Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The Sunday Oregonian. (Portland, Ore.) 1881-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 10, 1901)
fc 1 M " s 32 : THE -SUNDAY . QREG02UA&, POBTLAND, t NQVEMBEB ,10, 190,1, j j , i MminicipaHty mane, -uzmm&r f tS )thar Amerlcao jj-i v.V J , 01' a t A L. Mills, chairman of the Charter Commission, and president of the Tax payers' .League, has been making a study of statistics of cities issued recently by the National Department of Lab6r. For the purpose of comparison he has taken Bis cities Immediately above Portland In point of population and six immediately below. After extracting -all the light possible. Mr. Mills finds: Flint The urea of Portland !e too errcat for a satisfactory and econom ical, administration of Government. Second The most popular pave raent for heavy travel itf srranltc or Selffian block, with -wooden uIocIcn decidedly unpopular. Third Portland in well lighted at reasonable, cost and incandescent lights are not pepclar. Foarth Portland's police force Is "totally inadequate to the needs of the city bnt Is maintained at a rea sonable cost. "Fifth That neither high license aor loir license checks the number of arrests, and that Portland conld raise the liquor license to $000 per Annum and not he above the aver agre of other cities. Sixth The Fire Department has been handled efficiently and ceo xtomlcally and the question of insur ance rates in Portland should be agitated Seventh Pure water and good drainage make Portland one of the healthiest cities In the cpuntry. Eighth Portland has Jjccn derelict in, guarding: Its rlghtn and fran chise In the past, hut It Nhould es tablish a public market at once for the health, convenlenccnnd re cnuc f the city. KInth Portland Is behind the pro cession In the matter of public kin dergartens and municipal libraries. Tenth Portland cannot pay tlie in terest on it debts and maintain n respectable cot ernment, f urnlwhlngr the inhabitants -with clean and Mprlnkled streets and adequate fire, lp;ht and police protection on 8 mills -with a low basin of assess ment. Eleventh The citizens set value received for the taxes collected for city purposes. If It Is expected that Portland should furnish anything like the protection and advantages of like cities elsewhere, and that should be furnished If Portlnnd has any self-respect or -wish to be rec ognized ns a modern city, its citl xens -mast provide a much srreater revenue to conduct the government, One cannot travel first class on a steerage ticket, and Portland cannot pass as a first-class city on a village Income. Mr. Mills' report follows: THE MUNICIPALITY OF PORTLAND. To those who have not had the oppor tunity of examining the bulletin on "Sta tistics of Cities," issued September, 1901, by the Department of Labor at Wash ington, D. C, it may not prove uninter esting to see how Portland compares with other cities in the United States of like population in the cost and conduct of its, municipal government. By the census of. 1900 Portland was by population the 42d city in the United States, and the tables here given include the,J2 cities next to Portland in size; the comparisons become the more interesting in that the cities tabulated are situated' in '12 different states: four in the South, three on the Pacific Coast and five may he classed by us as Eastern states. Street Area. The first table covers the subjects of population, area and streets. On exam ining the figures on area the most super ficial observer must appreciate how con sistent the people of this Coast are in their approval of the theory of expan sion. They practice what they preach, and Los Angeles, Portland and Seattle are, cities of magnificent areas. Portland 'In area Js the 20th city in the United States, larger than Baltimore, Pittsburg "or 'Cleveland and nearly the size of Bos ton. To maintain, sweep and sprinkle the streets, to give the inhabitants ade quate fire, police and light protection in cities of such great area requires a most plethoric municipal purse; Portland has one 'Of the leanest and the results are known to all. j On the contrary, note how the thrirty Easterner cuts