793 |*11,162,474 [$1,165,319 $8,987,716 [$2,483,222 $6,504,494 $24,259,721 [$5,571,961 [$391,612 [$16,507,533 |$1,709,135 [$79,480
2,365,901 4,921,460 16,637,583 2,885,716 176,135 12,450,788 1,093,053 31,891
6,707,193 1,115,467
7,822,660
2,046,364
840,745 18,746 1,053,476 133,397
53,643 1,369,547
9,019
1,060,167
1,069,186
3,277,944 1,029,445 68,220 1,921,373 227,613 31,293
54,110
86,515
23,397
2,266,578
2,233,181
69,061
614,222 131,223
1,137
1,306,904
492,393
36,703
4,329
604,294
•599,965
59,450
8,431
467,674 123,849 i6,*296
990,926
323,657
90,269
13,107
575,075
501,968
GROUP I.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 500,000 AND OVER IN 1912.
New York. N . Y
PhSdeiphia'Pa!
St. Louis, Mo
Boston, Mass
$1,646,119
3,793,173
621,600
462,356
120,004
$1,171,838
3,214,023
615,579
462,356
96,044
Cleveland, Ohio.,
Baltimore, Md...
Pittsburgh. Pa..
Detroit, Mich....
10,179
671,361
467,644
130,224
9,840
548,013
461,529
127,941
$474,281 1$2,482,140
579,150
572,513
6,021 3,142,151
128,305
23,960
871,221
339
23,318
6,115
2,283
35,381
13,928
250
$473,960
1,735,083
118,977
5,867
41,472
31,966
43
$2,482,140
98,553
1,407,068
9,328
865,354
$9,383,530
860,676
1,484,976
377,271
1,946,371
41,472
565,727
932,863
817,722
268,442
1
3,415
13,928
202
$556,839 $11,159 $8,721,693
525,495 145,337
64,613
437,065 13,331
596,431
1347,048
2,597
135,999
1,487,775
438,472
78,574
291,841
74,333
$93,839
125,231
438,149
26,775
322,597
32,912
47,531
1,502
4,467 31,040
3,675
94,343
806,677
524,379
154,877
$145
$109,929
2,000
353,848
8,159
7,831
351,137
2,495
611
197,074
$1,314
$243,178
1,720
49,781
2,571
254,511
3,071
14,409
19,567
75,393
36,527
35,060
29,253
16,396
808
13,568
42,309
155
1,712
3,765
136,182
91,116
2,796
3,918
532
2,100
26,972
36
$851
GROUP n.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 300,000 TO 500,000 IN 1912.
Buffalo, N . Y
San Francisco, Cal.
Milwaukee, Wis....
Cincinnati, Ohio...
Los Angeles, Cal...
$200,585
69,230
$197,731
69,230
331,139
107,240
331,139
107,235
Newark, N . J
New Orleans, La...
Washington, D.C..
Minneapolis, Minn.
238,233
69,395
47,353
16,011
238,233
54,665
4G,860
15,074
$2,854
4,730
493
937
$13,243
79,537
2,420
1,268,823
50,154
8,557
456
$$42
49,326
3,475
$12,401
79,537
2,420
1,219,497
50,154
$257,569
85,571
65,693
671,760
134,337
$123,596
79,923
60,497
279,280
95,344
5,082
456
434,250
140,782
2,825
250,572
68,699
107,892
13
35,501
$23,899
5,648
15,201
39,632
6,255
22,564
2.812
17,386
GROUP HL-CITDZS HAVING A POPULATION OF 100,000 TO 300,000 IN 1912.
19
20
21
22
23
Jersey City, N. J..
Seattle, Wash
Kansas City, Mo..
Indianapolis, Ind..
Providence, R. I . .
$138,839
82,368
245,511
108,780
236,514
$130,321
81,195
245,186
108,231
236,159
$8,518
1,173
325
549
355
$4,330
8,376
3,582
27,150
Portland, Oreg...
Rochester, N . Y .
Denver, Colo
Louisville, K y . . .
St. Paul, Minn...
36,916
191,253
141,691
22,458
139,740
190,556
140,637
22,158
139,707
20
697
1,054
300
33
47,825
500
674
33,243
14,577
500
674
Columbus, Ohio....
Toledo, Ohio
Oakland, Cal
Atlanta, Ga
Worcester, Mass
6,255
3,603
6,072
51,437
19,569
6,252
3,151
6,072
51,437
19,569
3
352
2,426
9,943
1,775
651
9,943
Birmingham, Ala..
Syracuse, N . Y
New Haven, Conn.
Memphis, Tenn.. „
Scran ton, Pa
6,776
6,518
8,501
3,426
10,000
5,276
6,518
8,077
3,426
10,000
1,500
Richmond, V s . . .
Paterson.N. J . . .
Omaha, Nebr
FaU River, Mass.
Spokane, Wash..,
107,924
61,717
227,797
10,908
30,769
102,020
61,609
226,179
10,908
30,769
Dayton, Ohio
Grand Rapids, Mich.
Nashville, Tenn
Bridgeport, Conn
Lowell, Mass
24,299
2,798
165,294
3,815
10,093
Cambridge. Mass....
San Antonio. Tex...
New Bedford, Mass.
Hartford, Conn
12,442
1,481
10,187
61,866
1,481
10,187
61,866
Dallas, Tex
Trenton, N . J
Albany, N . Y
Salt Lake City, Utah..
11,476
44,916
21
2,643
$19,087
100
$4,330
8,376
3,582
8,063
96,131
122,982
32,533
353,628
$15,551
94,411
70,130
15,553
78,233
100
161,185
101,824
117,912
145,009
27,509
84,288
48,671
40,543
59,101
9,401
170,240
207,271
19,970
8,226
696
3,058
"56,"506'
$3,697
1,679
1,783
1,679
1,788
203,321
31,262
108,472
19,438
6,126
4,810
229
171,310
585
219
1,787
7,800
2,800
585
219
1,787
7,800
2,800
20,426
41,227
27,919
27,959
50,360
17,327
35,464
6,414
19,332
11,549
1,033
2,060
3,114
360
1,978
1,864
253
3,114
360
1,978
1,864
253
132,276
31,427
60,204
103,141
31,865
9,163
4,862
33,307
546
24,299
2,798
165,294
3,815
10,098
3,997
292
3,997
292
49,141
30,740
22,755
30,028
60,914
32,860
4,114
16,570
9,627
10,207
12,703
22,803
19,569
44,151
3,678
3,818
185
832
6,556
12,442
125
149,373
3,139
95,512
60,045
9,064
2,167
4,304
15,913
138,075
972
73,652
35,355
17,556
8,537
46,457
72,894
83,277
11,698
22,663
10,103
28,136
10,665
23,688
59,458
49,977
472
106
3,333
5,164
561
11,476
44,916
2,200
1
■"424'
5,904
108
1,618
21
443
125
3,004
3,004
436
436
1,053
2,585
1,053
2,585
Includes interest on cash belonging to sinking funds.
5,763
21,505
8,627
38,688
29,644
240
93,780
24,613
22,163
105,474
2,076
123
3,494 $25,293
1,947
3,895
2,667
145
2,234
6,000
GENERAL TABLES.
191
TABLE 10.—REVENUE RECEIPTS FROM HIGHWAY PRIVILEGES, RENT OF INVESTMENT PROPERTIES AND
INTEREST; 1912—Continued.
'
(For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 84.]
RECEIPTS FROM HIGHWAY
PRIVILEGES.
City
num
ber.
CUT.
Total.
Major
highway
privileges
(highway
privileges
granted
public
service cor
porations).
I
Minor
high
way
privi
leges.
RECEIPTS FROM B E N T OF INVEST
MENT PROPERTIES.
Total.
By sink
ing funds
and
public
trust
Ail other.
funds for
munici
pal
uses.
RECEIPTS FROM INTEREST.
Total.
By
By
Invest
public
ment
trust
All
On current funds By sinking funds
other.
and
deposits.
funds.
for
from
munici
Invest
pal
ments.
uses.
GROUP rV.-ClTIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 50,000 TO 100,000 IN 1912.
Reading, Pa
Camden, N . J
Springfield, Mass..
Oleoma, wash....
Lynn, Mass
46,463
35,291
14,584
34,678
15,546
S6,463
34,937
14,584
34,673
15,546
Des Moines, Iowa..
Lawrence, Mass....
Wilmington, Del...
Kansas City, Kans.
Yonkers f N.Y
16,393
4,G07
279
29,579
1,403
16,258
4,007
Youngstown, Ohio.
Houston, Tex
Fort Worth, Tex...
Duluth, Minn.
