[Document 62 —1902.] 
MESSAGE OF THE MAYOR 
TRANSMITTING 
REPORT OF IIARVEY S. CHASE, EXPERT ACCOUNT- 
ANT, ON THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE 
CITY AND THE OPERATIONS OF THE SEVERAL 
DEPARTMENTS. 
Mayor’s Office, 
Boston, Mass., February 10, 1902. 
To the City Council: 
I transmit herewith a report submitted by Harvey S. Chase, 
an expert accountant, employed by me to make an examina- 
tion of the financial condition of the city and of the opera- 
tions of the several departments. The general summary of 
the facts which Mr. Chase has made, and which appears as 
part of his report, ought to convince us that there is urgent 
need for retrenchment and for rigid economy in the public 
service. 
The City Council and the heads of departments should, in 
my opinion, take into serious consideration the recommenda- 
tions, suggestions and disclosures which the expert has made. 
From time to time there will be submitted to you detailed 
reports of his findings and conclusions in respect to the con- 
dition of the several departments. 
Respectfully, 
Patrick A. Collins, 
Mayor. 2 
City Document No. 62. 
Haevey S. Chase, 
Public Auditor and Accountant, 
8 Conoress Street, Boston, 
February 10, 1902. 
Hon. P. A. Collins, 
Sir,—In accordance with your instructions, I have un- 
dertaken an investigation of the financial conditions in vari- 
ous departments of the City of Boston, beginning with the 
Public Buildings Department and the Municipal Printing 
Plant. 
These investigations have covered the past year’s work in 
detail, including an audit of the books and accounts at the 
Printing Plant, and as soon as the year’s accounts are closed 
(probably within ten days) I will submit a special report 
upon each of these departments, giving the results of the 
examination and the conclusions to be drawn therefrom. 
Meanwhile I. submit herewith certain general considerations 
in regard to the expenditures of the City of Boston. 
The expenditures of the various departments have been 
tabulated in order of magnitude. The total expenditures (in- 
cluding permanent construction) are given for the year 1900, 
and are compared with the like expenditures in New York 
City, and also with the average of ten other cities, viz.: 
Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Baltimore, Cleveland, Buf- 
falo, Milwaukee, Providence, Indianapolis, and Kansas City. 
The first three of these cities have larger populations than 
Boston, the next three have about the same populations as 
Boston (somewhat smaller), and the last four were selected 
because, first, their populations added to the first six give 
almost exactly ten times the population of Boston (or an 
average population for the ten cities which is practically 
identical with Boston) and, second, these last four cities pro- 
vide statistics which contain the fewest omissions of the 
departments selected for comparison, and therefore they 
are the most available. 
The figures submitted herewith were drawn in considera- 
ble part from the bulletins of the United States Department 
of Labor, upon “ Statistics of Cities,” only such changes 
being introduced as were necessary to cover the points de- 
sired, or such as were shown by special investigation to 
require slight modifications of the bulletin figures. 
The comparisons are upon the basis of population (per 
capita) and in addition to the total expenditures for all pur- 
poses (including permanent construction) there are given 
Mayor of the City of Boston : Financial Condition of the City. 
3 
tables of the expenditures for operation and maintenance 
(running expenses) of the cities (excluding expenditures for 
permanent construction), viz.: 
In Table I. are given the total expenditures per capita 
(including expenditures for permanent construction). 
In Table II. are given the expenditures for operation and 
maintenance of the cities, “ running expenses ” only (in- 
cluding expenditures for lands, buildings and other capital 
outlay). 
In Table III. are given the expenditures for operation and 
maintenance (excluding the amounts paid for interest upon 
the public debts) and the relative ratios of these expendi- 
tures in New York and the other ten cities in comparison 
with those of Boston, which is taken as the standard (100). 
From these tables we may deduce the following interest- 
ing and important conclusions: 
First. — That the total expenditures per capita of Boston 
exceed those of New York by 18 2 per cent., and exceed 
those of the average of the ten cities by 172 per cent. 
Second. — That the expenditures for operation and mainte- 
nance— “running expenses” (omitting permanent construc- 
tion and other capital outlay) per capita of Boston, exceed 
those of New York by nearly 8 per cent., and exceed those 
of the average of the ten cities by 145 per cent. 
Third. — That the expenditures for operation and mainte- 
nance in Boston exceed the highest of the ten cities (per 
capita) by 60 per cent. 