his. garments to suit the Cloth: Scranton and Grand Rapids are pot one-hair, Lowell not -one-third, Dayton ,4bout one-fourth and Richmond and Cam bridge pot one-sixth the area of Portland, toufc Cambridge has every mile Improved 'of'its'lSO miles of streets, employes 84 "xnen and expends nearly twice the amount iVoi tfa'nd does in .sweeping and sprinkling. Seattle, on the other hand, a Pacific 'Coast -city of magnificent area and vast aspirations, has 14 miles of improved .streets and expends one-sixth of the out lay of Cambridge in sweeping and sprlnk 'llng. It may be urged that Portland is a comparatively new city and should not be .compared with some of these Eastern .cities. Portland was incorporated In 1S5L Cambridge in 1846; Scranton. in 1S66; Grand rBapids in lfcoO, and Dayton in 1&40. Paving. In view of the' present discussion about , proper paving material for Portland an examination of the statistics of the 13 cities tabulated is not uninstructive. Of 1he higher class of paving materials granite and Belgian blocks are easily first (113.43 .miles), asphalt is second (64.09 : miles), brick is a good third 1.20 miles), cobble-stones fourth (3L39 miles), vrith -wooden blocks (15.19 miles), distanced in the -race for popular favor. Of course cost of material and climatic conditions are large factors "in the consideration ot the kind of material to be used by each ' clly, but with the general introduction ot rubber tires, Belgian blocks, properly cut and laid (as has been done on the block about the Thompson Fountain), will con tinue to be the most highly favored pave ment, especially on streets subjected to " heavy and constant travel. Of the cheaper classes of paving material popular favor seems about equally divided between macadam-and gravel, dependent, probably, up on cost and quality of material. Portland has about an equal amount laid of each, , but if it is not too early to Judge of the streets laid last year In Albina, gravel is thehest material for light travel In Port- land. vThe second table covers the sub ject of "protection" given by the IS cities. Street Lighting. In the matter of cost- of lighting and -amount of light furnished, Portland com pares favorably with the 12 other Cities, though six cities have a smaller light bill than Portland. On study of tjhe table come curious facts are developed. Los Angeles, with nearly three times Port land's mileage of streets, depends upon 324 arcs alone for light and expends about $2000 per annum less than Portlana. un the other hand. Grand Rapids, owning Its own plant, having nearly 100 miles more of streets than Portland, makes shift to get along with 200 less, arcs ana ho Incandescent lights. Possibly, the shade trees have all been cut down, In Grand Rapids. Only three cities besides Portland make use of incan descent lights, Seattle leaning largely to that style of light. Only three cities use Welsbach lamps, and Lowell, Albany and Cambridge, with sixty odd less miles of streets, pay half again as much for light as Portland does. Portland seems to get a fair return for the money expended in lights and to furnish the inhabitants as much light as do the -other cities. Police Protection. In the matter of police protection Port land and Scranton are far below the aver age both In number of policemen and cost of the departments. Judged by? "num ber of arrests made" Portland's policemen are by no means idle and their record compares favorably with that of other cities, even If they have not caught the Mayor's assailant. Roughly speaking, the cost of the department in the different cities seems to' be about $1000 per mart em ployed. The relation that the number ol saloons and amount of license paid bear to the number of policemen employed, number of arrests made and cost of the department, present some peculiar fea tures. Cambridge, with no saloons, re quires 107 policemen at a cost of $123,775 to keep the peace. Portland and Scranton, with 267 and 202 saloons, with licenses or 5400 and $550, requires but 53 and 55 po licemen at a cost of 552,537 and $54,9S4 re spectively, to keep good order; but then possibly in Scranton as in Portland every man is his