Norfolk, Va
2,345
20,855
5354
135
■**279"
$614
857
2,228
75
$614
857
2,228
75
$12,144
41,983
53,921
57,203
51,766
$5,644
5,418
17,056
38,818
5,541
1,269
529
440
21,202
15,812
9,994
23,034
26,191
21,160
5,693
8,784
19,447
5,495
32,544
10,108
30,216
9,461
46,406
21,449
5,338
417
23,519
33,011
4,062
10,228
18,586
16,290
2,422
3,227
9,784
4,886
22,246
24,882
20,810
35,591
30,696
7,942
8,617
13,780
16,317
3,689
22,485
5,778
25,562
9,762
9,290
9,993
5,258
8,722
5,495
2,822
15,955
21,147
7,351
306
16,160
11,994
14,811
2,321
306
15,024
11,347
10,279
15,605
26,646
4,203
8,747
7,812
5,803
7,062
29,434
57,845
59,300
32,409
4,042
2,680
10,659
10312
7,783
4,042
7,422
5,643
24
5,184
22,316
13,259
55,308
25,003
7,044
2,548
2,808
16,246
4505
2,548
18,356
1,715
12,712
95,660
10,687
1,641
8,815
14,988
260
*i,"403"
1,269
529
440
1,125
1,125
3,892
265
657
3,892
265
657
762
1,305
1,291
762
1,305
1,291
29,579
2,345
20,855
45,741
45,171
570
Oklahoma City, Ok la.
Schenectady, N. Y . . . .
Bomerville, Mass
St. Joseph, Mo
Utica,N.V
5,146
263
9,874
875
11
5,146
53
9,851
875
210
23
Euxabeth,N.J.......
Waterbury, Conn
Troy,N.Y.
Akron, Ohio
Manchester, N. H
39,249
24
1,007
8,042
23,597
39,149
Hoboken,N. J
Wilkcs-Barre, Pa
Erie, Pa
Evans villa, Ind
Peoria, B i . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31,786
31,786
6,664
17,473
2,350
6,664
17,473
2,350
67 FortWayne.Ind...
Harrisburg, Pa
,
Savannah, Ga.
90 East St. Louis, I1L.
91 Jacksonville, Fla...
2,963
20,347
12,805
2,903
20,328
12,805
29,937
29,937
92
93
94
95
96
South Bend, Ind...
Terre Haute, Ind...
Passaic, N . J .
Johnstown, Pa
Bayonne, N . J
500
6S8
16,244
1,821
19,475
500
688
16,244
1,821
19,475
97
98
99
100
101
Brockton, Mass
Portland, Me
Holyoke, Mass
,
Charleston, B . C . . . .
Wichita, Kans.....
8,093
4,125
5,499
8,098
4,125
6,499
11,621
'3,061
3,061
1,246
1,246
102
103
104
105
Allentown.Pa
Springfield, 111
Covington^ Ky
Altoona, P a . . . . . . . .
17,245
9,150
17,245
9,150
180
298
180
106
107
108
Pawtucket,R.I...,
Canton, Ohio
Mobile, Ala
,
Sacramento, Cai....,
18,926
18,926
10
10
10,123
465
8,928
465
110
111
112
113
Saginaw, Mich
Sioux City, Iowa....
Binghamton,N.Y..
Atlantic City, N. J.,
106
17,480
100
17,480
199
265
199
265
30,122
11
100
24
1,007
8,042
23,597
150
150
"i*690
"i,"600*
19
25
90
5,975
25
90
5,975
120
14
120
14
$1,137
10,484
1,195
30,122
$9,145
$6,500
33,563
36,865
9,170
44,770
9,768
3,327
9,589
11,828
6,802
1,335
""757'
10,820
3,306
7,432
3,888
44,872
7,229
28,931
$3,002
70
1,455
42
351
1,210
260
11,107
9,896
235
6,429
867
1,658
835
444
6,404
20
12,991
3,022
5,357
14,039
25,006
1,293
13,243
1,613
5,235
1,251
11,733
440
16,840
125
133
759
80
1,221
3,672
940
4,324
3,021
700
120
920
2,306
9,761
19,149
2,535
1,680
161
23,147
31,329
16,145
3,607
14,873
60
"750'
2,921
2,663
1,312
5,030
1,136
41
984
32,843
435
23,767
7,398
155
304
9,057
1,576
2,891
50,579
3,401
2,539
345
5,356
3,287
4,382
74
667
2,633
339
78,039
GROUP V.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912.
114
115
116
117
118
Rockford,Bl
Little Rock, Ark....
Augusta, Ga
Springfield, Ohio
Lancaster, Pa
$12,340
8,184
14,601
$12,340
7,476
14,601
3,000
3,000
119
120
121
122
123
Pueblo, Colo
New Britain, Conn..
Chattanooga, Tenn..
York, P a . . . . .
Maiden, M a s s . . . . . . .
1,348
1,348
3,675
10,957
9,947
3,650
10,957
9,947
124
125
126
127
128
Berkeley, Cal
Bay City, Mich
Haverhill, Mass
Topeka,Kans
Salem, Mass.
13,379
13,379
15,528
706
5,283
15,528
706
5,283
$163
$163
1,168
1,168
90
712
90
$708
25
$712
396
3,090
3,090
$654
684
5,082
39,076
8,666
$604
684
315
8,094
6,615
4,612
12,606
4,110
11,851
42,093
1,520
3,697
3,510
5,476
3,132
980
9,156
43,037
11,746
14,210
7,515
5,975
7,904
3,227
$50
$75
12,150
4,692
18,832
2,051
7,929
471
5,623
23,446
980
129
752
15,500
$3,092
15
1,415
2,167
1,641
28,824
1,985
6,823
1,857
8,816
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF. CITIES.
192
IPTS FROM HIGHWAY PRIVILEGES, RENT OF INV1
TABUS 1 0 —REVENUE RECEIPTS
INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, AND
*
INTEREST: 1912—Continued.
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 84.]
BECEIPTS TnOH BENT OF INVEST- j
MENT PROPEBTIES.
BECEIPTS FROM HIGHWAY
PRIVILEGES.
City
num
ber.
Major
highway
pnvileges
(highway
privileges
granted
publio
service cor
porations).
CITY.
Total,
Minor ,
high
1 Total.
way
privi
leges.
BECEIPTS FROM INTEREST.
By sink
ing funds
and
publio
trust
All other.
funds for
munici
pal
uses.
Total.
By
By
invest*
publio
ment
trust
All
On current funds By sinking funds
funds.
other.
for
and
deposits.
munici
from
pal
invest
uses.
ments.
GROUP V.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912—Continued.
1
129
130
131
132
133
I.
134 \Tr»K'fifiSTV)rt P a
135 "Flint Mw*h
^136
137
138 Superior Wis
139
140
141
142 Butte,Mont
143 Woonsocket, R. I
$14,857
1,350
6
5,967
3,698
$14,378
1,350
4,918
4,918
5,967
3,698
.
144
.....
145 Chester, P i
146 Fitchburg, M a s s . . . . . . . |
147
148
2,762
6,681
7,000
6,332
1,659
3,986
6,691
18,753
6,332
1,659
3,986
3,162
3,162
12,445
2,348
6,281
750
677
12,396
2,348
6,281
750
677
154
155
156
157
158
22,240
5,136
22,240
5,100
Quincv, TU
Charkrtte, N. C
Joliet.Ill
Pasadena, Cal
*
'
1,450
7,492
10
11,753
$1,056
$1,056 1i
583
740
583 i
740
172
172
450
88
1,373
800
450
88
$1,261
175
144
1,100
5,158
4,349
1,100
5,158
4,349 1
149
150 Newcastle, Pa
151
152 Elmira, N . Y .
153
Knoxville, Tenn..
1 Hamilton,' Ohio
( Lexington, Ky
Springfield, Mo
\!
i8,3n
i8,3i7
2,762
1
1
$479
42
1,576
336
116
112
SOO
175
144
i,432
42
144
336 1
116
49
303
1
36
i,450
7,492
|
M25
303
1,125
96
96
1,886]
!
i,SS6
3,247
3,247
440
440
12,546
38,026
12,546
38,026
45
877
45
S77 !
4,941
4,941
132
132
6,380
5,600
6,413
6,380
5,600
6,383
67,636
67,636
169
170
171 Pittsfield, Mass
172
173 Oshkosh, Wis
5,916
5,916
4,785
4,785
1,648
1,648
174 |
175
176
177
178 Niagara Falls, N. Y
1,368 !
1,368
159
160
161
162
163
164 Everett, Mass
165
166
167 Perth Amboy, N. J
16S
179
180
181
182
183
30
[
!
3,894
30,944
112,213
Orange, N. J . . ,
192
193
194 Colorado Springs, Colo...
195
5,666 !
5,666
|
1
i
475
12,743
4,609
6,663
801
475
12,743
4,609
6,663
801
500
12,014
J
930
340
i,io3
|
Wnilainsport, Pa
184
185 NewKochelle f N.Y,,
186
187
183
189
190
191
3,894 i !
30,944
112,213
1
880
810
880
i,io3
370
370
702
702
194
194
2,163
2,168
46
2,010
500
12,014
90
340
46
1
5,910
|
8,250
3,592
762
20,913
8,250
3,592
751
20,913
ii
1,542
1,700
1,542 !
