[Sidenote:  Rapid growth of American cities.] In the first place, the problem is comparatively new and has taken us unawares.  At the time of Washington’s inauguration to the presidency there were no large cities in the United States.  Philadelphia had a population of 42,000; New York had 33,000; Boston, which came next, with 18,000, was not yet a city.  Then came Baltimore, with 13,000; while Brooklyn was a village of 1,600 souls.  Now these five cities have a population of more than 4,000,000, or more than that of the United States in 1789.  And consider how rapidly new cities have been added to the list.  One hardly needs to mention the most striking cases, such as Chicago, with 4,000 inhabitants in 1840. and at least 1,000,000 in 1890; or Denver, with its miles of handsome streets and shops, and not one native inhabitant who has reached his thirtieth birthday.  Such facts are summed up in the general statement that, whereas in 1790 the population of the United States was scarcely 4,000,000, and out of each 100 inhabitants only 3 dwelt in cities and the other 97 in rural places; on the other hand in 1880, when the population was more than 50,000,000, out of each 100 inhabitants 23 dwelt in cities and 77 in rural places.  But duly to appreciate the rapidity of this growth of cities, we must observe that most of it has been subsequent to 1840.  In 1790 there were six towns in the United States that might be ranked as cities from their size, though to get this number we must include Boston.  In 1800 the number was the same.  By 1810 the number had risen from 6 to 11; by 1820 it had reached 13; by 1830 this thirteen had doubled and become 26; and in 1840 there were 44 cities altogether.  The urban population increased from 210,873 in 1800 to 1,453,994 in 1840.  But between 1840 and 1880 the number of new cities which came into existence was 242, and the urban population increased to 11,318,547.  Nothing like this was ever known before in any part of the world, and perhaps it is not strange that such a tremendous development did not find our methods of government fully prepared to deal with it.

[Sidenote:  Want of practical foresight.] This rapidity of growth has entailed some important consequences.  In the first place it obliges the city to make great outlays of money in order to get immediate results.  Public works must be undertaken with a view to quickness rather than thoroughness.  Pavements, sewers, and reservoirs of some sort must be had at once, even if inadequately planned and imperfectly constructed; and so, before a great while, the work must be done over again.  Such conditions of imperative haste increase the temptations to dishonesty as well as the liability to errors of judgment on the part of the men who administer the public funds.[10] Then the rapid growth of a city, especially of a new city, requiring the immediate construction of a certain amount of public works, almost necessitates the borrowing of money, and debt means heavy taxes.  It is like