own special policeman or per haps Scranton like Portland Is an orderly, well-behaved city. On the other hand, Lowell, with high HcenEe ($1500 and $2000). and Atlanta with $1000 license require 121 and 161 policemen respectively, at a cost of $133,526 and $142,197; and the number ot arrests In Atlanta were five times those of Portland. Low license,' again, as evi denced by Nashville ($72), demands 95 po licemen at a cost of $85,862. If any de ductions can be made from these figures It would appear that Portland Is inade quately policed for the miles of streets to be protected (a deduction that every citi zen will concur In without looking at the tables); that neither high license nor no license checks the number of arrests, and that the cost of license in Portland could be made $600, as In Los Angeles and Se attle, and thp additional revenue well spent in additional police protection. Fire Protection. In regard to fire protection the figures speak well for the economical and efficient administration of Portland's department. With but two cities, Scranton and Day ton, administered at a lower cost, the property loss In Portland was lower than any of the cities reported. With this in view it would be Interesting to know how insurance rates of Portland compare with those of other cities. It has been stated that they are much higher than In like cities in the East, but the bulletin on "Statistics of Cities" throws no light on the subject. Health. The third table covers the subject or health and public utilities. Of the 13 cities tabulated, Seattle has the lowest death rate (9.71) and Portland next (10 21). The four Southern cities have all a high death rate, Richmond having a rate of 23.68. The number of miles of sewers bears no direct ratio to the death rate, though Rich mond has the least number of miles. Probably the large colored population in the South raises the death rate percent age while the good climate or our coast may tend to keep ours down. Apparently n so-called rainy climate Is healthier than everlasting sunshine, since Los Angeles has a death rate of 16.87, considerably higher than Portland and Seattle. Water. From the "water statistics little compari son can be made between Portland and the other cities. The percentage of re ceipts to cost varies from six to eight per cent, and Portland averages with tfie other cities. But distance fro'm source and charge for service are such factors In any comparative consideration that no deductions can be drawn, favorable to Portland or otherwise. Public Parks. In the matter or area of public parks, thebreathing places of the poor, Portland stands -well, but like many another de partment of our municipal household but a niggardly allowance Is doled out for maintenance. Hbwever, four other cities think that the public health, and happiness require only a small expenditure, and it is but recently that the great City of New York has awakened to the necessity and appropriated considerable sums of jnoney for the purchase of land in the crowded districts; turning it into small parks for the poor as a matter of good municipal political economy. Street Railroads. "When one studies the street railroad statistics the small number of employes in proportion to the miles operated In Port land is startling. Cambridge with about one-third the mileage requires 424 more employes, while Atlanta -with 20 miles less track requires 577 more employes. Pos sibly the greater area and wider dis tribution of population in Portland offers some explanation, but on the other hand our energetic neighbor on the Sound, Seat tle, with 25 miles less of track, requires 470 more employes, and the area of Seat tle is but little less than that of Portland. Possibly the more efficient management of Portland's street railroads enable them to do with less employes and again, pos sibly, other cities furnish a quicker serv ice that demands more equipment and em ployes. Suggests a Market House. Portland, like Cambridge, Atlanta, Scranton and Lowell receives nothing from Its public utilities. It Is for the newest of the cities to lead the way in demanding something fpr its franchises, -with the Southern