1,700 j
$57
$7,093
7,083
12,171
10,424
$13,846
7,346
12,171
10,424
2,830
$6,696
$263
$2,830
10,546
7,137
7,183
7,099!
5,675
4,949
7,137
4,576
5,401
3,513
9,786
8,315 '
105,911 i
8,102
30,898 ;
4,389
5,820
3,849
6,666
3,210
2,411 1
16,690
31,105
60
31,156
2,411
9,081
1,250
5,597
172
1,111
22
29,906
2,607
877
1,526
1,285
3,252
2,495
98,081
1,192
27,587
2.870
244
101
60
7
7,602
15,722
11
3,083
3,083
6,731
9,126
6,889
6,731
3,913
3,257
26,411
7,544
16,570
3,116 !
4,484
6,001
706
3,149
182
4,484
17,702
5,824
1,142 |
3,507
4,937
182
5,349
8
3,207
2,469
5,213
3,192
440
300
17,466
475
763
300
1,089
1,137
200
19,321
5,701
13,221
2,611
54
'
1,755
13,611
2,799
56S
6,376
34,163
37i
5i3
15,491
6,178
782
6,652
33,722
1*883
2,949
214
276
' 1,550
19,860
3,360
16,500
3,635
3,433
12,723 |
3,635
3,433
3,149
9,574
8li j
4,763
20,044 1
12,731
677
1,617
11,329
12,269
570
5,992
3,811
9,737
16,747
570
3,760
3,811
1,659
4,032
20,267
12,209
4,252
11,115
1,658
10,896
18,675
1,646
26,820
26,739!
12,690
1,646
2,666
9,803
22,384
11,660 |
630
519
13,265
6,370
450
£19
6,593
. . .
i
a .
310
2,085
134
3,013
6,678
*
120
133
2,037
462
2,232
337
1,102
8,046
12,715
32
17,611
998
1,313
4,494
28
5,979
6
21,153
15,509
401
320
9,119
2,560
2,730
180
3,915
3,600
GENERAL TABLES.
193
TABLE 11.—REVENUE RECEIPTS FROM EARNINGS OF PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISES: 1912.
[For a lfat of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 85.]
TotaL
Grand total.
Group I....
Group II...
Group III..
Group IV..
Group V...
Watersupply
systems.
Electric
light and
power
systems.
$85,174,713
169,797,555
$4,204,515
41,767,692
8,532,580
16,017,314
11,544,297
7,312,830
32,998,432
7,903,559
13,762,549
9,088,366
6,044,649
995,428
15,537
973,059
1,511,541
708,950
Gassupply
systems.
Docks, Cemeteries
Markets
and
and public wharves,
and
cremato-1
scales.
landings.
ties.
Public
halls.
Subways All other
for pipes
and wires. enterprises.
$1,071,681
$1,557,727
$5,179,884
$771,199
$106,370
$178,571
$2,307,211
4,960,827
26,151
89,596
92,313
10,997
83,821
1,981
287,298
224,591
173,508
28,894
11,204
41,440
19,821
5,011
159,653
488,960
459,020
123,701
716,589
348,972
276,268
109,439
106,459
1,824,048
225,176
98,144
31,839
128,001
7,367
11,551
GROUP L-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 500,000 AND OVER IN 1912.
$17,539,110
7,277,926
4,997,573
2,372,354
3,262,412
6
7
8
9 Detroit, Mich
1,673,672
1,843,781 !
1,734,491 !
1,066,373
$11,009,491
6,452,828
4,867,505
2,180,665
2,978,566
1,404,481
1,446,925
1,603,415
1,054,556
$305,827 $4,577,230
6,427
91,104
12,464
81,163
48,867
130,354
$818,671
176,757
44,303
53,159
103,366
11,817
§i
1 New York, N. Y
2
3 Philadelphia, Pa
4 St. Louis, Mo
5
$1,646,562
„.
$26,500
61,659
115,827
$37,665
46,156
2,394
$159,653
GROUP IL-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 300,000 TO 500,000 IN 1912.
10
11
12
13
14
Buffalo, N . Y
San Francisco, Cal
Milwaukee, Wis
nincinrmti,Ohio..
Los Angeles, Cal
15
16
17
18
Newark. N.J
New Orleans, I A , „ „ „ ...... ,
WasbfnptAn/P. O.
tl,..
Minneapolis, Minn...i ,
,,
,.
$1,077,200 '
3,593
825,591
1,199,522
2,190,684 :
$1,003,604
3,593
822,219
1,171,486
2,171,253
1,344,805
771,780
608,898
510,507
1,285,475
365,992
569,624
510,313
$10,630
$62,966
3,372
12,573
$7,510
8,027
58,410
181,921
29,536
194
$7,379
8,214
920
9,633
574
$3,190
$1,881
100
221,986
GROUP IIL-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 100,000 TO 300,000 IN 1912.
Jersey City, N. J. . ..
Seattle, w a s h . . . . . . . . . *... .»...
Kansas City, Mo A i i t
Indfanar^ilf/Ifid........ r * r .*,, -Providence, R. I
$1,365,131 :
1,763,106
1,204,726
25,570
856,232
24
25
26
27
28
Portland. Ore* . , . .
,.. , , , . . .
Rochester, N . Y
Denver,Colo*.*.
**. . . . . . . .
Louisville, K y . . . .
.•
fit. Paul, Mtnn.
846,831
711,080
33,207
726,632
459,333
29
30
31
32
33
Columbus. Ohio... • *
Toledo, Ohio..., ..*
Oakland, Cal
Atlanta, Qa * • J4.
605,730
391,483
17,382
436,656 I
448,188
34 Birmingham Ala
35 Svracuse N Y
36
37
38 Scranton Pa.
39
40
41
42
43
...
*.
». .
37,426
395,770!
2,599
456,342
285
800,868
144!
381,839!
250,034
471,884
Richmond Va
Paterson N J
Omaha N>hr
Fall River MAM
SDOkniiA Wash
$1,346,261
855,551
1,157,490
! IPII»
19
20
.21
22
23
$878,814
$4,844
47,236
22,902
15,427
17,991
14,317
7,459
33,115
9,510
77,093
227
433,369
423,580
19,938
387,760
17,152
8,010
9,354
285
438,167
277,341
3Si,660
229,250
470,979
$488,960
19,887
144
779
905
$18,920
3,616
$20,281
$31,197
14,865
17,753
14,144
59,092
406
23,549
1,162
**
3,238
336
4,269
689
12,731
726
20,058
200,994
218,870
302,833
26,683
9,867
15,586
231,278
48
49
50
£1
52
388,674
11,968
317,369
370,397
365,964
22
9,164
285,079
365,411
136
9,428
443
22,688
1,932
22,862
4,407
53
54
55 Albany. N. Y
56
228,381
261,098
389.028
315,500
228,381
261,098
385,658
294,469
2,370
1,000
21,031
HV
17,311
2,599
4,552
227,677
254,413
319,192
88
244,991 j
13
51,358
18,126
4,345
14,694
3,060
24,603
44
45
46
47
48
28656°—14
$2,668
773
83
25,676
1,260
:
13,665
872
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
194
TABLE 11.—REVENUE RECEIPTS FROM EARNINGS OP PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISES: 1912—Continued.
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 85.]
City
num
ber.
Watersupply
systems.
Total.
Electric
light and
power
systems.
Gas*
supply
systems.
Docks,
Markets
and public wharves,
and
scales.
landings.
Cemeteries
and
cremato
ries.
Public
halls.
Subways Allother
for pipes
and wires. enterprises.
GROUP IV.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 50,000 TO 100,000 IN 1912.
$243,012
256,378
477,694
983,127
338,413
$243,012
252,746
465,909
402,967
310,232
13,434
165,928
248,109
267,996
257,064
153,i82
243,688
267,996
253,288
218,814
269,764
241,440]
560,549!
226,540
215,934
247,656
241,440
290,757
197,050
72
73 Schenectady, N*. Y„..
74
75 1 St. Joseph,'Mo
76 Utica,N. x
144,487
170,867
249,648
4,190
2,009
144,487
158,547
249,648
77 Elizabeth, N. J
78
79 | Troy, N. Y.
80 Akron, Ohio
81
742
212,187 1
237,065 1
135,157 1
160,676
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
finrrmrflAtfl
Yonkfiis N
MftftS.
Y
67
68
69
70
71 Norfolk.Va
82 Hoboken, N. J..
83
I
84 Erie, Pa
85
86
......
:...
$259
$550,408
$3,630
$269,792
$3,373
$11,785
28,181
12,834;
12,746
600
2,829
1,692
40
3,736
2,880
20,215
150
$1,743
12,402
17,088
12,299
21
932
3,258
212,187
235,623
131,195
146,591
225,909
1,090
275,284
168,175
. 5,088
215,948
87
88
89
90
91
272,096
185,177
175,806
157
722,118
146,654
185,177
137,191
120,962
185,737
636,381
92
93
94
95
96
108,097
21,614
108,092
803
300,530
297,604
268,060
144,631
26,122
30
712
1,022
3,962
300
605
.