Fourth. — That if the amounts paid for interest on the 
public debts be eliminated the remaining expenditures for 
operation and maintenance of Boston will exceed those of 
New York (per capita) by 10 per cent., and will exceed 
those of the average of the ten cities by 145 per cent., and 
will exceed the highest of the ten cities by 80 per cent. 
Fifth. — That the relative expenditures for operation and 
maintenance (excluding interest on the public debts), Boston 
being taken as standard (100), is as follows : 
New York, 91 per cent, of Boston, and the average of 
the ten cities only 41 per cent, of Boston. The highest of 
the ten cities being 56 per cent, and the lowest 30 per cent, 
of Boston. 
Sixth. — It is evident that the City of Boston is annually 
making expenditures for municipal purposes which are en- 
tirely out of proportion to its population, and two questions 
immediately arise — 
(A) Where does the money which Boston raises in excess 
of other cities come from? From a high tax rate, or from 
special revenues like licenses, etc., or from the proceeds of 4 
City Document No. 62. 
bonds sold, or what? and (-5.) Where does the money go to? 
i.e. What departments are spending out of proportion to 
those of other cities, and how can these expenditures be 
reduced ? 
The question of the sources of these revenues will be 
taken up later in another report. 
Your immediate interest as Mayor of Boston is, of course, 
in the second question — What Departments a|e spending 
too much, and how can these expenditures be reduced? 
Table II. throws considerable light upon these questions. 
The heaviest expenditure per capita in Boston is for (a) 
schools 15.31, against $4.74 in New York, and $3.04 in the 
average of ten cities. That is to say Boston expends for 
operation and maintenance of schools over 70 per cent, more 
per head of its population than the average of the ten cities. 
The reasons for this difference and the possibilities for 
redaction will be set forth hereafter in a special report upon 
schools. 
The next heaviest expenditure (omitting (b) interest) is 
for (c) police. Boston expending $2.98, against $2.03 in 
the ten cities, an increase of 41 per cent. 
Streets (d) come next with $2.51 against $0.40 in the ten 
cities. The problem presented by “streets” and the dis- 
tinctions between “ repairs and renewals ” and “ permanent 
construction ” is exceedingly complicated and difficult and 
will be reserved for a later special report. At first glance the 
difference in these figures, over six to one, would seem to 
account for quite a portion of the excess in Boston, and offer 
one of the most promising fields for reduction. 
Water (e) is fifth with $2.23 against $0.85, nearly three 
to one. This will be the subject of a special report. 
Fire Department (/) is sixth with $2.15 against $1.08, or 
two to one. Hospitals and other charities are $2.12 against 
$0.31, nearly seven to one. 
Garbage removal is three to one. 
Street cleaning and sprinkling are three to one. 
Sewers are four and a half to one. 
Parks are one and a half to one. 
Ferries and Bridges are seven to one, etc., etc. 
Comparisons of Different Years in Boston. 
For the purpose of substantiating these figures and in 
order to show the increase of expenditures per capita in 
Boston I have taken four different years, 1900, 1897, 1894 
and 1892. ' Financial Condition of the City. 
5 
The interval is three years except in the earliest period 
(1892) and this year was selected because the fiscal year 
1891 (on which the three-year interval would fall), contained 
but nine months, May 1, 1891, to Feb. 1, 1892, the change 
in the fiscal period of the city having taken place at that time. 
Table IV. gives the comparisons (per capita) for these 
years, and we may note the following : 
Schools J-ave increased from $4.25 per capita in 1892 to 
$5.31 in 1900, or 25 per cent. 
Police has increased from $2.44 per capita to $2.98, or 
22 per cent. 
Fire iDepartment has remained about the same. 
Hosp tals, etc., have increased from $1.80 to $2.12, or 15 
per cent. 
Parks, from 40 cents to 53 cents, or 32 per cent. 
Libraries, from 36 cents to 55 cents, or 53 per cent. 
Health, Baths, etc., from 41 cents to 53 cents, or 30 per 
cent. 
Total street expenditures (including construction), from 
$5.45 to $9.93, or 82 per cent. 
It is evident that the continuance of such an increase of 
expenditures in Boston (per head of the population) must 
result in still greater city debts, and in much heavier tax rates 
unless the increase of assessed property (per capita) is at 
practically the same ratio as the increase of these expendi- 
tures, but Table V. shows that this is not the fact in Boston. 
The increase of total expenditure per capita for operation 
(including street construction) being 23 per cent., while the 
total increase of valuation per capita was only 5i per cent. 