cities of Richmond and Memphis a good second and third. How ever, it is but lately that municipalities have awakened to the fact that they have lightly parted in the past with rights and privileges of great value; and It is with in the recollection of middle-aged men how the New YoIe Aldermen gave a franchise to a surface road on Broadway for nothing; though for it. If the writer , has not forgotten, Sharpe, the manipula- - Atr.A l i r. . ... ... I imm, uicu iu piaon. oeven oi me cities at present incumbered by a great turn- a gooo. Dries market uu ui ..... received a return from markets and Day- i blc-down tinder box. The Mechanics' Pa- I by moderate rentals make it advantage ton, Richmond and Nashville quite re- j villon, a dangerous fire hazard to all the j ous to our fish, poultry, vegetable and spectable sums. Cannot Portland take -a property surrounding. .Would, it not be1 meat dealers to congregate there and 0ffttlllltHtCJirtfcuftAf,t,.. - 1 ----...--. -...-..V-.VV vvVVYVVVV WVVVVWVWWWWV-vwwir - t - COMPARATIVE TABLES OF TWELVE CITIES K" CITIES. (36) Los Angeles (37) Memphis .... (38) scranton (39) Lowell, Mass.. (40) Albany. N. Y. (A1 ramtirldKO Mass. (42) Portland, Or (43) Atlanta (44) Grand Rapids (45) Dayton, O (46) Richmond, Va. (47) Nashville (4S) Seattle Cleaning only. Sprinkling only. CITIES. ,- (36) Los Angeles (37) Memphis (38) Scranton (39) Lowell .... (40) Albany, N. Y (41) Cambridge. Mass. (42) Portland, Cr (43) Atlanta , (44) Grand RapidsS (15) Dajton, O (46) Richmond , (17) Nashville (45) Senttle Not reported. Also 200 CITIES. (3C) Los Angeles (37) Memphis (2S) Scranton (39) Lowell , (40) Albany, N. Y (41) Cambridge. Mass.. (42) Portland, Or (43; Atlanta '. (44) Grand Rapids (45) Dayton, O (46) Richmond (47) Nashville ... (4S) Seattle Grand Rapids owns its electric light plant. Richmond owns its gas CITIES.- f ? K V (36) Los Angeles (37) Memphis (38) Scranton (39) Lowell (40) Albany, N. Y (41) Cambridge. Mass. (42) Portland, Or , (43) Atlanta (44) Grand Raplda , (45; Dayton, O (46) Richmond , (47) Nashville (48) Seattle Included In regular day schools. TABLE 5 CITIES. (36) Los Angeles Los Angeles Memphis (37) (3S) Scranton (39) Lowell (40) Albany, N. Y (41) Cambridge. Mass (42) Portland, Or (43) Atlanta (44) Grand Rapld3 (45) Dayton, O , (46) Richmond (47) Nashville (4S) Seattle $20.90 in 8 wards; $15.70 In 3 CITD3S, (36) Los Angeles (37) Memphis (38) Scranton . (39) Lowell (40) Albany, N. Y (41) Cambridge, Mass. (42) Portland, Or (43) Atlanta (44) Grand Rapids , (45) Dayton, O ... (46) Richmond (47) Nashville (48) Seattle Cleaning only. iSprlnkling a---ft 4 HHMtMHtMMtHHHHHHMtMH)HHiHHHM(MMHMHM lesson from them? There is a block glven i to the city of Portland for that purpose,' I . . . . n....... a .. ............... TABLE 1 POPULATION, AREA, STREETS Miles of streets paved 5. U P .,102,423127,696 69 .102,320110,240 00 1.71' .46' 11.59 4.101206.95! .39' 49.54 0018.35 3.15) 6.03 1.67 1l2,026i12,33J 16 3.19 1.52 3.93 11.61 4,bUi 7.B01.00 15.40 .03 2.1)7 9.33 2U3' 19.90 91,151 7,196.60 21.03j30.41 16.97 3.12 01,88! 4,182 4b on J9-! o; CrvtfA 5.71 0 .15 40,65 4.16! .79 1.48 42.S0J Si'.XU 7i0i0"0)i".'. S7.56v 11.200 001 52.00 T.5S 24.00 3.64 2.031 .30 2 00 6.1.4 t VU 4.C6U55 4.941133.43; .34 fc5,333 6,880.0)1 U.Uii.. .10... 2.34UJ 17-4i .SO, 6.50 80.S65 6,(83 00 184.651 .65 feQ.671 21.2J7.fc0 1.4. :04 TABLE S PROTECTIOX No. of lights. Police. 5T.1.341 224 66 $44,408 $600 3.961 5.S9S 46.276 w 186.16 43,5221 550 000: 500 2.470 123,54 1068 13 80.918 4.509 133.92 121.001 192.76 200 Ou 70,1471 2.719 3,397 3.364 2SS 88 70,462 46,255 73,791 40C 101 1000 15,632 12S3 80 170 422 511 211.68 116.20 275 001 1106.20 724 46,809 31,783 45.468 350 250 72 1160 22,902 600; volunteers. SOwns Its own. plant. 'None. TABLE 3 PUBLIC UTILITIES, HEALTH K Municipal water works. O S3 35 16.87 21.66 K.61 161.00 in litigation, private pwnershlp. 142.10 57.93 private ownersnip. 19.47 84.26 88.33 127.78 $2.862,26S1 $210,150 19.00 130.00 J.520.00i)i 304.062 16.84 10.21 110.09 123.51 166.00 5,670,230 4,034,081 2.032,447 1,447.801 1.408.000 339,256 93.18 28o.t9S 19.63! 