517
3,047
2,470
15
13,785
6,000
$2,009
.
4,961
1,090
1,349
2,648
373
17,919
7,165
15,362
5,358
2,245
4,580
16,088
157
5
21,614
803
97
98
99
100 Charleston, S.C.
101
154,375
371,428
625,698
4,256
6,164
1
11
j
147,189
345,842
129,277
102
103
104
105
102,920
135,646
142,694 '
122,837 [
102,920
114,457
137,096
122,837
796
1,198
106
107
108
109
281,331
106,139
178,737 1
194,480 !
276,513
99,376
135,464
175,980
3,301
13,759
110
111
112 Binghamton, N. Y
113
119,148
113,763
127,103
211,444
100,043
109,909
126,990
211,444
22
836
113
303,790
189,228
2,926
7,186
25,584
4,206
1,671
2
3,403
50
3,493
20,393
4,818
24,061
14,007
5,453
4,493
i,808
11,137
1,210
4,300
3,462
7,946
GROUP V.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 60,000 IN 1912.
Rockford,Hl
Little Rock, Ark....
Augusta, Ga
Springfield, Ohio
Lancaster, Pa
$104,045
8,970
171,398
98,603
161,768
$103,592
$453
107,123
87,222
153,793
307
11,386
7,970
119 Pueblo, Colo
120 New Britain, Conrti.
121 Chattanooga, Term..
122 York,Pa.„7...
123 Maiden, Mass
244,031
134,234
2,750
276
109,780
240,685
120,711
192
Berkeley, Cal
BayCity.Mich
Ha verhilL Mass
Tqpeka, Kans
2,673
119,187
125,624
115,512
127,591
114
115
116
117
118
124
125
126
127
128
**"276
$414
1,683
102,017
56,364
124,169
114,603
123,010
$8,970
3,377
$60,177
3,154
9,507
$1,167
7,763
2,673
$61,695
14
259
1,228
"3,682
1,441
650
$4,016
GENERAL TABLES.
195
TABLE 11.—REVENUE RECEIPTS FROM EARNINGS OF PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISES: 1912—Continued.
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table, see page 85.]
City
num
ber.
Total
Watersupply
systems.
Electric
light and
power
systems.
Docks,
Markets
and public wharves,
and
landings.
Gassupply
systems.
Cemeteries
and
cremato
ries.
Public
halls.
Subways All other
for pipes
and wires. enterprises.
GROUP V.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 30,000 TO 50,000 IN 1912—Continued.
1120,440
4,545
192,500
300,905
3,291
129
130
131
132
133
$119,705
191,500
287,206
134
135
130
137 Racine, W&.
13$
107,124
77,688 1
58,718
11,971
107,004
77,047
50,584
m
202,939
165,128
155,150
150,649
151,505
155,150
130,122 |
130,122
144 Montgomery, Ala
145
146 Fitchburg, Mass..
147
148
135,663
187
103,151
71,834 1
126,624
123,462
140
141
142 Butte, Mont
143 Woonsocket, R. I
/
847
60
154
155
156
157
158
East Orange. N. J
KnoxviUe^enn
Hfim|it/Mi,'ohfo..t
Lexington. Ky
Springfield, Mo
j
.. 1
1
144,721
189,242
192,225
4,419
2,810
159
160
161
162
163
Quincy, HI
.
1
Charlotte, N. C
I
Joliet,IlL
Pasadena,Cal..,^ ** j..x. t L.i..
Auburn, fc.Y.
959
91,594
47,023
148,447
117,976
164
165
166
167
168
Everett, Mass....
Decatur, 111
Portsmouth, Va. . . .. . . . . . .
Perth Amboy, N. J
T*iintpn,Mass...Lix.
Quincy, Mass
Lansing, Mich
.* . . .
...
Pittsfleld, Mass
Cedar Rapids, Iowa . .
...
Oshkosh/WJs'.
121,344
69,719
. 4,663
132,109
196,102
114,389
59,138
i3i,130
98,973
92,525
144,305
241,112
109,384
102,022
872
135,556
81,943
106,184
101,212
149,849
83,716
162,307
83,716
109,985
51,285
97,231
96,206
61,630
12,862
17,281
85,039
101,615
52,701
128,446
3,276
61,503
79,257
128,446
188 Austin, Tex
189
190
191
274,162
68,799
61,193
53,735 |
125,433
64,186
61,193
47,056
192
193
194
195
86,703
28,032
184,319 1
99,516
76,940
169
170
171
172
173
2,362
7,059
6,180
2,127
174
175 Amsterdam N Y
176
177
178 Niagara Falls, N Y
179 Jackson, Mich.
180 Willfftmsport, Pa.
.**
181 Joplin, M o . . . . . . .
182
183
184 Chelsea, Mass
185 New Rochelle N Y
186
187
!
..
. .
. .
^,.
i
1
!
.
315
4,638
494
10,438
27
93,676
70,987
125,855
1,768
160
8,298
„
$2,282
85,568
45,422
1,061
111,021
.
4,419
2,810
959
5,450
2
125,506
2,543
147
2,033
829
rr
6,955
j
160
'
777
286
*
2,794
872
2,64i
3,276
87
153
1,563
3,055
1,066
4,300
5,826
853
9,763
434
1,352
1,303
147,663
1,599
21,034
8,929
7
148
——
846
4,407
•
12,862
59,792
76,115
576
4,604
8,749
9,179
141
406
810
1,037
83,736
98,974
2,630
150
1,025
i5,922
169,195
99,230
i6,958
78,223
,
6,180
1,584
543
$64,605
$1,177
709
80
7,059
144,721
178,284
49,397
1,934
7,461
11,921
50
6,003
8,985
$45,478
$10,471
3,291
120
*
Newcastle. Pa...*
Roanoke, va.
Elmira.N.Y
Huntington, W. Va
ttJJ.
, $4,415
$1,294
641
763
149
150
151
152
153
ti..
- 1
$735
130 !
2,541
14,347
25,491*
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
196
TABLE 12»—GOVERNMENTAL COST PAYMENTS FOR EXPENSES OF GENERAL DEPARTMENTS, BY
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number
I.—GENERAL GOVERNMENT.
Executive branch.
Legislative branch.
City
num
ber.
Total.
Grand total..
Group I . . .
Group II*.
Group III.
Group IV..
Group V...
$508,543,048
267,873,581
68,622,094
86,064,056
49,062,918
36,920,399
Financial.
Chief executive.
TotaL
Council
and
board of
alder
men.
$59,717,194 {$2,097,828
35,942,623
8,781,930
7,312,118
4,290 706
3,389,817
932,531
323,962
398,157
233,086
205,092
Clerk of
council.
Legisla
tive investigations..
Mayor.
Executive Auditor
Special Treasurer
boards
comp account*
cham mentand
ineand or
and com ortroller.
levyol
auditing. berlain* revenue.
missions.
$876,971 $142,267 [$1,142,673 |$1,013,451 [$2,910,893 $249,895 ($2,115,653 [$4,515,385
250,887
176,723
176,396
150,109
122,856
59,434
60,630
19,319
1,953
931
500,385
103,231
212,030
182,573
144,354
134,391 1,588,625
354,271
172,021
490,337
222,041
280,688
229,444
196,972
255,554
95,124
44,927
51 001
34,527
24,316
791,232 2,424,724
279,349
759,835
545,707
639,676
261,284 ' 398,552
238,081
292,598
GROUP L-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 500,000 AND OVER IN 1912.
New York, N . Y
Chicago. Ill
Philadelphia, Pa
St. Louis, Mo....
Boston, Mass
$124,492,413
42,319,339
28,857,858
12,744,453
19,952,503
$16,920,019
6,455,558
3.990,716
1,455,098
2,147,585
$224,754
333,002
75,332
45,787
30,701
$63,566
67,031
22,755
14,367
1,800
Cleveland, Ohio.
Baltimore, Md...
Pittsburgh, Pa..
Detroit, Mich....
9,610,153
8,621,861
12,401,997
8,873,004
1,331,236
1^000,751
1,726,443
915,217
42,143
66,415
58,499
55,898
39,036
17,173
$18,256
23,613
6,123
5,827
$263,349
27,968
64,343
14,831
45,485
1,218
4,397
18,661
16,791
38,534
10,423
25,159
$82,736
16,809
30,976
3,870
$925,321
261,835
91,789
66,663
45,990
$42,079
252
3,270
$174,230
238,344
65,412
17; 665
55,335
$689,130
647,197
340,495
56,410
18.153
73,934
48,530
14,017
8,600
22,085
4,921
35,564
15,508
105,705
83,469
229,827
133,607
78,526
171,338
57,713
76,891
GROUP n.-crriES HAVING A POPULATION O F 300,000 TO 500,000 I N 1912.
Buffalo, N . Y .
San Francisco, Cal.
Milwaukee, Wis
Cincinnati, Ohio...
Los Angeles, Cal...