As it is thus evident that the money paid out for these in- 
creased expenditures did not come from taxes (for the tax 
rate was only slightly increased, $12.90 to $13.10) it must 
therefore have come from loans, and this is clearly shown by 
Table VI. which gives graphical representations of the in- 
crease of debt per capita during the eight years (1892-3 to 
1900-1) and strikingly points out the danger of continuing 
to increase expenditures at a more rapid rate than the 
increase of either wealth or population will justify. 
Reduction of Expenditures. 
To prove, as has been done above, that expenditures for 
operation and maintenance in Boston are excessive, and should 
be reduced, is not very difficult, but to point out the particu- 
lar and practical reductions which must be made is quite a 
different question, while to make the actual reductions, after 6 
City Document No. 62. 
they are pointed out, will be found to be a still more serious 
matter. Each of the beads of departments with whom I 
have conferred appears to believe firmly that there is ex- 
cessive expenditure in many other departments, but that in 
his particular department there is urgent necessity for 
“ slightly ” increasing the expenditures by the employment 
of another clerk or two, or for additional office furnishings 
or repairs. 
In order to accomplish any immediate and practical results, 
there must be a clear understanding and positive belief in 
the departments that this administration means business, and 
will insist on having expenditures cut down, not only in 
“ other departments ” but in each department. 
The tabulations appended hereto prove conclusively that 
nearly every department has been increasing its expenditures 
faster than the increase of population or of wealth in Boston 
will justify, and this increase should be immediately stopped. 
It is apparent from my examinations in Boston and other 
cities that in the majority of cases the bulk of the actual 
work done in any department falls upon the shoulders of one, 
or two, or three, or possibly more, good men, — good workers, 
active and conscientious. In fact, without such men no 
department could be carried on. The remaining employees, 
however, may do more or less than their duties require, but 
generally they do less — much less ! 
It has been estimated by careful accountants that, taking 
the year together, the average clerk in commercial business 
houses does from twice to three times the actual work done 
by the clerk in municipal offices. 
This statement is not made in disparagement of individual 
clerks, but to contrast the systems, and this difference of 
system has to be practically reckoned with, and allowance 
made therefor in all considerations of municipal expenditures. 
In subsequent reports your examiner will endeavor to 
point out in the several departments, the practical opportuni- 
ties for reductions of expenditures, after thoroughly acquaint- 
ing himself with the detail work in each of these depart- 
ments, and also after making comparisons of present expend- 
itures with the expenses of these departments in previous 
years, when the per capita cost was less ; and further by com- 
parisons with detailed expenditures in other cities where 
corresponding work is done at greatly decreased cost. 
Very respectfully, 
Harvey S. Chase, 
Public Accountant and Auditor. Financial Condition of the City. 
7 
Table I.— 
Total Expenditures, including Permanent Construction 
Boston. 
New York. 
Average 
of 
Ten Cities. 
a. 
Interest and Sinking-Funds .. 
$8.24 
$4.30 
$2.20 
b. 
Streets 
7.21 
2.52 
1.48 
c. 
Schools 
7.05 
6.24 
3.64 
d. 
Police and Courts, etc 
5.27 
3.57 
2.31 
e. 
Sewers 
3.00 
.42 
.58 
/. 
Water Works 
2.96, 
2.20 
1.48 
9■ 
Hospitals, etc 
2.30 
1.54 
.33 
h. 
Fire 
2.20 
1.58 
1.14 
i. 
Parks and Gardens 
1.43 
1.27 
.57 
j■ 
Ferries and Bridges 
1.36 
.30 
.17 
k. 
Municipal Lighting 
1.30 
.77 
.73 
1. 
Garbage removal 
1.09 
.33 
.33 
m. 
Street Cleaning and Watering 
.92 
1.30 
.37 
n. 
Libraries, Museums, etc 
.55 
.54 
.17 
0. 
Health, Baths, Cemeteries and Markets.. 
.54 
.35 
.18 
p■ 
All other 
4.41 
14.81 
2.62 
Total 
49.83 
42.04 
18.30 
The ten cities are: Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Baltimore, Cleveland, Buffalo, 
Milwaukee, Providence, Indianapolis, and Kansas City. (See page 2 of the report.) 8 
City Document No. 62 
Table II. — Expenditures for Operation and Maintenance, ex- 
cluding Permanent Construction. 
Boston. 
New York. 
Average 
of 
Ten Cities. 
a. 
Schools 
$5.31 
$4.74 
$3.04 
b. 
Interest 
3.81 
4.15 
1.54 
c. 