89.33 112.29 133,819' 12.94 130.06 143.42 iln,i 14.18 U0.75ill9.O0 8s,ino: 23.68 53.00100.20 2,300,000 14S, 22.SS) 54.07 76.88 Z,UZ3,31Z 145.216 9 64.07jll6.67l 2,218.717 201,345! TABLE 4 EDUCATION Public Teachers. 9 tt3U3 2.M PW Pt s-s. 52. on dan 3-,s n - e ; w 2.3 u i c cr 55 28 41 52 21 39 29, 26 36 32 4341 35 SO 1188 40 V 745 -741 639 11 ,1059 696 536 1071 22 3691 36 380 35 2601 36' 1075 929 908 U2 iy 218 IS 663 5421 23 1 240 21 ASSESSMENT, TAX RATE, CERTAIN Basis of practice, a as Assessed valuation of property. per cent of full value. 1 n o 3 p 1$63,693,864 $ 3,901.06 82,186,827 6,024,717 100 60 35 100 100 100 25 $11.70 t 8,184 889,403 701,667 1.325.811 1,403,945 1,606.926 372.287 21.818.89; 1.535.151 13.76j 56.031.885 15,497,6301 59,133,640 9,874,314 17,865.230 6.2S6.455 13.94 14.70 8.00 12.501 76,000,700 23,267,754 40.872.138 12,30o,573 15.475:071 66 771,122 714.713 878,040 1.076,836 605,902 27.788.950 100 65 75 SO CO 10.07 31.744,890 10,757,180 11.37 46.152.745L26.09S.720 14.00 90 K19 iOC' CJI9 rnn 8,443,700 15.00 33',640',526l 6,507,7:9 8.00 612,682 wards; $14.40 in 11 wards, deludes liquor TABLE C DEBT, INTEREST, EXPENSES 2 re r o .re C rf I ! I Expenditures 32. re re $1 417.791 $66,642 $130,106 98.073 54.9S4 $121857 $12,432 3,041.9661 162,645 55.089 82,352 747,463 3.217,731 3.112.148! 50.461 113,824 116,070 90,363 179,920 133,526 227,367 156,939 6.090,7071 319.095 123,775 52.837 142,197 77364 70,665 103,062 85,862 68,963 5,631,545 2,764 146 1.889.821 288,605 7$1S1 150.S42 73.179 178,503 380.262 166.201 110,570 110.77 2.188,475! 6.699.665! 77.977 91.630 81,945 93,774 3.329,5621 o.flojoo 239.147 only. economy and a benefit to the city to tear down this old wooden structure and build . -,.- , . KlnMr? ThPn .....-..ltt,0 '. - - . - .. - '. - .. - . - - - - - 3 5 2. n a a3 with 2 n a p. 03 S3- o n PV o "3 jrBo 2. s List cq :r5 5 ? 6.53(231 34 320.00J 212 44 53 75 63 '84 50 24 100 36 D0 $83,223 00 RJ.13 1do.o3 26.732 00 12,629 00 30,784 00 31.185 00 G0.S00 00 34,095 00 20.25 165.91 .16 37.62 80.2 85.92 53.00 73.79 121.00 45.S2.16.5 115.03 77.73 I O.IV Ol 63.00,137.001 1GZ 32(121 .4S '36,000 00 20,789 00 34.578 00 H45.00.. 175 est 36.00 .00 87 'j0 23.30. 1 1.401192.03 82.97 ;i2.00j 14 14 92.061 $13,060 00 10,074 W Fires. O 32. n so Fire men. O ao 3xo So .$! o BS.I 1130,106 347 340 2S3 355 $159,422 $124,357 95,073 54,984 133.526 82,352 50,461 113.S24 136,070 90,363 79,181 110,570 110,797 77,977 91,630 81.945 93,774 134,115 156,939 629 263 151 388 392 154.347 123.775 91.146 52,837 73,810 75,876 139,538 125,661 .142,197 77,464 1,679 4,737 70.665 382 4.860 9.795 103,0621 85.862 50 323 339,408 226 9,175 68,963 101 259 82,'377 Public parks, acres. W P re W pro re 2 Street rallw&j s. SI s-c. ?3 O i-O O Da o3 2 S-o. a o pS ta o 3 3720.01 $55,513 180.75 1284 ....$6,196 13.35 2,000 70.00 500i$10,000 $5495 4,64o 97.17 4,377 75.24 425 fiR.KO 12.570 37.60 2501 260.43 35.0C7 30.00 600 1505 795 481.59 20.137 39.22 914 20.29 8.639 112.00 5201 155.00 14.305 91.83 10971 iib.2U 21.1W3 00. 14 iV j ....I ti.orjS 00 2.2C7 56.00 375 ZO .... Zl.UM 3b.UU, J(.110 42.80, 3:21 J&.oJI .... lb 01 Z S.-'U O.l0 4&0 0,442 840 l.VDO 3.70 5,903 8J.C0 930 lo,9 3 lUZi works. Muiricl Schools. nal li braries Pupils (average attendance.) CP Ec so a Pi vjre 3 j. 3 ya S.3 re 3"P1 I? o n 13,889 .79 57 1297 $1,130,584' 60,000 6.426 $ 2.50 14.00 448,248 1.610.3S4 18.120 11,054 1 37,924 8,418 9,261 11.15S 8,bb9 9.500 2200 122 1,552,500 946,000 1,800,300 61,036 596i8 211 519 111 74 4. SO l,0W.b33 2.00 6.73 701.800 10,612 1,133,400 56,402 45,767 9.723 8.35 1,311,613 442.500 440.030 800,000 8,736 9.061 2.50 33 7,371 5.50 26,894 RECEIPTS Receipts from following sources. If 32 -i re $120,000 $ 63,206 56.62S 2.312 2,428 8.542 4.9S9! $ 6,196 14,391 74.616 $5495 4,645 166.1411 210.150 304,062 339,256 285,938 133,819 115.282 $ 8,074 1M55 145.013; 1505 795 51 114.122 36,940 87,773 43.090 99,906 13,449 3,276 40.418 5.079 17,090 6,558 21.963 16.512 67,814' 88.160 15,700' 148,347 8.767 Itl02.011 14o,Z16 945! 12,966! 