$9,249,687
9,749,511
7,335; 777
8,009,506
7,738,732
$1,008,024
1,533,192
801,319
1,174,901
1,391,664
$54,215
68,141
48,257
61,527
11,093
$15,408
18,100
19,120
14,907
39,437
Newark. N.J.
New Orleans, La...
Washington, D. C..
Minneapolis, Minn.
7,837,422
4,486,054
8,715,163
5,500,242
920,544
669,129
653,662
629,495
21.241
24,603
56,167
2,606
39,885
10,978
$7,519
13,436
2,484
37,031
100
$9,582
17,904
6,553
17,200
13,889
$65,610
18,785
17,596
11,793
$54,523
31,771
32,444
48,613
42,380
$3,623
3,600
5 861
11,251
$59,419
24,682
27^997
33,078
34,925
$59,385
106.450
45,053
132,195
147,204
11,400
21,215
14,805
1,933
32,509
8990
26,277
22,201
34,171
61,891
12,118
7J920
20
534
17,143
18,061
10060
53,984
112,755
29,861
88,055
38,877
$6,683
50,536
9503
19011
35,224
$38,573
$13,508
900
6,164
833
5,488
GROUP EL-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 100,000 TO 300,000 IN 1912.
Jersey City, N . J . . . . . .
Seattle, Wash
Kansas City, Mo
IndianapoliSjInd
Providence, R. I
$3,912,413
4,739,296
4,238,857
3,384,652
3,722,325
$298,596
467,330
435,131
159,114
252,354
$21,603
34,712
11,925
7,607
23,679
$16,062
18,311
17,935
1,894
6,335
Portland, Oreg
Rochester, N . Y . . . . . .
Denver, Colo
,
Louisville, Ky
St. Paul, Minn
,
3,072,844
4,050,485
4,634,078
3,257,624
2,9441051
197,095
328,458
887,030
259,391
215,049
J , 345
27,218
27,287
6,932
27,049
2,000
11,926
6,138
Columbus, Ohio.
Toledo, Ohio
Oakland, Cal..
...
Atlanta, Ga
Worcester, Mass
2,747,046
2,052,008
2,480,078
2,016,639
2,776,011
188,542
173,300
216,590
141,189
143,763
16,953
13,721
10,529
10,046
Birmingham, Ala
Syracuse, N. Y
New Haven, Conn....
Memphis, Tenn.
Scranton, Pa
1,297,656
2,353,672
2,027;406
1,779,856
1,351,129
Richmond, Va...
Paterson, N, J
Omaha, Nebr.
Fall River, Mass......
Spokane, Wash.
$3,864
3,000
6,499
300
2,098
$11,825
12,287
8,364
6,923
8,345
$13,864
20,721
36,664
17,779
10,489
8,384
10,273
10,197
8,810
4,350
56,607
21,543
40,683
11,931
8,538
6,951
7,106
15,113
9,061
15878
14,761
7)897
10,916
4,732
11,181
3,027
98,704
221,049
146,967
100,951
119,456
17,471
1,183
3,602
1,295
6,965
5,355
19,480
6,170
7,536
1,834,157
1,389,480
2,108j443
1,560,419
1,775;019
178,515
95,394
180,328
82,568
158,980
6,680
10,082
8,076
7,565
3,012
3,124
Dayton, Ohio
Grand Rapids, Mich..
Nashville, Tenn
Bridgeport, Conn.
Lowell, Mass
1,518,182
1,619,782
1,231,616
1,360,434
1,424,598
114,632
158,321
74,790
108,085
112,956
12,785
13,404
3,000
6^479
6,301
6,639
3,801
6,052
Cambridge. Mass
San Antonio, T e x . . . .
New Bedford, Mass..,
Hartford, Conn
,
1,742,360
918,982
1,651,132
1,773,519
114,943
77,271
133,597
111,942
8,191
4,870
10,321
3,901
5,291
3)477
600
400
6,370
6,020
8,762
3,843
Dallas, Tex
Trenton, N . J
Albany, N. Y
Salt Lake City, Utah
1,140,616
1,177,159
1,52S)445
1,465,587
100,026
119,521
188,328
151,862
5,577
20,363
4,860
4,940
1,872
8,913
6,739
8,848
$43,522
28,405
20,333
169
2,548
2,400
918
4,555
3,223
3,256
4,704
7,701
13041
10,378
3,570
7,437
775
600
*4,"236
1,100
2,000
5,766
1,145
"29,fc533
10,921
6,185
22,158
5,521
13,129
1.379
228
14,876
9,332
8,715
6,844
4,938
5,336
4,406
6,811
6,107
5,558
31,158
6,840
3,143
7,056
4,215
20,028
7,429
26,757
5,867
3,963
9651
12,189
400
400
1,646
29,828
21,892
28,140
15,412
33 766
117,637
6,603
13)480
26,957
78,177
28,574
2,358
10,941
7,134
9525
1,453
8,604
18,532
31,260
23,942
23,566
2,395
20,666
2,000
5,375
18,100
1,497
21,244
15,135
11,823
16,752
11,174
1,526
8,223
5,518
12,427
14,147
10,069
13,815
5,366
8,815
14208
6,839
940
11,927
15,818
8,030
27,270
18,251
595
8,348
1 257
18,647
6,832
14,619
11,042
21,196
16,437
5,257
6,102
15 223
13,653
9,789
li;320
18,814
6,443
1,744
*2,*325
GENERAL TABLES.
197
PBINCIPAL DIVISIONS AND SUBDIVISIONS OP THE GENERAL DEPARTMENTAL SERVICE: 1912.
assigned to each, see page 20.
For a text discussion of this table, see page 86.]
I.—GENERAL GOVERNMENT—continued.
Executive branch—Continued.
General government
buildings.
Judicial branch.
City
num
ber.
Legal.
Financial—Contd.
Elections.
Collection Other
of revenue. financial. Solicitor.
Other
legal.
Other
General '
Special
general municipal Justice
courts. . courts.
executive. courts.
83,239,613 $1,296,369 S3,371,6S6 $1,536,555 $5,510,487 $4,576,533 $324,370
1,700,372 1,025,193 1,942,885 1,083,361 2,462,601 3,291,422
460,389
28,042
327,826
694,942
358,908
335,500
428,344
121,909
631,301
58,618 1,107,463
599,697
370,916
64,439
301,933
205,064
18,935
729,504
279,692
66,786
267,741
144,850
16,733
515,977
146,309
124,592
38,223
6,615
8,631
Superior
courts.
Care and
mainte
nance.
Marshal
Coroner. and
sheriff.
Rent of
leased
buildings.
9969,325 $7,820,540 $478,366 $1,624,657 $5,794,312 $6,746,838 $1,362,627
730,040
189,352
30,980
11,293
7,660
6,330,339
1,380,179
78,216
17,604
14,112
375,636
94,080
. 5,697
1,765
1,188
1,225,289
386,231
5,055
1,662
6,420
3,465,376
1,016,780
725,239
341,542
245,375
4,272,669
984,502
750,551
426,135
312,981
1,113,798
120,658
76,161
20,993
31,017
GROUP I.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 500,000 AND OVER IN 1912.
$576,211 $560,019
331,343 h 42,170
317,856
262,536
132,752
5,104
148,396
29,512
61,696
80,135
49,506
2,477
$895,952
556,530
197,335
40,118
61,419
8,747
71,705
38,453
6,947
34,476
36,097
94,207
26,751
$624,082 $1,013,768 $2,256,421
234,353
298,856
561,490
369,554
84,601
84,000
134,652
28,296
20,513
26,565
25,870
32,776
26,818
193,426
163,625
86,328
69,212
194,456
102,349
124,506
20,126
40,535
20,006
$333,133
106,493
89,104
34,047
40,547
9,135
18,382
35,953
43,598
10,643
37,829
34,646
$3,145,273 $160,684
58,063
856,894
61,192
712,698
358,990
24,067
464,120 '23,036
$260,339
441,515
111,063
60,039
166,924
9,048
8,882
21,739
8,925
24,817
21,161
84,102
46,329
188,449
171,977
264,202
167,736
$1,399,224 $2,323,833 $1,012,474
699,620
3,866
540,560
513,031
511,080
16,288
158,800
112,384
7,900
215,574
189,557
36,284
185,251
169,417
109,079
41,397
186,250
111,633
162,866
108,489
GROUP II.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 300,000 TO 500,000 IN 1912.
$47,848
83,382
24,117
41,391
118,829
$5,296
73,529
40,613
29,512
1,168
2,734
9,718
7,300
2,112
$50,384
47,303
28,812
36,109
54,686
$30,091
60,000
23,949
28,999
147,486
$97,132
100,939
52,542
83,940
74,856
$68,839
37,269
36,110
28,582
21,328
24,507
26,133
26,472
71,550
150,646
26,076
37,261
43,082
59,487
39,567
36,566
15,778
23,738
26,952
$139,370
258,382
143,679
164,621
172,958
$7,454
22,186
15,745
14,291
9,153
$10,047
62,223
59,435
57,481
61,117
$87,628
281,849
86,064
188,558
194,947
$107,566
173,356
96,003
134,685
112,955
1,524
106,121
93,851
110,488
30,283
215,227
85,970
3,615
11,243
6,580
3,813
31,025
62,700
41,821
22,511
42,203
36,963
142,727
35,967
81,486
99,757
$277
30,597
245
18,133
56,971
$25,368
18,210
159
64,174
33,954
$1,440
90,735
2,916
23,002
825
1,740
GROUP III.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 100,000 TO 300,000 IN 1912.
