36 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
TaBLE 16.—Population and per capita revenues by principal sources, in represen- 
tative localities, selected States } 
Per capita revenue 
State, date, and type of locality Population Genoaat 
Eroperty, tions and Other Total 
grants 
New Hampshire, 1929: Number Dollars Dollars Dollars | Dollars 
IF ORESE ACO WAS eure Wt AINE OLAS 7, 683 39. 42 20. 71 8. 42 68. 55 
Semiforestitowmns se. eee a Ae 15, 988 25. 74 10. 97 8. 00 44.72 
AoriculturalstownS sss ewe ee Ee 25, 509 26. 47 8. 94 11. 33 46. 74 
Massachusetts, 1926: 
HOFeStEtO WS Hee eI Oey ye UNG 13, 435 28. 67 10. 64 19. 59 58. 89 
Semiforest tows eee eee eee ne Yaa 32, 541 31. 11 6. 11: 11. 03 47. 25 
A STICUIEUEA COMMS Aen ee tt Ren Cin el 56, 174 31.71 2.17 13. 92 47. 80 
New York, 1928: 
J OLOVRESLE (COYH URE IVs Ie A a ON ay UR 71, 286 38. 42 9. 49 7. 03 54. 94 
Semiforest counties______..--__-__--------- 179, 196 25, 21 9, 22 4. 40 38. 83 
Aoriculturalicountiese as sue ae ee 341, 152 25. 04 10. 22 5. 64 40. 90 
Minnesota, 1927: 
OFEStICOUMbICS ee Mihaela 117, 392 30. 44 11. 81 4.05 46. 31 
Agricultural county (Winona) ___2_------ 34, 744 25. 03 3. 25 1. 83 30. 11 
Washington, 1927: 
INOrestcoumbi esas al ye 0 Ee 12i, 700 40. 99 6. 26 3. 30 50. 55 
Agricultural counties__.....-.-.----------- 266, 322 33. 63 6. 89 7. 33 47. 85 
Oregon, 1927 and 1928: 2 
IMOFESEICOUMELES heen aN ale ee ec 372, 005 58. 58 11. 98 1. 38 71. 94 
Agricultural counties__.........----------- 3 140, 942 25. 29 8. 61 . 67 34. 56 
California, 1928: 
Roresticounties:s 22.0 Nee es 83, 556 36. 51 10. 47 2.95 49. 92 
Agricultural counties__...-.......--------- 82, 374 75. 50 9.79 3. 29 88. 57 
1 Sources of data: Column 2 computed from the Fifteenth Census of the United States (6) by use of 
straight-line interpolation between 1920 and 1930; columns 3, 4, 5, and 6 computed from column 2 and from 
tables 14 and 15. 
2 The biennial revenue is divided by 2 before being reduced to per capita revenue. This is for the pur- 
pose of making the per capita revenue in Oregon comparable to that in other States, where revenue is 
teported on an annual basis. 
3 Population as of Jan. 1, 1928. 
Education overwhelmingly predominates as an object of State aid 
in the remaining States studied, 1. e., Minnesota, Washington, and 
New York. Educational aid is frequently apportioned on the basis 
of ability to support schools. This is the case in Minnesota, for 
instance, where the cut-over forest counties are distinctly poorer in 
natural resources and in wealth than is Winona or other agricul- 
tural or farm-woodlot counties in the southern portion of the State. 
Subventions and grants account for 26 percent of all revenue in the 
cut-over forest counties of Minnesota, but only 11 percent in Winona 
County. 
In Washington subventions and grants form about the same rela- 
tive portion of all revenues in the forest as in the agricultural coun- 
ties; but in New York the agricultural counties receive, propor- 
tionately, half again as much aid as do the forest counties. In per 
capita terms, however, State aid in forest counties is little different 
from that in agricultural counties in either State (table 16). 
In each State, except California, the forest localities receive a per 
capita revenue greater than do the agricultural localities (table 16). 
This may in certain cases be the result of a greater taxable value per 
capita in forest localities and in other cases of a more expensive 
government necessary in a thinly settled region. 
If assessed value per capita in any locality be taken as a rough indi- 
cation of its taxpaying ability, the forest localities in New Hamp- 
shire, Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon have higher taxpaying 
ability than the agricultural localities. Assessed values and assessed 