105,9001 26.206 201.345 1929 license. for maintenance and operation. O HZ P2 5 5-p a a 3 51; 31 $444,546 139.395 $55,513 $44,408 $88,223 $ 80,440 89,841 14.070 28,965 31,034 153.010 10.6S4 43.687 6.646 23,546 41.378 54.924 2,000 4o,Z6 43.522 S5.918 70.147 70,462 46,255 73,791 46!S09 26.7 4.839 30.632 331,715 323.126 4,377 12,570 35,057 20,137 8.639 12.629 30,784 34,185 60,500 34.095 19,996 464,520 3,426 240.417 I 150.993 14,305 21,073 12,291 274.60S 36,000 5.262 294.R55 2.207 20.753 9.13S 130.746 17.903 167.358 37,115 31.783 45,4bS 34.578 13,060 1L023! 223,8431 'i'.m 22,902iU0,074 24,102 thus rid some of our principal streets of the filthy nuisances that incumber our I DfaiikO. Edncntlon. The fourth table covers the subject of education. Portland ranks well in the number of school buildings, number of school rooms and number ot teachers em ployed In proportion to the average at tendance. Only five of the twelve other cities have more school rooms and the ratio of about 35 scholars to a teacher in .the regular day schools is about the same in all cities. Portland Is one of five cit ies that do not maintain a public kinder garten system, and In Lowell, Cambridge, Grand Rapids and Dayton, the attendance at the kindergartens Is nearly one-half that o'f the high schools, while In Albany it Is nearly equal to that of the high school. Eight of the thirteen cities maintain municipal libraries, and Portland, with Albany, Atlanta, Richmond and Nashville deem it unnecessary. Assessment in Tax Rate. The fifth table covers assessment, tax rate and the more important receipts. Judged by its assessed valuation Port land, with the exception of Scranton, Is the poorest city of the 13. But thought must be" given to the basis of assessment, and in these tables Portland's basis is given at 25 per cent; however, it Is doubt ful if we ever were assessed on an average much less than one-third of true ralues. In the matter of personal property our Assessor has found a fair proportion in relation to the real property, although In Grand Rapids and Richmond more than half of the property taxed is personal. On the other hand In Los Angeles and Scran ton most of the personal property seems to have escaped the Assessor's eagle eye. Portland and Seattle haVe the lowest city tax levy ($S per $1000) of any of the cit ies, and when our basis of assessment (25 per, cent) Is compared to Seattle's (CO per cent), Portland is far and away the lowest. When tne much-abused tax-payer grumbles and complains bitterly through the press of the high tax levy he staggers under In Portland, let him take time to consider the following facts. ' For the year of this report the total tax levy In Portland was thlrty-slx mills made up as follows, viz: Mills. Mills. State 6.5 Port, of Portland..l.5 State School 6.0 School Dlst. No. 1.4.8 County 8.4 City of Portland. .8.0 Road 2.0 Total 360 The basis of assessment was 25 per cent (or more truly 33 1-3 per cent). Com pare this with Cambridge, where the basis was 100 per cent and the city tax alone was 14.7 mills. Were we assessed 100 per cent, as Is done In Los Angeles, Lowell, Albany, Cambridge and Grand Rapids, and as our Assessor Is sworn to do, a total levy of 12 mills would raise tfie same revenue in Portland as 36 mills did. Look at what Portland received from the property tax; almost 50"" per cent less In amount than the lowest city of the 13 tab ulated, barely one-fifth the amount raised In Cambridge. Some Running Comment. Our grumbling taxpaylng friend wonders where all the money goes that he con tributes to the municipal purse; Is It not more a matter of wonder that Portland, with its great area and heavy debt, main tains any sort of a municipal government and Is able to maintain any kind of fire, light and police protection? Either all these other cities maintain most extrava gant governments or Portland does not give its citizens the care and protection that other cities demand. In the matter of fire and light protection it has been shown that Portland -compares favorably wilh other cities and we are forced to the conclusion that Portland has cut expenses down to the lowest notch, that is, If fig ures from the other cities can be rc'.led upon. As a matter of fact the municipal government of Portland is conducted most economically, even to a degree that is niggardly, and some time we may awaken to the fact that