$32,512
4,000
48,248
$22,785
3,252
443
223
$17,836
55,788
41,086
12,497
15,852
2,657
21,681
21,496
325
6,935
10,120
33,140
246
21,678
23,713
24,142
35,708
14,619
1,313
80
34,871
23,374
10,830
4,467
3,266
6,445
1,672
13,802
16,388
13,921
9,036
6,295
13,530
4,179
17,767
17,553
15,044
2,477
475
461
2,298
3,379
13,568
5,505
7,784
9,967
16,566
11,683
22,083
7,223
1,390
1,400
3,794
6,335
307
1,664
9,811
8,931
19,302
3,104
29,886
•1,200
5*283
8,262
11,342
9,054
3,473
766
12,405
9,789
10,026
326
23,333
,
3,894
574
489
830
1,637
454
420
1,076
12,013
6,533
7,726
4,832
6,006
4,741
5,820
3,014
8,631
6,269
4,816
10 652
12,650
573
$28,136
124,054
89,974
38,410
52,099
$26,765
9,591
19,833
10,284
3,746
1,000
26,129
3,500
1,800
49,023
39,711
53,819
35,763
44,342
5,245
26,903
273,353
19,570
18,660
28,610
26,720
19,514
19,433
24,687
11,114
4,153
11,858
6,180
14,724
37,438
15,341
9,823
8,037
5,308
21,445
22,156
7,952
11,733
9,488
16,784
9,728
36,805
10,415
9,605
3 861
18,807
37,993
13,845
52
18,885
3,911
3,641
3,214
12,881
16,009
24,646
23,707
17,781
2,400
$3,950
300
1,500
29
900
9,640
1,660
—«
1,200
3,150
1,887
900
28,410
5,868 1
28,228
29,031
$7,267
$31,934
$2,815
5,787
$11,304
.10,197
499
6,650
$1,471
2,882
1,590
4,340
5,087
3,559
12097
8,284
12,281
12,391
69,154
106,932
2,714
58,057
20,685
35,848
23,722
33,670
20,950
26,476
24
25
26
27
28
46,627
28,280
3,030
1,700
17,545
10,018
2,580
13,088
10,502
25,634
16,300
7,150 |
29
30
31
32
33
992
17,967
19,205
14,673
38,086
13,796
1,417
6,635
35,994
7,841
26,090
13,019
9,869
34
35
36
37
38
8,382
775
17,558
620
18,681 1
3,155
27,426
8,176
250
300
11,514
10,041
9,307
4,008
20,288
34,532
115
4,502
19,476
17,135
14,085
8,782
1,200
400
150
39
40
41
42
43
600
6,867
19,684
4,848
12,365
21,372
850
6,521
2,000
5,971
9,843
12,597
9,045
4,543
275
14,570
6,568
125
11,312
15,559
5,893
4,308
19
20
21
22
23
26,368
13,715
22,585
$1,325
10,615
$37,571
55,533
69,863
16,430
29,265
$23,056
54,422,
46,610
i
I
2,808
6,905
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES,
198
TABLE 12.—GOVERNMENTAL
COST P A Y M E N T S F O R E X P E N S E S
OF GENERAL DEPARTMENTS,
BY
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number
HL—CONSERVATION OF HEALTH.
H.—PBOTECTION TO PEBSON AND tfBOFEBTY.
Fire department.
City
nam*
ber.
Total.
Grand total
Group I —
Group II...
Group III...
Group IV..
Group V . . .
General
super
vision.
Police
depart
ment.
General
conduct
of depart
ment.
Water.
Other
Inspec protec
Militia Register
tion
to
of
deeds
tion
serv
and ar [and mort
person
ice.^
mories.
gages.
and
property.
Totat
General
conduct
of health
depart
ment.
Preven
tion and
treatment] Conser
vation
of com
of child
muoilife.
cable dis
eases.
$116,839,112 $110,929 $59,777,366 1*45,226,494 $2,188,336 {$1,060,192 {$1,813,183 $4,482,522 02,180,090 $10351,178,[H576^2S £4,504,397 »1,273,556
383, OSS 833,313
764,587 1,339,670 2,833,861 1,164,394 5,607,925 12,391,527 fo
156,851
60,735,600
60,604 b4,652,998 19,762,635
468,020 [1,407,573
220,072 ' 412,097 1 464,856
664,720 r 696,443 146,410
222,767
15,834,780
1,200 1 7,349,157 6,696,611
231,098 ,1,755,205
40,194
738,696
57,398
651,618
665,717
856,442
160,067
28,374 9,238,081 9,477,959
20,440,439
1
20,462
209,905
977,713 629,800 364,425
500
313,718
16,559 5,138,387 5,503,692
578,543
83,488
11,781,766
14,877
106,673
605,762
351,482 204,002
3,518
4,192 3,348,743 3,785,597
218,469
564,458
50,278
8,046,527
GROUP I.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 500,000 AND OVER IN 1912.
New York, N.Y,
Chicago, III
Philadelphia, Pa,
St. Louis, Mo
Boston, Mass
Cleveland, Ohio..
Baltimore, Md...
Pittsburgh, Pa...
Detroit, Mich....
$15,036,192
6,706,165
4,323,957
2,020,421
2,266,263
$27,210,037
10,878,392
6,497,722
3,311,871
4,204,026
1
1,827,706
2,284,350
2,549,139
1,972,357
$8,615,886 $156,571 $667,931 $539,633 «1,726,610 $467,209
3,332,303
245,711 387,547 206,666
1,467,428
35,957 263,714 153,376 248,290
1,087,014
19,057
66,461
44,701
74,217
1,606,492
25,035
73,069 224,275
8,887
809,493
1,256,407
924,392
$60,604 1,137,998 1,030,817
1,009,694
888,810
280
1,364
15,243
36,503
84,933
29,641
74,144
85, Ml
97,589
35,418
11,390
16,986
121,955
8,794
541,803
525,593
135,451
576,824
288,436
191,872
318,289
157,519
£1.462,012 1$1,011,334 $398,739
183,709 305,274
62,820
133,574 254,082 137,937
59,229
58,459
17,766
228,763 252,772
95,289
144,912
90,433
167,647
98,172
6,300
49,403
15,460
$92,029 $207,200
24,979
59,914
66,002
63,462
90,721
37,329
18,023
50,486
$18,361
15,100
26,404
12,297
26,363
105,388
66,054
53,660
135,774
31,769
79,091
42,884
25,680
6,460
5,873
9,872
83,975
95,139
101,239
43,887
GROUP IL—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 300,000 TO 500,000 IN 1912.
Buffalo, N . Y
San Francisco, Cal.
Milwaukee, w i s . . .
Cincinnati, Ohio..,
Los Angeles, Cal.,,
$2,188,627
3,291,667
1,445,838
1,734,580
1,466,219
Newark, N . J
,
New Orleans, La...
Washington, D. C.
Minneapolis, Minn.
1,668,207
985,752
2,025,792
1,028,098
$1,200
$966,751
1,486,830
616,793
835,005
669,208
$979,566
1,426,148
688,755
802,671
470,572
927,056
392,550
1,050,349
404,615
639,214
505,478
653,373
530,834
$77,025
136,531
$84,375
307
8,213
9,211
4,315
87
110,533
12,242
$42,614
78,964
23,843
26,991
96,510
$19,545
61,330
40,867
49,228
97,614
$18,751
101,858
74,073
123,104
$317,590
99,993
155,868
140,347
94,872
39,032
39,864
33,137
31,142
54,090
37,161
61,899
40,116
4,500
10,612
113,501
9,149
266,842
104,283
138,624
89,154
12,472
GROUP in.—CITIES HAVINO A POPULATION OF 100,000 TO 300,000 IN 1912.
Jersey City, N. J..
Seattle, Wash
Kansas City,Mo..
Indianapolis, Ind.
Providence, R. I . .
Portland, Oreg....
Rochester, N . Y . .
D enver, Colo
Louisville, K y . . . .
St. Paul, Minn....
$1,103,940
1,051,466
1,053,641
968,789
985,170
Columbus. Ohio...
Toledo, Ohio
Oakland, Cal
Atlanta, Ga
Worcester, Mass...
Birmingham, Ala..
Syracuse, N . Y
New Haven, Conn..
37 Memphis, Term,...
Scninton, Pa.