Police 
2.98 
3.25 
2.03 
d. 
Streets 
2.51 
.58 
.40 
e. 
Water 
2.23 
1.02 
.85 
/• 
Hospitals, etc 
2.12 
1.47 
.31 
9■ 
Fire 
2.15 
1.48 
1.08 
h. 
Lighting 
1.30 
.77 
.73 
i. 
Garbage 
1.09 
.33 
.33 
3■ 
Street Cleaning and Watering 
.92 
1.30 
.37 
k. 
Ferries and Bridges 
.70 
.12 
.10 
1. 
Sewers 
.64 
.23 
.14 
m. 
Library 
.55 
.18 
.14 
n. 
Parks and Gardens 
.54 
.54 
.36 
0. 
Health, etc 
.53 
.33 
.18 
V• 
All other 
6.69 
11.13 
2.30 
Total 
$34.07 
$31.62 
$13.90 
The ten cities are: Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Baltimore, Cleveland, Buffalo, 
Milwaukee, Providence, Indianapolis, and Kansas City. (See page 2 of the report). 
Table III. 
City. 
“ Running Expenses ” 
(Excluding Interest) 
per capita. 
Relative Standing, 
Taking Boston 
at 100. 
Boston 
$30.26 
100 
New York 
27.47 
91 
Average of following ten cities 
12.36 
41 
Providence 
16.86 
56 
Buffalo 
15.11 
50 
St. Louis 
14.28 
47 
Philadelphia 
13.93 
46 
Baltimore 
12.29 
41 
Milwaukee 
11.08 
37 
Chicago 
10.72 
35 
Cleveland 
10.40 
34 
Kansas City 
10.23 
Indianapolis 
9.08 
30 Financial Condition of the City. 
9 
Table IV. — Operation and Maintenance. 
Boston. 
1803-3. 
1804-!>. 
1807-8. 
1000-1. 
Population 
468,000 
487,000 
523,000 
561,000 
Schools 
4.25 
4.31 
4.75 
5.31 
Interest on Debt 
3.61 
3.00 
3.73 
3.81 
Police 
2.44 
2.70 
3.21 
2.98 
Water Works 
2.89 
2.95 
2.90 
3.27 
Fire Department 
2.11 
2.14 
2.45 
2.16 
Hospitals 
1.80 
1.84 
1.88 
2.12 
Municipal Lighting 
1.24 
1.18 
1.19 
1.30 
Garbage Removal 
1.00 
.96 
.94 
1.09 
Street Cleaning and Sprinkling 
.81 
.81 
.89 
.92 
Parks and Gardens 
.40 
.43 
.46 
.53 
Ferries and Bridges 
.75 
.73 
.69 
.70 
Sewers 
.98 
.62 
.57 
.64 
Libraries 
.36 
.36 
.50 
.55 
Health, Baths, Markets and Cemeteries 
.41 
.44 
.44 
.63 
All other (except streets) 
5.42 
5.60 
6.24 
5.86 
28.47 
28.07 
30.84 
31.76 
Total Street Expenditures (including 
Construction) 
5.45 
4.70 
8.78 
9.93 
33.92 
32.77 
39.62 
41.69 
Schools, Net expense per scholar 
*28 32 
*28 00 
*29 91 
*32 96 
Valuations of 
Property in 
Boston May 1. 
Population. 
Valuation 
per capita. 
18»2 
$893,975,704 00 
468,000 
#1,910 00 
1804 
928,109,043 00 
487,000 
1,906 00 
1807 
1,012,582,209 00 
523,000 
1,936 00 
1000 
1,129,175,832 00 
561,000 
2,013 00 
Table V. —City of Boston. 
Increase of valuation per capita from 1892 to 1900 about five and one-quarter per 
cent. 10 
City Document No. 62. 
Graphical representations of the increase of valuations, debts, expenditures, etc., per head of the population, in the past 
eight years in Boston, viz.: 1892-3 to 1900-1. 
Per cent, of Increase per head of the Population. 
Items marked (*) exclude expenditures for permanent construction. 
Table VI. 
5% i 
♦Expenditures for Schools 25% 
♦Expenditures for Police 22% 
♦Expenditures for Fire 2% 
♦Expenditures for Hospitals 15% 
♦Expenditures for Parks 32% 
♦Expenditures for Libraries 53% 
♦Expenditures for Health, etc 29% 
Total for Streets 82% 
Gross Debt 19.6% 
Net Debt 38% 
Taxes Collected 17% 
Revenue other than Taxes 15%