by such parsimonious ad ministration we have been penny wise and pound foolish.' Were It not for the addition to our resources from liquor and other licenses (but three cities receiving more) Portland could not maintain a govern ment, but as has bee'n said before, this source of revenue could be increased by raising the liquor license to $600. Of the revenue received from docks and ware houses, markets and. cemeteries, bujt one city, Scranton, is like Portland In re ceiving nothing. , Debt, Interest and Maintenance. The sixth table covers tho charges on the city: debt, interest and expenses of maintenance. But one city, Cambridge, has a greater debt than Portland, though Seattle is close to us. As a large propor tion of this debt is for the construction of the water works and for the blessing of Bull Run water, no citizen should regret It. The Interest on the water bonds is j met from the receipts for water, and like all Indirect taxation Is not appreciated as a burden by the average citizen. For the enlightenment of those who have not given the matter close consideration 1 give the sources of our other Indebted ness: By annexing Albina we assumed $ 150,000 By annexing East Portland we &s- sumed 300,000 Refunding1 outstanding- bonds and war rants 486,500 The C(lty Hall C75.000 Free bridges 700,000 Free ferry ...-. ."...... CO.000 Total $2,361,500 The Interest charged Is about $125,000, and our revenue from property tax was $372,2S7! Does our grumbling taxpaylng friend continue to wonder what becomes of the municipal fund? Findings In the Case. To summarize all of the foregoing: First The area of Portland is tod great for a satisfactory and economical administration of government. Second The most popular pavement for heavy travel is granite, or Belgian blocks, with wooden blocks decidedly unpopular. Third Portland is well lighted at a reason able cost, and incandescent lights are not pop ular. Fourth Portland's police force Is totally in adequate to the needs of the city, but Is maintained at a reasonable cost. Fifth That neither high license nor low license checks the number of arrests, and that Portland could raise the liquor license to $600 per annum, and not be above the average of other cities. S'xth Tho Are department has been handled efficiently and economically, and the question of insurance rates In Portland should be agitated. Boventh Pure water and good drainage make Portland one of the healthiest cities in tho country. Eighth Portland has been derelict In guard ing its rights and franchises in the past, but it should establish a public market at once, for the health, convenience and revenue of tlia city. Ninth Portland Is behind th procesalon in the matter of public kindergartens and mu nicipal libraries. Tenth Portland cannot pay the Interest on its debts and maintain a respectable govern ment, furnishing the inhabitants with clean and sprinkled street and adequate fire, light and police protection on S mills, with a lqjv basis of assessment. Eleventh The citizens get valuo received for the taxes collected for city purpois. If it is expected that Portland should furnish anything like the protection and advantages of like cities elsewhere, and that should be furnished, if Portland has any self-respect or wish to bo recognised as a modern city. Us citizens must provide a much greater revenue to conduct the government One cannot travel flret clasa on a steerage ticket, and Portland cannot pass as a first-class city on a village income. A. L. MILLS. Musings on the 1905 Fair. Speculation on What Port land Is Likely to Accomplish Can Portland and the Pacific Northwest get up an attractive fair In 1S0S that will probably pay expenses? Any answer to this query Is the expres sion of an Individual opinion, and one man's, perhaps, is Just as good as an other's. Some enterprises, not specially well planned, succeed without adventi tious aid. Other enterprises skillfully arranged and pushed with energy and In telligence fail. After it is all over, as In the case of Buffalo, anybody can ex plain. Portland's proposed Lewis and Clark centennial celebration need not be measured with the same yard stick you use