53
54
55
56
$659,562
427,485
570,486
425,176
480,863
$425,902
528,880
415,388
388,436
439,442
339,888
438,110
301,068
435,859
279,753
402,485
455,205
302,799
349,696
398,994
"74,"265'
597,929
502,500
583,218
535,903
491,601
238,542
211,944
243,360
235,591
226,518
'325,715
277,149
254,687
223,664
250,605
31,232
405,847
462,599
515,669
469,291
273,654
159,863
204,139
249,682
220,168
, 121,332
175,196
234,530
240,547
208,894
115,149
198,268
164,512
144,143
176,554
131,136
193,564
181,637
237,053
173,373
176,565
795,065
930,949
754,789
806,798
709,826
$6,426
*i4*530
5,928
Richmond, Va...
Faierson.N. J . . .
Omaha, Nebr....
Fall River, Mass.
Spokane, Wash..
427,859
392,256
646,781
355,885
341,549
Dayton, Ohio
Grand Rapids, Mich.
Nashville, Tenn.
Bridgeport, Conn
Lowell, Mass
310,291
358,263
302,105
387,465
332,213
152,717
146,979
139,712
149,446
148,254
150,691
194,233
144,405
215,775
173,662
Cambridge. Mass....
San Antonio, Tex...
New Bedford, Mass.
Hartford, Conn.
331,946
239,698
339,661
445,933
174,196
97,055
181,761
190,777
134,422
113,142
136,111
239,756
I Dallas, Tex
Trenton, N . J
Albany. N . Y
Salt Lake City, Utah.
290,402
289,367
434,274
215,642
110,880
150,224
203,552
108,526
161,023
128,705
215,034
95,445
1,490
$12,006
50,962
53,956
15,022
25,721
$1,901
8,353
13,811
4,922
7,897
$40,565
. 93,136
43,277
57,138,
127,813
$27,898
32,497
30,170
22,960
28,678
$5,159
51,384
6777
19,497
92,102
$7,508
9,255
7,330
14,681
7,033
12,107
11,153
19,683
3,212
2,703
26,628
71,907
171,844
74,444
54,328
20,730
40,090
31,986
14,681
22,518
2,763
23,609
139,858
56,013
26,989
3,035
8,208
5,750
40,413
11,951
34,444
18,031
22,626
4,895
8,413
1,124
28,777
13,407
22,317
18,240
12,524
31,622
43,375
23,855
32,323
74,961
65,085
32,642
11,033
18,977
23,399
15,004
7,733
5,294
1,775
44,962
46,155
3,000
7,528
11571
6,600
3,926
20,874
16,433
11,547
28,070
8,603
8,912
7,497
2,463
12,159
7,684
20,525
49,008
9,763
12,449
31,264
15,114
29,031
8,965
4,801
52,921
10,273
12,401
798
3,275
4680
3,507
7,576
17,836
2,520
25,314
4,799
20,366
3,302
4,985
859
4,482
53,132
22,742
27,936
51,226
36,070
30,299
6,573
25,883
17,379
16,527
17,310
14603
1 993
32,247
16,767
5,523
1566
60
1,600
2,776
4,145
6,350
6,973
5,925
7,372
2,738
1,331
11,015
1,800
601
23,293
51,926
27,026
18,422
25,273
11,118
11,213
25,427
7,203
16,178
9,675
36,463
224
8,696
5,856
2,500
4,250
1375
2623
3,239
9,421
8,700
20,298
9,080
11,994
5,001
1,199
1,436
55,524
7,790
56,008
25,726
14,325
6,365
19,217
14,473
37,640
1,200
31,581
3,559
'225
6,210
3,560
S, 846
6,375
11,958
9,416
8,453
4,063
3,730
2,255
5,788
21,434
20,652
27,603
2,514
7,728
15,311
20,877
3,274
9 272
6,341
6,343
$4,569
$35,786
128,807
20,000
$11,247
172
22,530
41,002
542
10,888
14,958
14,889
43,587
233,796
300
9,000
9,370
3,291
580
11,228
1,744
1,913
16,000
292
"3*329
1,505
1,200
i Includes inspection of factories, tenements, boilers, wires, lights, weights and measures, etc.
3,750
4,821
4,434
GENERAL TABLES.
199
PRINCIPAL DIVISIONS AND SUBDIVISIONS OP THE GENERAL DEPARTMENTAL SERVICE: 1912-Continued.
assigned to each, see page 20. For a text discussion of this table; see page 86.]
IV.—SANITATION, OB PROMOTION O f CLEANLINESS.
Total.
Public
Sewers Refute col laundries,
washOther
and
and houses, sanita
sewage lection
tion.
disposal.
and
con*
disposal.
renlence
stations.
V.—HIGHWAYS.
TotaL
General
adminis
tration.
Care and
mainte
nance of
roadways.
Care and
mainte Preven
nance of
tion of
other
street
dust.
highway
structures.
Other
care of
streets,
roads,
and
alleys.*
Street
lighting.
Waterways.
Repair City
and con num
struction ber.
for com
pensation.
$41,583,433 17,004,827 $32,835,8$* $267,750 $1,425,548 [$58,027,116 |$i,424,591 $21,436,251 $5,621,139 $2,788,782 $2,121,171 $22,024,051 $573,887 $2,037,244
22,033,052
5,199,053
7,564,133
4,143,023
2,644,167
3,245,801 17,988,108
1,245,482 3,736,163
1,118,112 6,122,366
838,728 3,078,398
£56,704 1,960,273
127,737
34,076
58,604
43,691
3,642
671,406] I 26,073,977 i
183*337
9,046,463 1
265,051 11,818,546 i
6,072,131
182,206
5,015,999!
123,548
741,814
195,800
267,946
107,210
111,821
9,924,881 3,126,514
601,553
3,343,191
4,350,684 1,077,440
510,938
1,974,768
304,694
1,842,727
600,287 1,346,457
168,695
605,227
304,450
875,620
154,305
323,266
147,264
384,382
9,562,641
3,085,435
4,453,726
2,790,765
2,131,484
177,961
162,782
187,631
12,230
33,283
593,422
883,780.
301,049
198,649
60,344
$13,554
25,374
$177,750
59,964
415,870
391,296
498,953
171,151
54,833
83,818
193,087
6,755
46,380
68,855
$397,9S4
361,287
233,197
412,200
309,161
$92,190
$467,940
54,039
11,847
141,711
47,437
10
11
12
13
14
284,050
278,363
496,155
313,038
35,828
1,543
102,861
20,574
15
16
17
18
$178,493
190,534
206,070
179,153
280,234
$11,922
26,295
16,069
19
20
21
22
23
GROUP I.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 500,000 AND OVER IN 1912.
$9,982,532 $1,156,425 $8,612,621
3,720,475 ' 868,036 2,661,608
2,056,050
153,787
1,824,651
1,264,031
282,063
886,745
1,854,351
492,415
1,342,105
$13,324
6,365
16,641
$213,486
190,831
64,288
89,858
3,190
$9,759,703
2,791,263
4,200,748
1,710,877
2,086,796
$336,827 $3,977,640
64,381
601,543
81,689 1,420,976
97,371
679,248
87 037
405,885
$798,992
608,697
699,904
55,394
420,035
697,874
710,670
647,901
603,933
35,800
43,561
7,358
6688
30,371
5,039
61,309
13,034
1,074,689
1,079,091
1,623,041
1,742,769
210,739
519,285
189,072
32,259
221,955
100,206
814,170
875,181
774,925
691,337
50,125
115,911
58,357
68,682
29,000
35,809
9,700
803,173
1,306,392
$72,086
54,813
252,186
197,551
5,027
8,626
$858,853 $3,787,391
1,056,832
196,420
1,847,177
10,851
624,539
2,139
769,432
166,225
11,088
6,680
16,744
77,457
40,631
GROUP IT.—CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 300,000 TO 500,000 IN 1912.
$507,039
527,843
963,224
668,691
355,319
$36,467
193,926
285,100
68,992
25,354
$469,572
275,599
638,006
463,333
313,825
540,094
728,369
651,628
356,851
70,483
311,202
165,057
460,878
398,959
455,501
260,490
88,901
$376
16,895
5,483
11,322
$1,000
68,318
39,742
19,471
16,140
$1,717,681
893,704
1,027,297
1,106,168
1,033,173
3,250
18,208
19,748
7,460
671,494
524,484
1,257,624
814,833
$89,078
25,032
149,318
106,672
40,221
$5,693
31,130
115,665
9,243
148,752
$82,342
10,263
$5^,471
404,751
392,420
415,560
468,409
261,396
166,519
498,923
169,742
62,495
40,248
47,079
40,910
21,692
26,311
38,659
208,082
.—6,033
11,500
64,186
30,571
$16,983
17,465
44,827
17,861
20,782
9,761
31,910
61,662
GROUP UL-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 100,000 TO 300,000 IN 1912.