for St. Louis. Be it remembered that In 1S8-3, after the panic had dealt Its stunning blow to the country. M. H. de Young conceived the Idea of holding a mid-Winter fair in San Francisco. All California Jeered. Mr. de Young employed the agency of his newspaper to create public senti ment. The state was soon aroused. Iu less than a month the other San Francisco papers outdid the Chronicle In booming the Mid-Winter Fair, while the Interior press did yeoman service. There was subscribed something like $400,000, and the little fair was a complete success. And this, too, on the very heels of the great est fair the world had ever seen. No body compared San Francisco's show with Chicago's. After all that can be said Is said con cerning the historical importance of the event which the states In "Oregon Terri tory" propose to commemorate, Portland is face to face with this question: Can we give a fair that will attract visitors in paying numbers? The multitude does not go to a fair to be instructed. It seeks entertainment, diversion, amusement, tha.t does not in volve thinking. Recall how nine out of ten of your acquaintances summed up the world's fair at Chicago in one ejacula tion: "The Midway was great!" One hundred persons who went to the Mid Winter Fair saw the "danse du ventre" where one visited the exhibit of the Unt--versity of California which was the nn est educational display ever attempted on the Pacific Coast. To him who may bo Indignant over taking so' low and so mer cenary a view of the celebration of a great National event, let It be said: Take human nature as you find It. Don't at tempt an International uplift In the way of statecraft education. Enough will be recorded and attractively presented on printed pages concerning Jefferson's foresight to satisfy those who wish to probe to the bottom of Amer ican history. There will be volumes, thick and thin, of the early navigators, thefurtraders, the missionaries, the teach ers, the Indians, and those who fought thetn, the miners the steamboat men, the railroad builders and the state build ers. No one prominently identified with the creation of this empire is likely to be overlooked. It goes without saying that every state carved out of the original "Oregon Ter ritory" will provide ample representation of the resources within its boundaries, and it may be expected that California will not neglect its opportunity for at tracting more immigration. Portland must provide a "show" for the multi tude. Suppose some enterprising Barnum had brought to Buffalo a duplicate of one street in Pekin showing how Chinese lived and moved and had their being. What would visitors returning to their homes have commented on with their first breath? The multitude want something that has the charm of novelty. There is to be had in Japan, China. Hawaii and the Philippines more first-class material than any fair can handle. Taking a broader view, the fair manage ment should, at the earliest aoment, be gin negotiations with the governments of Japan and China looking to national exhibits for our centennial. . In these matters diplomacy may accomplish beeter results than money. Portland does not need to provide at tractions for visitors In the sense that Omaha needed them. Nowhere has nature been so lavish as in Oregon. Whatever may be the extent and variety of the ex hibits within the fair grounds, not even i they should surpass St. Louis they will not rival the free show of mountains and rivers and forests around them. These and our flowers and fruits, and above all, our Incomparable weather, will delight visitors of overy class. Strangers wjll of necessity have a higher opinion of Oregon's "permanent" exhibit than of the 1905 fair. With a working capital of $300,000 and this sum seems to be within reach the American Pacific Exposition committee ought to be able to gather end Install a Satisfactory "sWow" for the multitude. "Six months ago it was entirely proper to ask, Can we hold a fair In 1905? At this time there seems to be in tho public mind no doubt on the proposition. It has resolved itself Into a question of how big the fair shall be, and on this subject, money talks. $. j. &,