$198,424
* 152,745
197,358
146,883
204,620
$1,382
24,545
1,306
23,805
45,667
6,300
16,216
76,561
03,807
287,683
318,636
67,124
37,137
46,937
8,735
12,633
56,429
40,589
1,500
13,754
119,466
101,531
136,222
119,947
261,469
350,764
54,560
2,869
4,132
22,711
79,883
132,323
64,786
105,528
68,129
616
41,727
18,987
11,098
9,550
1,355
9,477
2,391
318,252
16,862
32.161
110,809
53,479
1,285
1,955
68,654
12,172
19,438
2,044
21,547
20,997
279,292
204,336
187,413
206,133
208,520
3,162
2,645
3,100
4,718
75,387
126.307
73,935
75,061
78,724
7,963
9,640
12,265
26,817
12,025
741
17,058
32,060
26,947
19,000
5,039
9,053
133,763
34,608
61,136
65,791
85,000
272,807
105,283
252,354
234,770
86,094
44,803
97,430
81,201
51,254
10,673
16,300
33,333
14,492
37,285
19,000
23,523
36,123
1,488
15,065
83,290
39,047
85,882
66,772
49,999
22,970
44,819
29,266
18,050
689
6,952
4,866
3,521
13,338
65,705
71,805
85,697
62,363
$261,658
668,282
338,906
268,863
294,278
$46,399
31,965
34,066
29,505
154,764
$214,359
599,707
291,024
224,962
135,293
284,159
494,902
255,286
319,558
176,727
32,316
24,987
75,567
28,289
39,849
249,851
461,247
164,517
278,154
126,796
325,226
138,335
175,939
270,871
196,326
53,592
14,789
17,677
21,857
82,736
262,196
109,514
144,140
242,154
112,754
9,433
14,032
14!l22
6,860
836
483,581
246,441
371,689
271,519
545,936
16,352
2,840
4.457
17,953
900
152,579
349,090
254,773
280,772
141,126
5,501
3,600
4,001
2,100
3,656
395,759
107,912
359,957
239,981
248,339
4,259
6.361
15,535
1,778
381
3,333
10,500
134,387
219,646
103,951
165,491
140,501
6,738
19,752
14,890
11,295
22,017
111,297
193,340
84,604
134,744
117,584
233,015
104,556
111648
112,093
153,304
76,708
13,771
19,531
3,049
12,982
144,997
87,185
88,116
106,897
135,809
159,522
99,706
118,508
107,388
116,637
17,945
15,446
14,620
9,938
18,529
137,318
77,899
88,353
95,672
196,733
96,132
172,349
106,354
52,033
6,269
36,753
13,619
141,352
79,363
135,596
90,135
110,520
93,393
115,775
. 123,208
8,949
4,340
23,722
103,662
82,294
84,046
87,703
$5,619
3,197
972
2,609
2,012
4,865
3,714
1,499
5,809
47
857
15
^
27,389
$900
30,991
13,816
11,199
4,216
$378,299
419,034
470,146
412,667
632,331
1,020
6,059
13,190
8,250
417,740
546,986
550,889
512,852
523,762
2,600
2,150
11,783
159,099
102,599
141,453
150,327
$31,572
39,117
3,406
3,840
26,603
2,091
5,200
1,200
8,195
3,798
10,744
t Includes undistributed highway expenses.
$4,029
$2,787
46,757
17,202
79,499
22,956
55,451
70,716
61,513
95,699
"20,481
2,425
69,466
56,621
15,179
15,301
33,180
43,147
38,384
15,569
23,848
25,345
1,305
22,836
4,727
22,797
891
9,681
$1,703
150,087
272,675
183,755
173,393
259,526
127,159
84,874
120,987
125,357
132,161
1,000
1,000
51,162
120,170
91,785
111,757
63,447
76,222
75,874
240,660
81,249
63,242
300
890
8,287
24
25
26
27
28
13,351
2,051
1,556
20,583
44,041
29
30
31
32
33
5,617
4,030
7,020
12,805
34
35
36
37
12,921
15,083
39
40
41
42
43
65,995
56,444
4,103
3,880
5,372
3,378
4,817
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
1,172
464
6,914
53
54
55
56
2,433
25
FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES.
200
T A B L E 1 2 . — G O V E R N M E N T A L COST P A Y M E N T S F O R E X P E N S E S O F G E N E R A L D E P A R T M E N T S ,
BY
[For a list of the cities arranged alphabetically by states, with the number
VI.—CHARITIES, HOSPITALS, AND CORRECTIONS.
Hospitals.
Charities.
City
num
ber.
Total.
Grand total
Group I
Group IL
Group III
Group IV
Group V
.-..
$33,231,282
21,593,322
5,247,457
3,538,910
1,519,879
1,331,714
General
super
vision.
Outdoor Poor in
poor relief. institu
tions.
Care of
children.
Other
charities.
Corrections.
Institu
tions for
adults.
General Insane in
hospitals. hospitals.
Institu
tions for
minors.
Proba
tion
boards
and
officers.
$706,440 112,508,298 ($4,923,993 £4,957,074 1*2,109,538 $9,192,341 1*2,213,519 1*4,997,335 1*1,355,825 $266,919
437,744
£4,825
90,209
52,292
41,380
917,362 2,884,791 4,167,482 1,974,804
63,174
486,052
651,629
315,723
32,150
657,416
96,198
543,646
330,002
173,066
19,902
412,372
200,155
34,276
19,508
319,195
5,562,782 1,285,628 3,260,244
1,369,173
954,650
783,317
1,344,103
515,289
110,349
123,285
376,969
13,451
143,867
539,314
20,774
893,009
299,820
136,855
13,946
12,195
209,476
39,104
12,695
4,594
1,050
$1,436,571
431,244
473,137
110,522
$61,332
298,359
85,471
81,609
95,391
$72,560
20,172
15,381
66,277
72,112
74,646
178,630
213,744
54,378
120,684
77,476
18,309
15,660
6,000
11,874
1,552
$144,186
111,387
107,554
69,220
$25,259
14,583
5,020
66,499
46,472
$11,598
10,624
91,904
71,560
267,510
31,046
62,290
18,286
61,093
10,318
GROUP I.—CITIES HAVING^ A POPULATION OF 500,000 AND OVER IN 1912.
New York, N . Y ,
Chicago, m
Philadelplha, Pa,
St. Louis,Mo....
Boston, Mass
Cleveland, Ohio..
Baltimore, Md...
Pittsburgh. Pa...
Detroit, Mich..*.
$10,856,524
2,700,547
3,014,272
771,186
1,664,457
502,253
674,426
846,066
563,591
$280,905
$147,393
374,159
56,273
12,264
94,604
„ mi
147,706
11,197
23,062
10,712
47,082
16,772
31,130
96,156
$721,034 $3,009,834 $1,889,244
614,190 1 128,319
38,987
844,426
375,350
6,100
3,834
73,791
4,016
225,118
105,094
188
65,228
211,510
435,248
163,322
13,595
20,063
42,317
29,134
2,023
5,112
$3,310,211
699,096
353,296
277,964
660,441
$43,633
800,047
191,114
166,939
66,207
2,450
26,178
38,125
145,324
38,679
28,506
1
GROUP H.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 300,000 TO 500,000 IN 1912.
Buffalo, N . Y
San Francisco, Cal
Milwaukee, Wis...
Cincinnati, Ohio..
Los Angeles, Cal..
$655,225
854,029
533,602
569,352
378,368
Newark, N . J . . . . .
New Orleans, La..
Washington, D. C.
Minneapolis, Minn.
746,742
188,045
1,133,899
188,195
$28,117
8,829
7,490
4,676
1,080
34,623
$55,071
9,969
42,500
77,085
42,637
$280,932
212,809
70,203
102,300
54,649
$69,726
216,263
39,075
3,554
3,210
9,271
4,348
4,322
51,362
5,220
18,695
13,184
37,452
34,801
45,789
12,694
7,507
23,916
122,471
330
5,460
1,050
3,940
7,495
$27,288
$24,646
286,334
97,654
212,948
160,531
$2,684
141,898
15,284
1,588
205,639
11,570
262,707
289,129
20,562
312,172
107,144
5,999
4,899
5,984
GROUP III.-CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF 100,000 TO 300,000 IN 1912.
19
20
21
22
23
Jersey City, N. J..
Seattle, Wash
Kansas City, Mo..
Indianapolis, Ind.
Providence, R. I . .
$131,574
85,184
305,046
121,712
136,389
24
25
26
27
28
Portland, Oreg.
Rochester, N / Y . . .
Denver, Colo
Louisville, Ky
St. Paul, Minn
22,516
222,165
160,916
256,433
110,595
29
30
31
32
33
Columbus, Ohio....
Toledo, Ohio
Oakland, Cal
Atlanta, Ga
Worcester, Mass....
„ 51,235
42,856
. 6,580
152,935
222,333
34
35
36
37
38
Birmingham, Ala..
Syracuse, N . Y .
New Haven, Conn.
Memphis, Term
Scran ton, Pa,
173^408
117,111
76,494
Richmond, V a . . .
Paterson, N. J . . .
Omaha, Nebr
Fall River, Mass.
Spokane, Wash..
85,647
55,189
15,143
121,095
34,158
Dayton, Ohio
Grand
@FedFRASER